No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Mapping World Scientific Collaboration: Authors, Institutions, and Countries
Abstract
International collaboration is being heralded as the hallmark of contemporary scientific production. Yet little quantitative evidence has portrayed the landscape and trends of such collaboration. To this end, 14,000,000 documents indexed in Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) were studied to provide a state-of-the-art description of scientific collaborations across the world. The results indicate that the number of authors in the largest research teams have not significantly grown during the past decade; however, the number of smaller research teams has seen significant increases in growth. In terms of composition, the largest teams have become more diverse than the latter teams and tend more toward interinstitutional and international collaboration. Investigating the size of teams showed large variation between fields. Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other. High-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others. This work should inform policy makers, administrators, and those interested in the progression of scientific collaboration.
... This article, as a theoretical reflection and synthesis of the literature, proposes a conceptual framework for analysing contemporary science culture from a nuanced perspective and for understanding science culture. The article argues that contemporary science culture is multidimensional (Gazni et al., 2012;Prasad, 2005) in the esoteric-exoteric transsphere of contemporary sciences (Gauchat, 2015). ...
... First, it sheds light on the interrelationship paradox among the multiple-contextual and embeddedness environments that affect research in contemporary sciences, especially those operating in the institutional void. Doing contemporary science is a multilocal activity involving collaboration among academic organizations and between academics and businesses from the national to international levels (Gazni et al., 2012). Therefore, contemporary science culture crosses different cultural borders of science, humanism and business, and involves different science cultures (Prasad, 2005), scientific disciplines (Gazni et al., 2012), knowledge-production modes (Beesley, 2003) and institutional settings in which scientists and scientific activities are situated. ...
... Doing contemporary science is a multilocal activity involving collaboration among academic organizations and between academics and businesses from the national to international levels (Gazni et al., 2012). Therefore, contemporary science culture crosses different cultural borders of science, humanism and business, and involves different science cultures (Prasad, 2005), scientific disciplines (Gazni et al., 2012), knowledge-production modes (Beesley, 2003) and institutional settings in which scientists and scientific activities are situated. ...
This article presents a cultural competence-based (CCB) framework to analyse contemporary science culture. Starting from the observation that two separate views of culture-as-context and culture-as-practice cannot address the ongoing transitions in the contemporary sciences towards esoteric–exoteric trans-sphere governance and multicultural science, we introduce key ideas from ‘older’ varieties of competence-based culture theories. We argue that a spectrum of cultural and sociocultural systems shapes contemporary science culture by being (un)supportive of individual scientists acquiring cultural competence and guiding scientists’ research practices. In contrast, individual scientists’ cultural competence shapes the fabrication of cultural and sociocultural systems through their scientific practices, thereby shaping contemporary science cultures. We also synthesize different concepts of science culture, reflect the transitions in contemporary sciences and construct three dimensions of the cultural system, sociocultural system and cultural competence from various elements. By providing a conceptual framework that contributes to a better understanding and management of contemporary science culture, we hope to enhance effective work ethics and fit-for-purpose science knowledge to address emerging ‘wicked’ societal challenges.
... Empirical studies on scientific collaboration in various hard and soft sciences are increasing at an unprecedented rate. However, the rise of collaborative-inspired studies has been scattered unevenly for different disciplines (Gazni et al., 2011;Nikzad et al., 2011;Sonnenwald, 2007). In particular, there exists a growing tendency to collaborate in social sciences; however, this tendency to collaborate on research projects decreases in the field of arts and humanities (Hilario & Grácio, 2017). ...
... The orientations of researchers promoting the collaborative-inspired studies have also been different (Amini Farsani et al., 2021;Boschma, 2005;Gazni et al., 2011;Sonnenwald, 2007). Their foci have included disciplinary collaboration (i.e., inter-, intra-, and multidisciplinary collaboration), geographic collaboration (i.e., international and domestic collaboration), organizational and community collaboration (i.e., university-industry collaboration and academic-industry collaboration), institutional collaboration (department collaboration), and socioeconomic collaboration. ...
