Opioid Epidemic Policy: Predictive Power of Collaborative Quantity vs. Quality in Determining Impactful Research

Abstract

Scientific research and literature have an important role in determining effective public health policy, especially in regards to the global health issue of opioid addiction, where a multifaceted approach is necessary. In many cases, public health researchers aim to reach a wide audience not only to inform and guide policy makers, but also to educate the general public. Although parameters such as citation count have been a valid measure for the impact of a paper, it is unclear whether the types of collaborations a writer partakes in influence the impact of their paper. In this study, research papers on opioid substitutions were analyzed to evaluate the relationship between citation count and different types of collaborations, which include author count, affiliation count, author prestige, and affiliation prestige. Results showed no significant correlation between citation count and any of the variables. In terms of an author’s collaborations, both the number of collaborators and the prestige of those collaborators are not major factors in determining the impact of a research paper about opioid substitutes. Other possible factors, like citation or publication biases, could play more central roles in determining research impact.