Collaboration profile of theoretical population genetics speciality

Traces the growth of collaborated and funded research as reflected in research papers in theoretical population genetics research speciality from 1916–80 through a case study. Analyses the proportion and extent of collaborated papers, averge number of authorship per paper, and collaborative coefficient index of research papers thereby giving an overall perspective of the growth of professionalism in the field. Studies the relation between collaboration, productivity, and funding of research papers in theoretical population genetics. Classifies the total collaborative papers/authors by type of collaboration and studies the trends and shifts in the nature and type of collaborative research over the years.     

Funded collaboration research in mathematics in China

Based on publications in mathematics of Chinese authors indexed in Chinese domestic and international databases, namely, the CNKI and the Web of Science, the current paper tries to explore impact of collaboration and funding support on academic productivity. Collaboration is classified into domestic and international collaboration, and domestic collaboration is further divided into within-institutional collaboration and cross-institutional collaboration. Regional performance in terms of collaboration and funding support has also been investigated. The results show that collaboration and funded support are highly skewed among Chinese regions. Beijing, Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Zhejiang are most active in collaboration and are the major winners of research funds. Zhejiang and Shaanxi perform in a contrast way: the former publishes mostly internationally whereas the latter mainly domestically. Compared with within-institutional collaboration, cross-institutional and international collaboration perform better in raising productivity and achieving research funds.     

Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications

This study aims to investigate the influence of different patterns of collaboration on the citation impact of Harvard University’s publications. Those documents published by researchers affiliated with Harvard University in WoS from 2000–2009, constituted the population of the research which was counted for 124,937 records. Based on the results, only 12% of Harvard publications were single author publications. Different patterns of collaboration were investigated in different subject fields. In all 22 examined fields, the number of co-authored publications is much higher than single author publications. In fact, more than 60% of all publications in each field are multi-author publications. Also, the normalized citation per paper for co-authored publications is higher than that of single author publications in all fields. In addition, the largest number of publications in all 22 fields were also published through inter-institutional collaboration and were as a result of collaboration among domestic researchers and not international ones. In general, the results of the study showed that there was a significant positive correlation between the number of authors and the number of citations in Harvard publications. In addition, publications with more number of institutions have received more number of citations, whereas publications with more number of foreign collaborators were not much highly cited.     

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.     

African regional innovation systems: bibliometric analysis of research collaboration patterns 2005–2009

Understanding the nature and dynamics of Africa’s collaborative research networks is critical for building and integrating the African innovation system. This paper investigates the collaborative structure of the African research systems, with focus on regions and integration. Drawing on a bibliometric analysis of co-authorship of African research publications in 2005–2009, we propose an empirically derived grouping of African research community into three distinct research regions: Southern–Eastern, Western, and Northern. The three regions are established and defined in terms of active co-authorship clusters within Africa, as well as through co-authorship links with non-African countries and regions. We examine co-authorship links both at the national and city levels in order to provide a robust and nuanced empirical basis for the three African research regions. The collaboration patterns uncovered cast light on the emerging innovation systems in Africa by pointing out the differing national, regional, and global roles of countries and cities within collaborative research networks. Lack of research capabilities is the primary factor arresting the development of African innovation systems, but our analysis also suggests that Africa’s internal research collaboration suffers from structural weaknesses and uneven integration. We also identify that South Africa, and some emerging new research hubs, hold critical networking function for linking African researchers.     

Mapping of dental science research in India: a scientometric analysis of India’s research output, 1999–2008

The study examines India’s performance based on its publication output in dental sciences during 1999–2008, based on several parameters, including the country annual average growth rate, global publication share & rank among 25 most productive countries of the world, national publication output and impact in terms of average citations per paper, international collaboration output and share and contribution of major collaborative partners, contribution and impact of select top 25 Indian institutions and select top 15 most productive authors, patterns of communication in national and international journals and characteristics of its 45 high cited papers. The study uses 10 years (1999–2008) publications data in dental sciences of India and other countries drawn from Scopus international multidisciplinary bibliographical database.     

The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field

Collaboration between researchers and between research organizations is generally considered a desirable course of action, in particular by some funding bodies. However, collaboration within a multidisciplinary community, such as the Computer–Human Interaction (CHI) community, can be challenging. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the CHI conference proceedings to determine if papers that have authors from different organization or countries receive more citations than papers that are authored by members of the same organization. There was no significant difference between these three groups, indicating that there is no advantage for collaboration in terms of citation frequency. Furthermore, we tested if papers written by authors from different organizations or countries receive more best paper awards or at least award nominations. Papers from only one organization received significantly fewer nominations than collaborative papers.     

