Central positions and performance in the scientific community. Evidences from clinical research projects
Journal of Business Research, ISSN: 0148-2963, Vol: 68, Issue: 5, Page: 1074-1081
2015
- 11Citations
- 59Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Literature claims for a deeper understanding of which processes shape the evolution of network structures over time. Drawing on the assumption that the “normative ideal” network structure should be understood according to the context in which the network is embedded, we observe collaborative networks generated by the necessity to respond to meeting regulatory requirements. We address the following research questions: What are the effects of centrality on performance in cooperative networks? Which network structural characteristics are relevant in cooperative research networks? We test our hypotheses in a cooperative network made of 114 clinical trial research projects. We provide evidence that, in collaborative networks, an actor's centrality is likely to increase according to its past structural holes. Moreover, we observe that an actor's centrality has a negative effect on performance.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296314003397; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.009; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84924440721&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296314003397; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0148296314003397?httpAccept=text/xml; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0148296314003397?httpAccept=text/plain; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.009
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know