The Medical Knowledge Oligarchies: Network Analysis of Medical Research Publication and Collaboration
Matos, J.; Nakayama, L. F.; Charpignon, M.-L.; Gallifant, J.; Kashkooli, M.; Carli, F.; Celi, L. A.
Show abstract
IntroductionHealthcare policies and clinical decisions heavily rely on research publications from high-impact medical journals. A lack of author diversity in medical publications poses a risk to underrepresented groups. To promote equity in healthcare medical decisions, fostering collaborations within research groups is crucial. This study integrates scientometrics with network analysis to uncover intricate co-authorship networks and examine diversity and inclusion in scientific collaboration. MethodsThe authors metadata from five high-impact medical journals were collected, and a weighted graph of co-authorships was constructed. The study addresses four research questions: identifying influential authors, exploring research output communities, analyzing collaboration patterns, and examining the evolution of collaboration over time. ResultsCentral nodes are significantly more likely to be male or from high-income countries. Further, when evaluated over time, the graph reveals concerning trends in diversity where collaboration with authors from lower income countries is not growing. All code is publicly available on GitHub. DiscussionThe findings underscore the need to promote diversity within research niches and question the role of gatekeepers in facilitating inclusivity. Future studies should expand the scope of network analysis and explore additional factors such as funding sources and guidelines. ConclusionOverall, this study contributes a framework for auditing diversity and inclusion in scientific collaboration, aiming to promote transparency and a more equitable medical knowledge production system.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 95%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 94%
- Field size as a predictor of "excellence." The selection of subject fields in Germany's Excellence Initiative. 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 95%
- Inferring Gender from First Names: Comparing the Accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R Package on Authors of Diverse Nationality 92%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 93%
- Comparing protein-protein interaction networks of SARS-CoV-2 and (H1N1) influenza using topological features 92%
- The Potential of the Primitive: a Network Analysis of Early Arthropod Evolution 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Enrichment analysis on regulatory subspaces: a novel direction for the superior description of cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 91%
- Unsupervised Discovery of Risk Profiles on Negative and Positive COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients 91%
- VICTOR: A visual analytics web application for comparing cluster sets 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Network Graph Representation of COVID-19 Scientific Publications to Aid Knowledge Discovery 94%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 89%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.