Building visualization skills through investigating the Journal of the Medical Library Association coauthorship network from 2006–2017
Keywords:Health Sciences Librarians, Coauthorship, Institutional Affiliation Data, Publications, Network Visualization
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to explore different dimensions of Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) authorship from 2006–2017. Dimensions that were evaluated using coauthorship networks and affiliation data included collaboration, geographical reach, and relationship between Medical Library Association (MLA) member and nonmember authors. A secondary objective was to analyze the practice and practical application of data science skills.
Methods: A team of librarians who attended the 2017 Data Science and Visualization Institute used JMLA bibliographic metadata extracted from Scopus, together with select MLA membership data from 2006–2017. Data cleaning, anonymization, analysis, and visualization were done collaboratively by the team members to meet their learning objectives and to produce insights about the nature of collaborative authorship at JMLA.
Results: Sixty-nine percent of the 1,351 JMLA authors from 2006–2017 were not MLA members. MLA members were more productive and collaborative, and tended to author articles together. The majority of the authoring institutions in JMLA are based in the United States. Global reach outside of the United States and Canada shows higher authorship in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom), as well as in Western Europe and Japan.Conclusions: MLA support of JMLA may benefit a wider network of health information specialists and medical professionals than is reflected in MLA membership. Conducting coauthorship network analyses can create opportunities for health sciences librarians to practice applying emerging data science and data visualization skills.
Burton M, Lyon L. Data science in libraries. Bull Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2017 Apr/May;43(4):33–5.
Tenopir C, Birch B, Allard S. Academic libraries and research data services: current practices and plans for the future [Internet]. Association of College & Research Libraries; 2012 [cited 10 Apr 2019]. <http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/Tenopir_Birch_Allard.pdf>.
Zhao S. Biomedical and health RDM training for librarians [Internet]. National Network of Libraries of Medicine Training Office; 2017 [cited 31 Jan 2018]. <https://news.nnlm.gov/nto/2017/10/11/biomedical-health-rdm-training-for-librarians-participant-applications/>.
North Carolina State University Libraries. Data science and visualization institute [Internet]. The Libraries [cited 31 Jan 2018]. <https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/data-science-and-visualization-institute>.
Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) Library. Data science institute [Internet]. The Library [cited 31 Jan 2018]. <https://ohsulibrary-datascienceinstitute.github.io/>.
Data scientist training for librarians (DST4L) [Internet]. [cited 31 Jan 2018]. <http://www.dst4l.info/>.
Willingham DT. Why don’t students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009.
Henderson M. What to do after you take a data course [Internet]. Midday at the Oasis; 2019 [cited 1 Apr 2019]. <http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUlRqrjIldD6emy_P9RxwwYJRVXxitd-A>.
Dempsey L. Three challenges: engaging, rightscaling and innovating [Internet]. Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog; 2013 [cited 16 Jan 2019]. <http://orweblog.oclc.org/three-challenges-engaging-rightscaling-and-innovating/>.
Church-Duran J. Distinctive roles: engagement, innovation, and the liaison model. portal: Libr Acad. 2017 Apr 8;17(2):257–71.
Davis HM, Cross WM. Using a data management plan review service as a training ground for librarians. J Libr Schol Comm [Internet]. 2015;3(2):p.eP1243 [cited 5 Dec 2017]. <http://jlsc-pub.org/articles/10.7710/2162-3309.1243>.
Carlson J, Johnston L, Westra B, Nichols M. Developing an approach for data management education: a report from the data information literacy project. Int J Dig Cur. 2013 Jun 14;8(1):204–17.
Cox AM, Pinfield S. Research data management and libraries: current activities and future priorities. J Libriansh Inf Sci. 2014 Dec 1;46(4):299–316.
Corrall S, Kennan MA, Afzal W. Bibliometrics and research data management services: emerging trends in library support for research. Libr Trends. 2013 May 31;61(3):636–74.
