Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship

Summary A chronically weak area in research papers, reports, and reviews is the complete identification of background documents that formed the building blocks for these papers. A method for systematically determining these seminal references is presented. Citation-Assisted Background (CAB) is based on the assumption that seminal documents tend to be highly cited. CAB is being applied presently to three applications studies, and the results so far are much superior to those used by the first author for background development in any other study. An example of the application of CAB to the field of Nonlinear Dynamics is outlined. While CAB is a highly systematic approach for identifying seminal references, it is not a substitute for the judgement of the researchers, and serves as a supplement.     

Patterns and evolution of publication and co-authorship in Social Sciences in Mexico

Scientometrics - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the extent to which productivity and formal research collaboration has changed in the fields of social sciences in Mexico. The results show...     

Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding

Summary Analysing co-authored publications has become the standard way to measure research collaborations. At the same time bibliometric researchers have advised that co-authorship based indicators should be handled with care as a source of evidence on actual scientific collaboration. The aim of this study is to assess how well university-industry collaborations can be identified and described using co-authorship data. This is done through a comparison of co-authorship data with industrial funding to a medical university. In total 436 companies were identified through the two methods. Our results show that one third of the companies that have provided funding to the university had not co-authored any publications with the university. Further, the funding indicator identified only 16% of the companies that had co-authored publications. Thus, both co-authorship and funding indicators provide incomplete results. We also observe a case of conflicting trends between funding and co-authorship indicators. We conclude that uncritical use of the two indicators may lead to misinterpretation of the development of collaborations and thus provide incorrect data for decision-making.     

A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation

This paper focuses on methods to study patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks at the mesoscopic level. We combine qualitative methods (participant interviews) with quantitative methods (network analysis) and demonstrate the application and value of our approach in a case study comparing three research fields in chemistry. A mesoscopic level of analysis means that in addition to the basic analytic unit of the individual researcher as node in a co-author network, we base our analysis on the observed modular structure of co-author networks. We interpret the clustering of authors into groups as bibliometric footprints of the basic collective units of knowledge production in a research specialty. We find two types of coauthor-linking patterns between author clusters that we interpret as representing two different forms of cooperative behavior, transfer-type connections due to career migrations or one-off services rendered, and stronger, dedicated inter-group collaboration. Hence the generic coauthor network of a research specialty can be understood as the overlay of two distinct types of cooperative networks between groups of authors publishing in a research specialty. We show how our analytic approach exposes field specific differences in the social organization of research.     

Social dynamics of research collaboration: norms,practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights

Co-authorship has become common practice in most science and engineering disciplines and, with the growth of co-authoring, has come a fragmentation of norms and practices, some of them discipline-based, some institution-based. It becomes increasingly important to understand these practices, in part to reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding in collaborations among authors from different disciplines and fields. Moreover, there is also evidence of widespread satisfaction with collaborative and co-authoring experiences. In some cases the dissatisfactions are more in the realm of bruised feelings and miscommunication but in others there is clear exploitation and even legal disputes about, for example, intellectual property. Our paper is part of a multiyear study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and draws its data from a representative national survey of scientists working in 108 Carnegie Doctoral/Research Universities—Very High Research Activity (n = 641). The paper tests hypotheses about the determinants of collaboration effectiveness. Results indicate that having an explicit discussion about co-authorship reduces the odds of a bad collaboration on a recent scholarly article. Having co-authors from different universities also reduces the odds of a bad collaboration, while large numbers of co-authors have the reverse effect. The results shed some systematic, empirical light on research collaboration practices, including not only norms and business-as-usual, but also routinely bad collaborations.     

Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity,collaboration and authorship status

Summary The application of the measurement of scientific and technical activities has been a lengthy process of the appropriate metrics and the assignment of the standards and benchmarks for their usage. Although some studies have addressed issues of the management of science and technology and their relation to scientometrics and infometrics, there is nevertheless a need to consider the linkages between the conceptual background of scientific generation and progress - and the measurement of its process and outcomes. This paper first reviews the three main approaches to the generation and progress of human knowledge in general and scientific activity in particular. These approaches are reviewed in terms of the demands they would make on the measurement of scientific process and outputs. The paper then examines the currently used categories of metrics, and arrives at several conclusions. The paper provides an analysis of these conclusions and their implications to the generation and utilization of metrics of science and its outcomes. The review of the conceptual or philosophical foundations for the measurement of science offers an in-depth examination, resulting in the correlation of these foundations with the metrics we now use to measure science and its outcomes. The paper suggests research directions for a much needed link between theories of science and knowledge, and the application of metrics used to measure them. Finally, the paper offers several hypotheses and proposes potential empirical studies.     

Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors' roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas

Summary Many studies have analyzed “direct” partnerships in co-authorship networks. On the other hand, the global network structure, including “indirect” links between researchers, has not yet been sufficiently studied. This study analyzes researchers' activities from the viewpoints considering their roles in the global structures of co-authorship networks, and compares the co-authorship networks between the theoretical and application areas in computer science. The modified HITS algorithm is used to calculate the two types of importance of researchers in co-authorship networks, i.e., the importance as the leader and that as the follower.     

Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields

The purpose of this paper is to give a macro-picture of collaboration in research groups and networks across all academic fields in Norwegian research universities, and to examine the relative importance of membership in groups and networks for individual publication output. To our knowledge, this is a new approach, which may provide valuable information on collaborative patterns in a particular national system, but of clear relevance to other national university systems. At the system level, conducting research in groups and networks are equally important, but there are large differences between academic fields. The research group is clearly most important in the field of medicine and health, while undertaking research in an international network is most important in the natural sciences. Membership in a research group and active participation in international networks are likely to enhance publication productivity and the quality of research.     

The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship

Given the high priority accorded to research collaboration on the assumption that it yields higher productivity and impact rates than do non-collaborative results, research collaboration modes are assessed for their benefits and costs before being executed. Researchers are accountable for selecting their collaboration modes, a decision made through strategic decision making influenced by their environments and the trade-offs among alternatives. In this context, by using bibliographic information and related internal data from the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM, a representative Korean government institute of mechanical research), this paper examines the suggested yet unproven determinants of research collaboration modes that the SCI data set cannot reveal through a Multinomial Probit Model. The results indicate that informal communication, cultural proximity, academic excellence, external fund inspiration, and technology development levels play significant roles in the determination of specific collaboration modes, such as sole research, internal collaboration, domestic collaboration, and international collaboration. This paper refines collaboration mode studies by describing the actual collaboration phenomenon as it occurs in research institutes and the motivations prompting research collaboration, allowing research mangers to encourage researchers to collaborate in an appropriate decision-making context.     

Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship

A review of selected parameters of the growth of scientific collaboration over the last century provides further confirmation of the dependency of teamwork on the increasing professionalization of science. Analysis reveals significant inaccuracies in current views of the recency and prevalence of collaborative research, and affords a more correct picture of twentieth century developments. A change in the growth rate of the practice of scientific collaboration at about the time of World War I, and indications of associations of teamwork with financial support and research publication in leading journals are discussed. Characteristics of the natural history of scientific collaboration signify that collaboration reflects relationships of dependency within a hierarchically stratified professional community, and serves as a means of professional mobility. As such, it continues to fulfil its original functions.     

Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks

The ability to activate and manage effective collaborations is becoming an increasingly important criteria in policies on academic career advancement. The rise of such policies leads to development of indicators that permit measurement of the propensity to collaborate for academics of different ranks, and to examine the role of several variables in collaboration, first among these being the researchers’ disciplines. In this work we apply an innovative bibliometric approach based on individual propensity for collaboration to measure the differences in propensity across academic ranks, by discipline and for choice of collaboration forms—intramural, extramural domestic and international. The analysis is based on the scientific production of Italian academics for the period 2006–2010, totaling over 200,000 publications indexed in Web of Science. It shows that assistant professors register a propensity for intramural collaboration that is clearly greater than for professors of higher ranks. Vice versa, the higher ranks, but not quite so clearly, register greater propensity to collaborate at the international level.     

Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part II. A comparative study on the extent and change of international scientific collaboration links

The present study is focused on international collaboration in science, involving more than two countries. The authors developed a promising model to measure and analyse the extent of multilateral co-authorship links in a previous study. The model is based on a series expansion approach which relates a new indicator, the Multilateral Collaboration Index (ρ), to the share of internationally co-authored papers (f). The model was found suitable to classify both the share of international papers, as well as the extent of multilateral links through the deviations from their expectations. A comparative analysis is made of changing collaboration patterns between 1983 and 1993 for 8 selected subfields, as well as all fields combined of the most active 38 countries. As expected an intensification of international scientific collaboration was observed, especially for a number of former COMECON countries. Different types of behaviour for different countries and science subfields emerged.     