Impact of SERC's funding on research in chemical sciences

The paper assesses impact of Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) funding in chemical sciences during 1976–1989 using scientometric techniques. Other indicators like awards won, fellowship to prestigious academies, membership to editorial boards received by the project investigators, Ph.D. degrees awarded, collaborations established and new courses introduced due to SERC funding have also been analyzed. The study indicates that activity index of research out put in various frontier areas of chemical sciences have gone up despite a decrease in Indian activity index in these areas. The growth pattern of papers for “Organometallic and Organometalloidal Compounds” are similar for India and world. Contribution of SERC's project investigators in high impact factor (≥2) journals and the citations received by the papers published by them are higher than Indian contributions in chemical sciences. The SERC funding has resulted in a three fold increase in the number of Ph.D. degrees awarded in chemical sciences and SERC project investigators have won many prestigious awards, fellowship to academies and membership of the editorial board of the journals. The SERC funded research has also resulted in new courses at various universities.     

Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field

This paper reports on a bibliometric study of the characteristics and impact of research in the library and information science (LIS) field which was funded through research grant programs, and compares it with research that received no extra funding. Seven core LIS journals were examined to identify articles published in 1998 that acknowledge research grant funding. The distribution of these articles by various criteria (e.g., topic, affiliation, funding agency) was determined. Their impact as indicated by citation counts during 1998–2008 was evaluated against that of articles without acknowledging extra funding and published in the same journals in the same year using citation data collected from Scopus’ Citation Tracker. The impact of grant-funded research as measured by citation counts was substantially higher than that of other research, both overall and in each journal individually. Scholars from outside LIS core institutions contributed heavily to grant-funded research. The two highest-impact publications by far reported non-grant-based research, and grant-based funding of research reported in core LIS journals was biased towards the information retrieval (IR) area, particularly towards research on IR systems. The percentage of articles reporting grant-funded research was substantially higher in information-oriented journals than in library-focused ones.     

Bibliometric analysis of complementary and alternative medicine research over three decades

This study applies bibliometric analysis to investigate the quantity and citation impact of scientific papers in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The data are collected from 19 CAM journals in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database during 1980–2009, and 17,002 papers are identified for analysis. The study analyzes the document types, geographical and institutional distribution of the authorship, including international scientific collaboration. This study suggests that the major type of document is original article. The CAM papers are mostly published by North America, East Asia, and European countries, of which publications authored in East Asia are cited most. Country-wise, major contributors of CAM papers are from USA, People’s Republic of China, India, England and Germany. India has the highest CPP value, attracting high attentions in CAM community. This article also finds that international co-authorship in the CAM field has increased rapidly during this period. In addition, internationally collaborated publications generate higher citation impact than papers published by authors from single country. Finally, the research identifies productive institutions in CAM, and China Medical University located in Taiwan is the most productive organization.     

Collaboration patterns of Taiwanese scientific publications in various research areas

This paper employs bibliometric methods to observe collaboration patterns of scientific publications in biotechnology, information and computer technology, future energy, and nanotechnology among different institutions in Taiwan. The results show primary domestic and international collaborative patterns, the effect of collaborative papers on the world-wide average, collaborative networks, and the distribution of institutions on global map. The findings suggest that domestic collaboration in each area is higher in proportion than international collaboration. Biotechnology leads in both domestic and international collaborative percentage. Among cooperative benchmarking countries, the US and China are the main partners. Collaboration among research institutes and universities is the most frequent collaborative pattern in each area except biotechnology, which tends to occur between hospitals and universities. On average, international collaborative papers tend to have greater effect, except in nanotechnology. Academia Sinica collaborated frequently with foreign institutes in each research field. A further analysis on how each collaborative group forms is recommended, especially collaboration among the Triple-Helix relationships.     

A bibliometric analysis of the performance of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Water Research</Emphasis>

This paper presents a detailed chronological survey of papers published in the journal titled Water Research which started publication since 1967. This current investigation reviews publication patterns between 1967 and 2008. An analysis of the research performance according to publication output, distribution of words in article title, author keywords, and keywords plus. Performances of countries, institutes, and authors, including total, single, collaborative, first author, and corresponding author publications were analyzed. The most-frequently cited articles each year and the articles of the highest impact in 2008 were also reported. Results showed that “activated sludge” was the most frequently used author keyword, followed by “adsorption,” and “drinking water.” Authors from 114 different countries/territories published in the journal, with the most articles submitted by authors from the USA.     

