An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in Molecular Biology

Summary As science has become much complex and sophisticated, greater attention is paid to scientific collaboration within recent bibliometric studies. A total of 6538 publications in Molecular Biology from China during 1999-2003, as indicated by data collected from database of the Science Citation Index Expanded - Web Edition, have been analyzed. A large proportion of publications have been authored by more than 3 scientists. The composition of publications grouped by collaboration patterns are: 1.58% non-collaborative papers, 42.43% local papers, 34.37% domestic papers and 21.62% international papers on average during the studied period. The countries with which China has collaborative links and their frequencies are all itemized to indicate the intensity of international collaboration in the field of Molecular Biology. Finally, the differences between the impact of wholly indigenous papers and internationally collaborative papers have been compared. The results indicate that foreign collaboration does contribute a lot to the improvement of the mainstream connectivity and international visibility.     

A bibliometric investigation on China–UK collaboration in food and agriculture

Based on data from the Web of Science, international collaboration between China and the UK in food and agriculture has been investigated from various perspectives. A new method for classifying cross- or multi-disciplinary fields has been created. The comparative study focuses on China’s collaboration with selected countries including the USA, the UK, Germany and Japan. The newly proposed Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is applied to evaluate publication impact. Although China’s total publications dropped in 2010, its research productivity in food and agriculture nevertheless kept growing and international collaboration, reflected by the number of publications, also increased in an exponential way. The growth rate of China’s internationally collaborated publications was lower than that of China’s total publications. The USA, Japan, Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany are the top partners for Chinese researchers in this field. China-UK joint publications overall increased although their share in China’s total internationally collaborated publications decreased. To China, collaborating with the USA, the UK and Germany, instead of Japan, seems to offer an option to raise impact. The rapidly growing number of international publications and impact of Chinese research in food and agriculture offers great collaboration potential for the country. The fact that the average impact of China-UK collaborative publications is higher than the domestic publications of either country implies that collaboration benefits both sides as has been found in several other studies.     

China’s emerging centrality in the contemporary international scientific collaboration network

In this paper we analyze the evolution of China’s growing importance in international scientific collaboration over the past 15 years. Using co-authored publications indexed in Clarivate Analytics’s Web of Science Core Collection we develop novel weighted and unweighted centrality measures to quantify China’s emerging role in the global scientific research network. We analyze the networks formed by international co-authorship in three 5-year periods: 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015. This analysis highlights China’s sharp increase in prominence in international scientific collaborations. The analysis of China’s co-authored, highly cited papers also illustrates China’s rising importance in scientific research and collaboration from a different perspective. The impact of multilaterally co-authored papers to the centrality measure is also analyzed both theoretically and empirically. The results show that multilateral collaboration is also a key factor that influences the centrality of a country beyond simply the scale of international co-authorship. We further contextualize our work in a discussion of international scientific collaboration as both a key driver of China’s economy and its emerging perception as a first-world innovator and intellectual power. Finally, we suggest directions for further research including more granular analysis by academic discipline and an alternative investigation based on the fractional counting method.     

Globalization and de-globalization in nanotechnology research: the role of China

The share of nanotechnology publications involving authors from more than one country more than doubled in the 1990s, but then fell again until 2004, before recovering somewhat during the latter years of the decade. Meanwhile, the share of nanotechnology papers involving at least one Chinese author increased substantially over the last two decades. Papers involving Chinese authors are far less likely to be internationally co-authored than papers involving authors from other countries. Nonetheless, this appears to be changing as Chinese nanotechnology research becomes more advanced. An arithmetic decomposition confirms that China??s growing share of such research accounts, in large part, for the observed stagnation of international collaboration. Thus two aspects of the globalization of science can work in opposing directions: diffusion to initially less scientifically advanced countries can depress international collaboration rates, while at the same time scientific advances in such countries can reverse this trend. We find that the growth of China??s scientific community explains some, but not all of the dynamics of China??s international collaboration rate. We therefore provide an institutional account of these dynamics, drawing on Stichweh??s [Social Science information 35(2):327?C340, 1996] original paper on international scientific collaboration, which, in examining the interrelated development of national and international scientific networks, predicts a transitional phase during which science becomes a more national enterprise, followed by a phase marked by accelerating international collaboration. Validating the application of this approach, we show that Stichweh??s predictions, based on European scientific communities in the 18th and 19th centuries, seem to apply to the Chinese scientific community in the 21st century.     

