See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Education.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Vahideh Zarea Gavgani
Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3278-6859
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Analyzing the previous research literature in the filed of clinical teaching has potential to show the trend and future direction of this field. This study aimed to visualize the co-authorship networks and scientific map of research outputs of clinical teaching and medical education by Social Network Analysis (SNA).
Methods
We Identified 1229 publications on clinical teaching through a systematic search strategy in the Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) and Medline (NCBI/NLM) through PubMed from the year 1980 to 2018.The Ravar PreMap, Netdraw, UCINet and VOSviewer software were used for data visualization and analysis.
Results
Based on the findings of study the network of clinical teaching was weak in term of cohesion and the density in the co-authorship networks of authors (clustering coefficient (CC): 0.749, density: 0.0238) and collaboration of countries (CC: 0.655, density: 0.176). In regard to centrality measures; the most influential authors in the co-authorship network was Rosenbaum ME, from the USA (0.048). More, the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have central role in collaboration countries network and has the vertex co-authorship with other that participated in publishing articles in clinical teaching. Analysis of background and affiliation of authors showed that co-authorship between clinical researchers in medicine filed is weak. Nineteen subject clusters were identified in the clinical teaching research network, seven of which were related to the expected competencies of clinical teaching and three related to clinical teaching skills.
Conclusions
In order to improve the cohesion of the authorship network of clinical teaching, it is essential to improve research collaboration and co-authorship between new researchers and those who have better closeness or geodisk path with others, especially those with the clinical background. To reach to a dense and powerful topology in the knowledge network of this field encouraging policies to be made for international and national collaboration between clinicians and clinical teaching specialists. In addition, humanitarian and clinical reasoning need to be considered in clinical teaching as of new direction in the field from thematic aspects.
Keywords
Hospital Teaching, Round Teaching, Centrality, Density, Social Network Analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Version 2
Posted 19 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 23 Mar, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 04 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 24 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 10 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 10 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 10 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 02 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 11 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 03 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 30 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Education.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Vahideh Zarea Gavgani
Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3278-6859
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Version 2
Posted 19 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 23 Mar, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 04 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 24 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 10 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 10 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 10 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 02 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 11 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 03 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 30 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Background
Analyzing the previous research literature in the filed of clinical teaching has potential to show the trend and future direction of this field. This study aimed to visualize the co-authorship networks and scientific map of research outputs of clinical teaching and medical education by Social Network Analysis (SNA).
Methods
We Identified 1229 publications on clinical teaching through a systematic search strategy in the Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) and Medline (NCBI/NLM) through PubMed from the year 1980 to 2018.The Ravar PreMap, Netdraw, UCINet and VOSviewer software were used for data visualization and analysis.
Results
Based on the findings of study the network of clinical teaching was weak in term of cohesion and the density in the co-authorship networks of authors (clustering coefficient (CC): 0.749, density: 0.0238) and collaboration of countries (CC: 0.655, density: 0.176). In regard to centrality measures; the most influential authors in the co-authorship network was Rosenbaum ME, from the USA (0.048). More, the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have central role in collaboration countries network and has the vertex co-authorship with other that participated in publishing articles in clinical teaching. Analysis of background and affiliation of authors showed that co-authorship between clinical researchers in medicine filed is weak. Nineteen subject clusters were identified in the clinical teaching research network, seven of which were related to the expected competencies of clinical teaching and three related to clinical teaching skills.
Conclusions
In order to improve the cohesion of the authorship network of clinical teaching, it is essential to improve research collaboration and co-authorship between new researchers and those who have better closeness or geodisk path with others, especially those with the clinical background. To reach to a dense and powerful topology in the knowledge network of this field encouraging policies to be made for international and national collaboration between clinicians and clinical teaching specialists. In addition, humanitarian and clinical reasoning need to be considered in clinical teaching as of new direction in the field from thematic aspects.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...