Characteristics of research in China assessed with Essential Science Indicators

To provide an overview of the characteristics of research in China, a bibliometric evaluation of highly cited papers with high-level representation was conducted during the period from 1999 to 2009 based on the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database. A comprehensive assessment covered overall performance, journals, subject categories, internationally collaborative countries, national inter-institutionally collaborative institutions, and most-cited papers in 22 scientific fields. China saw a strong growth in scientific publications in the last decade, to some extent due to increasing research and development expenditure. China has been more active in ESI fields of chemistry and physics, but more excellent in materials science, engineering and mathematics. Most publications were concerned with the common Science Citation Index subject categories of multidisciplinary chemistry, multidisciplinary materials and science, and physical chemistry. About one half China’s ESC papers were internationally collaborative and the eight major industrialized countries (the USA, Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Canada, Russia, and Italy) played a prominent role in scientific collaboration with China, especially the USA. The Chinese Academy of Sciences took the leading position of institutions with many branches. The “985 Project” stimulated the most productive institutions for academic research with a huge funding injection and the universities in Hong Kong showed good scientific performance. The citation impact of internationally collaborative papers differed among fields and international collaborations made positive contributions to academic research in China.     

Collaboration and cross-disciplinarity in autoimmune diseases

Collaboration and cross-disciplinarity are important features in autoimmune disease research. Taking co-authorship as an indicator for research collaboration, for selected European countries it was found that 91% to 99% of all publications are based on collaboration. International collaboration affects about 27% of all publications. Small countries like Sweden and Finland pursue international collaboration more intensively than larger countries like Germany or the UK. Different collaboration strategies were found for nationally co-authored papers, for instance, Germany seems to focus more on intra-departmental collaboration, while France and Italy have stronger inter-institutional links. About 54% of all publications are based on cross-disciplinary The term ‘cross-disciplinarity’ is used to highlight the fact that contributions from more than one discipline are made and required. This more general term is used—rather than the term ‘interdisciplinarity’—because it collaboration, which was found to be even more important in international collaboration. is hard or even impossible to distinguish interdisciplinary from multi-disciplinary work based on the data used. For a more detailed discussion of the terminology see e.g. Refs 1–5.     

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.     

Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science

Summary A comparative analysis of the scientific performance of male and female scientists in the area of Materials Science at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) is presented. Publications of 333 scientists during 1996-2000 are downloaded from the international database Science Citation Index and the national one ICYT. Scientific performance of scientists is studied through different indicators of productivity (number of SCI and ICYT publications), international visibility (average impact factor of publications, percentage of documents in “top journals”) and publication practices (%international publications, signing order of authors in the documents and different collaboration measures). Inter-gender differences in the research performance of scientists are studied. Influence of professional category and age are analysed. Although women are less productive than men, no significant differences in productivity are found within each professional category. However, a different life-cycle of productivity is found for men and woman and the most important inter-gender differences in productivity occur at the ages of 40-59.     

A bibliometric analysis of the effectiveness of Korea’s Biotechnology Stimulation Plans,with a comparison with four other Asian nations

This study investigates the scientific output and publication patterns of Korean biotechnology before and after the start of the Korean Biotechnology Stimulation Plans (1994–2007), and then compares the results with publication data from the same time periods for Japan, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore. For this study, 14,704 publications, published by at least one researcher from one of the five Asian nations (indexed by SCI Expanded during the years 1990–1993 and the years 2000–2003), were considered. A marked increase of Korean research output in biotechnology was largely influenced by an increasing tendency for researchers to enter the field of biotechnology and by increased expenditures for R&D activity through the Korean Biotechnology Stimulation Plans. In addition, the SCI Expanded coverage of national journals affected the scientific output and publication patterns of Japanese and Korean researchers. Looking at the Korean publications by collaboration type, international collaboration leads to more publications in mainstream journals of high impact factors than local and domestic collaborations for the two periods. However, although the Korean Biotechnology Stimulation Plans were followed by a remarkable increase in South Korea’s research output, this increase has not been accompanied by growth in the quality of those publications in terms of impact factors of journals for Korean publications.     

An empirical investigation of the influence of collaboration in Finance on article impact

We investigate the impact of collaborative research in academic Finance literature to find out whether and to what extent collaboration leads to higher impact articles (6,667 articles across 2001–2007 extracted from the Web of Science). Using the top 5 % as ranked by the 4-year citation counts following publication, we also follow related secondary research questions such as the relationships between article impact and author impact; collaboration and average author impact of an article; and, the nature of geographic collaboration. Key findings indicate: collaboration does lead to articles of higher impact but there is no significant marginal value for collaboration beyond three authors; high impact articles are not monopolized by high impact authors; collaboration and the average author impact of high-impact articles are positively associated, where collaborative articles have a higher mean author impact in comparison to single-author articles; and collaboration among the authors of high impact articles is mostly cross-institutional.