International research collaboration in Africa: a bibliometric and thematic analysis

It is widely recognised that science in Africa will benefit from international research collaboration (IRC), and therefore studies have been done on IRC in Africa (hereafter: Africa-related IRC research). However, there is no information on the development of Africa-related IRC research, the geographical location of the scientists interested in the topic, the visibility of the literature and the themes researched. This information makes it possible to understand relevant aspects in the context of IRC in Africa, which are useful for identifying IRC strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. It also allows paving the way for future research on this topic. Using discipline–specific terms, bibliometric, and thematic analysis, I collected the literature on Africa-related IRC research indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS). The results showed that the number of publications on the topic has increased, few African countries have researched the topic, a third of the publications were written exclusively by African scientists, and the topic has high visibility. The panoply of publications revealed that patterns, driving factors, effects, networks, asymmetries, and policies concerning IRC were the main themes researched.

     

Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective

This paper analyzes the relationship among international collaboration, number of papers and number of citations from an economic perspective. It analyzes the number of international collaboration papers and their citations according to different international economic collaboration types, the number of countries at different economic levels, and the economic situations of first or corresponding authors. This study analyzes international collaboration papers listed in Web of Science from 2011 to 2015, published in the field of Public, Environmental and Occupational Health. According to different international collaboration types, results show that the subset of international collaboration with the same economic level accounts for the highest percentage, especially the type of H&H, and there are significant differences in average citations among different collaboration types, the type of H&M&L has the highest value (11.21?±?15.72). According to the number of countries at different economic levels, results show that papers published by ≥?3 countries account for the highest percentage most of the time in different collaboration types. In general, there are positive correlations between the number of countries and citations, but there are no significant differences according to the number of low income countries in different types except H&M&L. According to economic situations of first or corresponding authors, results show that papers initiated by high income countries always account for the highest percentage over past 5 years, and there are positive correlations between the economic situations of first or corresponding authors and citations in different types except H&M. (H: high income countries, M: middle income countries, L: low income countries).     

The life sciences in German–Chinese cooperation: an institutional-level co-publication analysis

This paper analyses the scientific cooperation between German and Chinese institutions in the field of the life sciences on the basis of co-publications published between 2007 and 2011 in Web of Science covered sources. After analyzing the global output of publications in the life sciences, and identifying China’s most important international partners on country level, this study focuses on a network and cluster analysis of German–Chinese co-publications on an institutional level. Cleaning and standardizing all German and Chinese addresses, a total of 531 German and 700 Chinese institutions were identified that co-published together in the period under analysis. Disaggregating the institutes of Chinese Academy of Sciences made it possible to obtain more meaningful information on existing co-publication structures. Using VOSviewer the German–Chinese collaboration network in the life sciences is visualized and clusters of similar institutions identified. The seven most important clusters of German–Chinese co-publications partners are briefly described providing background information for funding agencies such as the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research or researchers in the life sciences, who wish to establish collaborations with German or Chinese institutions.     

Electromobility research in Germany and China: structural differences

Electromobility (e-mobility) is applicable to issues from sustainable transportation to revolutionary driving behaviour. The wide-ranging influence of this concept calls for a shift toward an internationalization of e-mobility research in developed and developing countries alike. Germany and China, as the major exporters and volume producers in the automotive industry, have established the goal of becoming market leaders in e-mobility by 2020. Compared to China, Germany, as a forerunner in the field of e-mobility, is unexpectedly lagging behind in both the sale volume of electric vehicles (EVs) and the share of international publications. Since 2006, China has been the second largest single “producer” of EV-related published research, trailing only the United States. However, the technological capabilities—applying science to real-world issues—seem to be under-represented in these publications. This paper explores structural differences in e-mobility research landscapes and examines possible contextual explanations for the differences between Germany and China. The study involves a detailed comparison of articles sourced from the two countries, beginning with a broad overview of recent research and ending with a short content analysis of the statement concerning current progress and practical challenges for e-mobility development in Germany and China. The conclusion reached is that both countries have explored topics related to EV modes, batteries, energy management and the smart grid; however, specific terms of interest have evolved differently in the two countries. Compared with China, Germany has not achieved a rapid increase in the number of international publications but has still accumulated a vast reservoir of scientific talents and technological resources through the scientific collaboration between academia and industry. Universities, as the main loci of scientific research in China, have actively engaged in international cooperation, addressing problems with no apparent differences from those addressed in Germany. The authors’ views relative to the development of e-mobility in the two countries vary greatly from group to group, indicating that differences should be considered in both the pattern of knowledge production and the research context.