Fonseca B, Sampaio RB, Fonseca M, Zicker F. Co-authorship network analysis in health research: method and potential use. Health Res Pol Sys. 2016 Apr 30;14(1):34.
Börner K, Chen C, Boyack KW. Visualizing knowledge domains. Ann Rev Inf Sci Tech. 2005 Jan 31;37(1):179–255.
Liu X, Bollen J, Nelson ML, Van de Sompel H. Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Inf Proc Manag. 2005 Dec 1;41(6):1462–80.
Zare-Farashbandi F, Geraei E, Siamaki S. Study of co-authorship network of papers in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences using social network analysis. J Res Med Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):41–6.
Gore SA, Nordberg JM, Palmer LA, Piorun ME. Trends in health sciences library and information science research: an analysis of research publications in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association and Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1991 to 2007. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Jul;97(3):203–11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.009.
Funk ME. Our words, our story: a textual analysis of articles published in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association/Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1961 to 2010. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jan;101(1):12–20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.003.
Lessick S, Perryman C, Billman BL, Alpi KM, De Groote SL, Babin Jr. TD. Research engagement of health sciences librarians: a survey of research-related activities and attitudes. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Apr;104(2):166–73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.015.
Wheeler TR, Yaniv N, Fenske RE. A look at the scholarly output of the Medical Library Association Research Section. Hypothesis. 2015 Winter;27(1):3–7.
Sci2 Team. Science of Science (Sci2) tool [Internet]. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies; 2009 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://sci2.cns.iu.edu>.
Gephi [Internet]. Gephi Consortium; 2008 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://gephi.org/>.
Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2011 Jul;62(7):1382–402.
Urbaniak GC, Plous S. Research randomizer [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://www.randomizer.org/>.
Natural Earth. Admin 1 – states, provinces [Internet]. Version 4.1.0. Natural Earth [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/50m-cultural-vectors/50m-admin-1-states-provinces/>.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Great Lakes [Internet]. The Department [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://gis-michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/6031c4fb8cac48649f2e0a98999d1248_0?geometry=-171.035,65.875,166.465,81.647>.
The Canadian Information Center for International Credentials. Find an educational institution [Internet]. The Center [cited 5 Sep 2019]. <https://www.cicic.ca/868/search_the_directory_of_educational_institutions_in_canada.canada>.
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education. Integrated post secondary education data system directory, 2017–18 [Internet]. The Center [cited 5 Sep 2019]. <https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data>.
Jacomy M, Venturini T, Heymann S, Bastian M. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e98679. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679.
Agarwall N, Arora A. Visualization, analysis and structural pattern infusion of DBLP coauthorship network using Gephi. 2nd International Conference on Next-Gen Computing Technologies; Dehradun, India; 14–16 Oct 2016. p. 494–500.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Distribution of institutions worldwide with a JMLA author [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://arcg.is/1i8Hnj>.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Distribution of institutions in the U.S. and Canada with JMLA authors [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://arcg.is/C4yXn>.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Percentage of higher education institutions with a JMLA author [Internet]. 2019 [cited 3 Sep 2019]. <http://arcg.is/1qzSPa>.
Huynh D. OpenRefine [Internet]. Metaweb Technologies; 2012 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://openrefine.org/>.
ORCID. What is ORCID [Internet]. ORCID; 2012 [cited 3 May 2019]. <https://orcid.org/about>.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Visualizing authorship in the Journal of the Medical Library Association data files [Internet]. 29 Apr 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/J8X9N.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Author name disambiguation data [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://osf.io/j8yc3/>.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Institutions with JMLA authorship by state/province [Internet]. 30 Apr 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://osf.io/sfw2g/>.
Reznik-Zellen R, Carroll AJ, Harrington EG, Joubert DJ, Nix T, Alpi KM. Institutions with JMLA authorship by country [Internet]. 20 Apr 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://osf.io/mkzcy/>.