Review Article

Analysis of Scientific Collaboration Networks among Authors, Institutions, and Countries Studying Adolescent Myopia Prevention and Control: A Review Article

Abstract

Background: Studies related to the prevention and control of myopia in adolescents have increased rapidly, but only a few have measured the levels of scientific collaboration among authors, institutions and countries in this field. Thus, in this study, we aimed to reveal the status and levels of scientific collaboration in this field.

Methods: The research population included all published papers in the field of adolescent myopia prevention and control indexed in the Web of Science databases from 1997-2016. The co-authorship networks were drawn using SATI (Statistical Analysis Toolkit for Informetrics), Ucinet and VOS viewer (Visualisation of Similarities viewer). Active authors and some measures of co-author network, including degree centrality, closeness, betweenness, density and diameter, were also assessed.

Results: Overall, 610 records were obtained, and a number of publications developed through an increase in different collaboration types, with cooperation among authors and institutions as the most apparent ones. The top ten active authors and institutions were identified. The density of cooperative networks of the top 70 authors and the first 69 institutions were 0.043 and 0.011, respectively, with corresponding diameters of five and six, respectively. Seven distinct clusters formed the cooperation network among 38 countries. The top three clusters were centered in China, the United States and Australia, also identified as the most productive countries.

Conclusion: The flow of information is slow and the collaboration among authors and institutions in the network are not close enough. Thus, multiple collaboration types should be encouraged in this field, especially among countries.

 

 

1. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM (2012). Myopia. Lancet, 379(9827):1739-48.
2. Saxena R, Vashist P, Menon V (2013). Is myopia a public health problem in India? Indian J Community Med, 38(2):83-5.
3. He M, Abdou A, Naidoo KS, et al (2012). Prevalence and correction of near vision impairment at seven sites in China, India, Nepal, Niger, South Africa, and the United States. Am J Ophthalmol, 154(1):107-16.e1.
4. PC W, HM H, HJ Y, et al. (2016). Epidemiology of Myopia. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila), 5(6):386-393.
5. Lee YY, Lo CT, Sheu SJ, et al (2015). Risk Factors For and Progression of Myopia in Young Taiwanese Men. Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 22(1):66-73.
6. Li Y, Liu J, Qi P (2017). The increasing prevalence of myopia in junior high school students in the Haidian District of Beijing, China: a 10-year population-based survey. BMC Ophthalmol, 17(1):88.
7. Jung SK, Lee JH, Kakizaki H, et al (2012). Prevalence of myopia and its association with body stature and educational level in 19-year-old male conscripts in seoul, South Korea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 53(9):5579-83.
8. Koh V, Yang A, Saw SM, et al (2014). Differences in Prevalence of Refractive Errors in Young Asian Males in Singapore between 1996-1997 and 2009-2010. Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 21(4):247-55.
9. Sun J, Zhou J, Zhao P, et al (2012). High prevalence of myopia and high myopia in 5060 Chinese university students in Shanghai. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 53(12):7504-9.
10. Keay L, Friedman DS (2011). Correcting refractive error in low income countries. BMJ, 343:d4767.
11. Saw SM (2006). How blinding is pathological myopia? Br J Ophthalmol, 90(5):525-6.
12. Leo SW, Ophthalm SBWSP (2017). Current approaches to myopia control. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 28(3):267-75.
13. Morgan IG (2016). What Public Policies Should Be Developed to Deal with the Epidemic of Myopia? Optom Vis Sci, 93(9):1058-60.
14. Franceschet M (2011). Collaboration in computer science: A network science approach. J Am Soc Inf Sci, 62(10):1992-2012.
15. Han P, Shi J, Li X, et al (2014). International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics, 98(1):53-72.
16. Salamati P, Soheili F (2016). Social network analysis of Iranian researchers in the field of violence. Chin J Traumatol, 19(5):264-70.
17. Vanni T, Mesa-Frias M, Sanchez-Garcia R, et al (2014). International scientific collaboration in HIV and HPV: a network analysis. PLoS One, 9(3):e93376.
18. Yu Q, Shao H, He P, et al (2013). World scientific collaboration in coronary heart disease research. Int J Cardiol, 167(3):631-9.
19. Afendi FM, Ono N, Nakamura Y, et al (2013). Data Mining Methods for Omics and Knowledge of Crude Medicinal Plants toward Big Data Biology. Comput Struct Biotechnol J, 4(5):e201301010.
20. Lang PB, Gouveia FC, Leta J (2013). Cooperation in health: mapping collaborative networks on the web. PLoS One, 8(8):e71415.
21. Wang Y, Zheng J, Zhang A, et al (2018). Visualization maps for the evolution of research hotspots in the field of regional health information networks. Inform Health Soc Care, 43(2):186-206.
22. Levorato V (2014). Group Measures and Modeling for Social Networks. Journal of Complex Systems, 2014: 354385.
23. Hou H, Kretschmer H, Liu Z (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2):189-202.
24. Petrescuprahova M, Belza B, Leith K, et al (2015). Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network. Prev Chronic Dis, 12:E130.
25. Uddin S, Hossain L, Abbasi A, et al (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2):687-99.
26. Wu Y, Duan Z (2015). Social network analysis of international scientific collaboration on psychiatry research. Int J Ment Health Syst, 9:2.
27. van Nunen K, Li J, Reniers G, et al (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Saf Sci, 108: 248-258.
28. Ip JM, Huynh SC, Robaei D, et al (2007). Ethnic differences in the impact of parental myopia: findings from a population-based study of 12-year-old Australian children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 48(6):2520-8.
29. Ip JM, Saw SM, Rose KA, et al (2008). Role of near work in myopia: findings in a sample of Australian school children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 49(7):2903-10.
30. Gwiazda J, Hyman L, Dong LM, et al (2007). Factors associated with high myopia after 7 years of follow-up in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) Cohort. Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 14(4):230-7.
31. Ebadi A, Schiffauerova A (2015). How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks? J Informetr, 9(4):809-25.
32. Su Y, Long C, Yu Q, et al (2017). Global scientific collaboration in COPD research. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis, 12:215-25.
33. Smith MJ, Walline JJ (2015). Controlling myopia progression in children and adolescents. Adolesc Health Med Ther, 6: 133–140.
34. Abbasi A, Hossain L, Leydesdorff L (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J Informetr, 6(3):403-12.
35. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SEH, Aljabi SW, et al (2016). Drinking and recreational water-related diseases: a bibliometric analysis (1980–2015). Ann Occup Environ Med, 28(1):40.
Files
IssueVol 48 No 4 (2019) QRcode
SectionReview Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v48i4.983
Keywords
Social network analysis Collaboration Myopia Prevention and control
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
WU W, XIE Y, LIU X, GU Y, ZHANG Y, TU X, TAN X. Analysis of Scientific Collaboration Networks among Authors, Institutions, and Countries Studying Adolescent Myopia Prevention and Control: A Review Article. Iran J Public Health. 2019;48(4):621-631.