     

International collaboration in scientific publishing: the case of West Africa (2001–2010)

Bibliographic data of publications indexed in Web of Science with at least one (co-)author affiliated to any of the 15 West African countries and published from 2001 to 2010 included are downloaded. Analyses focused one collaboration indicators especially intra regional collaboration, intra African collaboration and collaboration with the world. Results showed that the rate of papers with only one author is diminishing whereas the rate of papers with six and more authors is increasing. Nigeria is responsible for more than half the region’s total scientific output. The main African partner countries are South Africa (in the Southern Africa, Cameroon (in the Central Africa), Kenya and Tanzania (in the Eastern Africa). The main non African partner countries are France, USA and United Kingdom, which on their own contributed to over 63 % of the papers with a non West African address. Individual countries have higher international collaboration rate, except Nigeria. West African countries cooperated less with each other and less with African and developing countries than they did with developed ones. The study suggests national authorities to express in actions their commitment to allot at least 1 % of their GDP to science and technology funding. It also suggests regional integration institutions to encourage and fund research activities that involve several institutions from different West African countries in order to increase intra regional scientific cooperation.     

Identity and publication in non-university settings: academic co-authorship and collaboration

Increased collaboration between researchers working in university, industry, and governmental settings is changing the landscape of academic science. Traditional models of the interaction between these sectors, such as the triple helix concept, draw clear distinctions between academic and non-academic settings and actors. This study surveyed scientists (n = 469) working outside of university settings who published articles indexed in the Web of Science about their modes of collaboration, perceptions about publishing, workplace characteristics, and information sources. We study the association between these variables, and use text analysis to examine the roles, duties, sites, topics, and workplace missions among non-university based authors. Our analysis shows that 72% of authors working in non-university settings who collaborate and publish with other scientists self-identify as academics. Furthermore, their work life resembles that of those working in university settings in that the majority report doing fundamental research in government research organizations and laboratories. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, this research suggests that peer-reviewed publications are much more dominated by non-university academics than we previously thought and that collaboration as co-authors on academic publications is not likely to be a primary conduit for the transfer of scientific knowledge between academe and industry.

     

Scientific collaboration of Cuban researchers working in Europe: understanding relations between origin and destination countries

The global network of scientific collaboration created by researchers opens new opportunities for developing countries to engage in the process of knowledge creation historically lead by institutions in the developed world. The results discussed here explore how Cubans working in European science and technology might contribute to extending the scientific collaboration of the country through their ties with Cuban institutions mainly in the academic sector. A bibliometric method was used to explore the pattern of collaboration of Cuban researchers in Europe using the institutional affiliation of authors and collaborators. The records of scientific publications of the defined sample were obtained from Scopus database for the period between 1995 and 2014. The network of collaboration was generated using the affiliations of Cuban authors in Europe and co-authors with worldwide affiliations shown in the records of publications of each Cuban researcher of the study. The analysis of aggregate values of the output of Cuban researchers in Europe (1995–2014) reveals that their collaboration with Cuba correlates moderately with their performance in Europe. However, when taking into account their time publishing in Europe, the collaboration with Cuba decreases the longer they remain away from home. The network of collaborating Cuban researchers in Europe comprises 991 different affiliations from 58 countries: 698 from Europe, 118 from North America, 96 from Latin America and 79 from the rest of the world. K-core analysis of centrality shows two Cuban universities sharing the central position with another 24 institutions worldwide of which 18 belong to higher education.     