Inventor collaboration over distance: a comparison of academic and corporate patents

Patenting is often done in collaboration with other inventors to integrate complementary and additional knowledge. The paper takes a spatial view of this issue and analyses the distances between inventors of German patents. We compare the distances between invention teams of German patent applications from 1993–2006 and distinguish between academic and corporate teams and those consisting of researchers from both domains (‘mixed teams’). Due to their different institutional backgrounds different types of proximity guide their spatial search for partners. The basic finding is that regional collaboration clearly prevails. However, the distance between collaborating inventors of corporate patents exceeds that of inventors of academic patents, but the largest distances can be found in science–industry collaborative patents. When excluding directly neighboured collaboration, which is likely to be in-house collaboration, the differences between academic and corporate teams vanish, but mixed teams still overcome longer distances.     

Analysis of publication and invention productivity in some Soviet academic institutions

Some peculiarities and tendencies of the productivity of publication and invention activities for a large group of academic institutions of different scientific type of the Ukrainian SSR conducting research in the field of natural and technical sciences have been revealed.     

Bibliometric analysis of global publication output and collaboration structure study in microRNA research

The study aimed to analyse the global research output related to microRNA (miRNA), based on the fact that it has diverse expression patterns and might regulate various developmental and physiological processes. First miRNA was identified as small RNA in 1993 but its function as biological regulator was unknown till 2000. Since then the research in miRNAs has got momentum. To understand and visualize the research dynamics and the research structure of the field, the publications appeared in Science Citation Index expanded database for 2002–2012 under miRNA category using specific search string, were analysed. A sum of more than 14,000 documents found from Web of Science database for the same period. This study detected major productive countries, high productive-institutions, authors, research areas, journals and document types, along with their individual citation impacts. The inter-collaborative linkages of countries, organizations and authors were also analysed. The study has observed that number of publication increased from 8 in 2002 to 4,186 in 2012 with compound annual growth rate of 87 %. The compound annual growth rates of countries, institutions, number of journals, research areas, and authors are 36.60, 76.64, 64.80, 30.5, and 88.09 % respectively.     

Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan

This research examines the association of co-authorship network centrality (degree, closeness and betweeness) and the academic research performance of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Higher centrality in the co-authorship network is hypothesized to be positively related to performance, in terms of academic publication, with gender having a positive moderating effect for female researchers. Using social network analysis, this study examines the bibliometric data (2002–2009) from ISI Web of Science for the co-authorship network of 2,027 Pakistani authors publishing in the field of Chemistry. A non-temporal analysis using node-level regression reports positive impact of degree and closeness and negative impact of betweeness centrality on research performance. Temporal analysis using node-level regression (time 1: 2002–2005; time 2: 2006–2009) confirms the direction of causality and demonstrates the positive association of degree and closeness centrality on research performance. Findings indicate a moderating role of gender on the relationship of both degree and closeness centrality with research performance for Pakistani female authors.     

Stocktaking scientific publication on bi-regional collaboration between Europe 28 and Latin America and the Caribbean

Mapping bi-regional scientific collaboration demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. Usually, the first approach is the measuring of the number and typology of scientific co-publications in the most visible indexes of journals and publications covered by databases like Web of Science or Scopus, among others. This paper analyzes scientific publications listed by Web of Science (WoS), which comprises authors from the 28 EU countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries (EULAC) between 2005 and 2016. The following questions have been addressed: How are bi-regional scientific relations between EULAC countries reflected by international collaboration? What effects does this scientific collaboration have in smaller or emerging countries? Which area of knowledge has more international collaborations? The study highlights the existence of a growing global network of researchers from several countries that collaborate on their research. EULAC scientific collaboration cannot be understood in isolation from this global network.

     

Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part I. Development of a new model using a series expansion approach

International co-operation has strongly intensified during the last decades owing to rapid developments in scientific communication. Economic, political, and intra-scientific factors also strongly influence international collaboration links among individual countries. Obviously research results of international scientific co-operation are reflected in the documented scientific communication as international co-authorship links in scientific publications. Most bibliometric studies on this issue pertain to the share of international co-authored papers in national publication output and their impact on national and international research, or to the analysis and mapping of the structure of collaboration links. The present study attempts to develop a model to measure and analyse the extent of multilateral international co-authorship links. A new indicator, the Multilateral Collaboration Index (ρ) is introduced and analysed as a function of the share of internationally co-authored papers (f). Based onf a series expansion approach is applied that can be considered an extension of a fractionation model byNederhof andMoed and allows classifying the extent of multilateral links both among science fields and among individual countries. The paper is concluded by a first attempt to estimate the errors involved in our approach.