The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership

Along with China’s economic emergence is a controversy over the quality and international visibility of citation index publications. This study uses bibliometric statistics to shed further light on the global landscape of citation index publications with special focus on China and the USA. The analysis explores 31 years of the TRS (Thomson Reuters Scientific) database, spanning the 1980–2010 period. Based on this study, the USA maintains global dominance for both WOK (Web of Knowledge) and WOS (Web of Science) TRS publications. Although China ranks a distant second for WOK, it lags behind five other nations for WOS publications. China’s scientific base needs further restructuring for greater global visibility. Emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa are fast rising in the global ranks for WOK/WOS publications. China may already be leading the world in some publication attributes, although it could take several more decades to catch up with the USA in others. Normalizations of the publications with population, PTE (population with tertiary education) and GDP (gross domestic product) put small/low-population countries in the global lead. However, countries such as Canada, Greenland, Iceland and Sweden still rank high for most of these publication attributes. Furthermore, WOS per WOK analysis shows that small and/or economically weak countries place greater emphasis on WOS publications. This is particularly visible for countries in Africa and South America. Despite the addition of a large number of indigenous Chinese journals to the TRS database, prediction analysis suggests that China’s desire to surpass the USA could be delayed for several decades. In the race for the next-generation scientific superpower, however, China not only needs to sustain substantial investments in research and development, but also requires restructuring of its research industry. This is especially critical for data readiness, availability and accessibility to the scientific community, and radical implementations of research recommendations.     

Korean science and international collaboration, 1995-2000

Summary This paper investigates Korean scientific output, focusing on international collaboration patterns, through an analysis of journal publications. For the study, 44,534 publications, published by researchers affiliated with Korean institutions and indexed by SCI during the six years 1995-2000, were considered. The study period was divided into two periods to compare the international collaboration for three years 1995-1997 and 1998-2000. The results show a clear decrease in Korea's international collaboration level between the study periods even though the number of researchers as well as the total R&D expenditure decreased considerably after Korea's economic change. The decrease of international collaboration in Korean science was inversely associated with different determinants such as scientific size as well as national scientific infrastructure. This decreasing trend of international collaboration in Korean science was largely caused by discipline-to-discipline variations in coverage of the SCI database. Among the top-ten collaborating countries, only the Chinese and the Canadian share of collaborative publications with Korea increased between the two periods under consideration.     

International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the international collaboration of global library and information science (LIS), the present paper investigated the trends, networks as well as core groups of the international collaboration in LIS at the country and institution levels by combining bibliometric analysis and social network analysis. In this study, a total of 8,570 papers from 15 core journals during the period of 2000–2011 were collected. The results indicate that 66 % of papers are joint publications in global LIS. Two-country papers and two-institution papers are the two primary collaboration patterns in the international collaboration at the country and institution levels respectively. Through social network analysis, it is observed that the country collaboration network has reached a certain degree of maturity over the past 12 years in global LIS, while the international institution collaboration network has not yet matured and is made up of dozens of components. In the country collaboration network, the position of USA and UK are remarkable. Although the USA is positioned at the center of the network, institutions located in the USA are more inclined to have collaboration within domestic, suggesting institutions in the USA have a low tendency towards international collaboration. In the institution collaboration network, it is found that two groups located in the USA and Europe respectively. The results of the institution collaboration network also reveal that Katholieke Univ Leuven has not only the largest collaboration breadth, but also strong capabilities to control communication within the international institution collaboration network.     

Gender gaps in international research collaboration: a bibliometric approach

This paper addresses gender differences in international research collaboration measured through international co-authorship. The study is based on a dataset consisting of 5600 Norwegian researchers and their publication output during a 3-year period (44,000 publications). Two different indicators are calculated. First, the share of researchers that have been involved in international collaboration as measured by co-authorship, and second, the share of their publications with international co-authorship. The study shows that the field of research is by far the most important factor influencing the propensity to collaborate internationally. There are large differences from humanities on the one hand, where international collaboration in terms of co-authorship is less common, to the natural sciences on the other, where such collaboration is very frequent. On an overall level, we find distinct gender differences in international research collaboration in Norway in the favour of men. However, men and women are not equally distributed across fields and there are relatively more female researchers in fields where the international collaboration rates generally are lower. When the data are analysed by scientific field, academic position, and publication productivity of the researchers, the gender differences in the propensity to collaborate with colleagues in other countries are minor only, and not statistically significant. Concerning gender inequality in science, the main challenge seems to be the lower productivity level of female researchers, which obviously hinders their academic career development. Differences in international collaboration are unlikely to be an important factor in this respect, at least not in the Norwegian research context analysed in this study.

     

The scientific impact and partner selection in collaborative research at Korean universities

This study seeks to bridge the gap between scientometrics literature on scientific collaboration and science and technology management literature on partner selection by linking scientists’ collaborator preferences to the marginal advantage in citation impact. The 1981–2010 South Korea NCR (National Citation Report), a subset of the Web of Science that includes 297,658 scholarly articles, was used for this research. We found that, during this period, multi-author scientific articles increasingly dominated single-author articles: multi-university collaboration grew significantly; and the numbers of research publications produced by teams working within a single institution or by a single author diminished. This study also demonstrated that multi-university collaboration produces higher-impact articles when it includes “Research Universities,” that is, top-tier university schools. We also found that elite universities experienced impact degradation of their scientific results when they collaborated with lower-tier institutions, whereas their lower-tier partners gained impact benefits from the collaboration. Finally, our research revealed that Korean universities are unlikely to work with other universities in the same tier. This propensity for cross-tier collaboration can be interpreted as strategic partner selection by lower-tier schools seeking marginal advantage in citation impact.     

Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output

Based on data from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and using scientometric methods, we conducted a systematic analysis of Chinese regional contributions and international collaboration in terms of scientific publications, publication activity, and citation impact. We found that regional contributions are highly skewed. The top positions measured by number of publications or citations, share of publications or citations are taken by almost the same set of regions. But this is not the case when indicators for relative citation impact are used. Comparison between regional scientific output and R&D expenditure shows that Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the two indicators is rather low among the leading publication regions.     

Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis

In recent decades, internationalization of research activities has increased, as demonstrated by the phenomena of international scientific collaboration and international mobility of researchers. This paper investigates whether the international scientific collaboration is explained by researchers’ motivation as well as their international migration. Using metadata from papers published in Nature and Science from 1989 to 2009, count data estimation was conducted. The results illustrate those researchers’ international migration and motivation, shown by both synergy and difference effects between countries, explain international collaboration. This implies that international co-authorship in recent decades has been based on researchers’ motivation as well as their networking. The positive result for synergy effects also means that pairs of countries with rich research environments tended to have more international collaboration, which may lead to the convergence of qualified research output in advanced scientific countries. Our findings also support the conclusion that researchers move to countries with better research environments, but networks created through international collaboration are not a factor in international migration. The relationship between international mobility and collaboration is confirmed as going in one direction, from mobility to collaboration.     

International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines

This paper studies disciplinary differences in citation impacts of different types of co-publishing. The citation impacts of international, domestic inter-organizational and domestic intra-organizational co-publications, and single-authored publications, are compared. In particular, we examine the extent to which the number of authors explains the potential differences in citation impacts when compared to the influence of different types of international and domestic collaborations. The analysis is based on Finland’s publications in Thomson Reuters Web of Science database in 1990–2008. Finland is a small country, thus, it has fewer opportunities to find collaborators inside own country when compared to larger countries. Finland’s science policy has underlined internationalization and research collaboration as key means to increase the quality and impact of Finnish research. This study indicates that both international and domestic co-publishing have steadily increased during the past two decades in all disciplinary groups. International co-publications gain on average more citations than domestic co-publications. In natural sciences and engineering, co-authorship explains only a small proportion of variability in publications’ citation rates. When the effect of the number of authors is taken into account there are no big differences in citation impacts between international and domestic co-publications. However, international co-publications by ten authors or more gather significantly more citations than other publications. In humanities, the difference in citation impacts between co-authored publications in relation to single-authored publications is significant. However, international co-publications are not on average more highly cited in relation to domestic co-publications in humanities.     

International collaboration: Will it be keeping alive East European research?

International scientific collaboration is very sensitive to political and economic changes in a country or a geopolitical region. Collaboration in research is reflected by the corresponding coauthorship of the published results which can be analysed with the help of bibliometric methods. Based on data from theScience Citation Index (SCI), the change of annual international coauthorship patterns ofBulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland andRomania have been analysed for the periods 1981–1985 and 1984–1993, respectively. It is shown that international collaboration was not developing similarly in the countries under study. Whilst scientific communities of Hungary and Poland have already been opening in the early 80s, the international collaboration of the other East-European countries was still dominated by COMECON relations till 1989. As expected, since 1990 an increasing scientific collaboration with highly developed countries can be observed in all five countries. At the same time, scientific collaboration with the former communist countries shows a clear decline. The great share of international co-authorship links is some countries reflect various tendencies part of which are interpreted with the help of a cardiologic model.