... Although the centrality of methodological orientations is established, more context-specific collaborative studies at different collaborative levels are needed (Amini Farsani et al., 2021;Gazni et al., 2011). As such, if one needs to understand collaborative competence and team cognition in different research methods, one must understand how collaboration is practiced at different levels. ...
The current study draws on synthetic techniques and bibliometric analysis to explore the patterns of scientific collaboration in light of methodological orientations. We examined 3,992 applied linguistics (AL) articles published in 18 top-tier journals from 2009 to 2018 and analyzed their methodological orientations and scientific collaboration. Considering that the number of co-authored papers outweighs single-authored counterparts, our results revealed that the overall degree of collaboration for AL journals was moderate-to-high (57.7%). In particular, quantitative studies contained the highest degree of collaboration (66.8%). This was followed by systematic reviews (60.9%), and mixed-methods approach (55.7%). Country-wise, our overall findings further indicated that the United States and the United Kingdom were the two main hubs of collaborative activities for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. While the USA was the top country in systematic reviews like all other research approaches, the UK was the fifth country in systematic reviews. As for collaborating authors, our findings demonstrated that the most influential quantitative researchers had collaborated on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and data mining. While the mixed-methods researchers had a tendency to collaborate on conceptual issues subscribing to the language testing and assessment strand, the most productive qualitative researchers had collaborated on L2 writing issues. Implications for applied linguistics research are further discussed.
... The cultural diversity characterizing international collaborations could foster a higher level of creativity in research development, affecting its quality and impact (Wagner et al., 2019). In fact, multiple studies have revealed that researchers who publish with international colleagues achieve greater visibility of their published research, which in turn benefits the number of citations obtained (Glänzel & Schubert, 2001;Gazni et al., 2012;Adams, 2013;Dusdal & Powell, 2021). ...
... In this respect, having shared, realistic and clear goals in a network, and promoting interdisciplinary communication to better understand different research works and knowledge are important factors that influence collaborations (Hückstadt, 2023). In particular, social capital's most relevant effect appears in the STEM model, which fits the publication pattern in these areas that traditionally display higher coauthorship levels (Gazni et al., 2012). ...
International research collaboration is a crucial determinant of scientific productivity, but it remains an underdeveloped task for governments, universities and research systems. Despite important economic and institutional efforts to promote collaborations, not all researchers establish successful international connections during their academic careers. This lack of international contacts hinders knowledge transfer from a broader perspective, limiting, in a way, the advancement of science. This paper analyses these factors—individual and collective—affecting research collaboration in the international context through a hierarchical multiple regression analysis of a sample of 954 Spanish academic researchers. We found that collective factors such as research team social capital—including structural and cognitive dimensions—and team orientation toward research and team productivity clearly affect international collaboration levels. Furthermore, contrary to our expectations, researchers’ human capital and motivation, and the principal investigator’s knowledge-oriented leadership, exerted only a very weak effect, which also is discussed in the paper’s final section.
... Third, research impact and citation indexes motivate academics to publish internationally, especially in English-language journals (Guerrero Bote et al., 2013). However, international academic collaboration varies by field, with social sciences exhibiting less international research collaboration compared to STEM fields (Gazni et al., 2012;Parish et al., 2018). A faculty member's characteristics, such as language, cultural background, social connections, personality, or even whether working on a border campus (Katz & Martin, 1997;van Rijnsoever et al., 2008), shape and are shaped by the stratified nature of the higher education systems in both countries (Marginson, 2016). ...
... International academic collaborations vary by field and discipline of study (Gazni et al., 2012;Parish et al., 2018). This prompted our interest in investigating whether diasporic academic collaboration in STEM fields reflect different drivers or hindrances of collaboration compared to the experiences shared by faculty members in non-STEM disciplines. ...
We offer insights into the factors impacting faculty-led academic/research collaborations between Mexican scholars employed in the USA and their Mexican colleagues working in Mexico. Founded on the idea that diasporic relationships include people involved in cross-border migrations yet maintaining ties with their homeland, we are referring to these faculty-led collaborations as diasporic. To offer nuanced understandings, data analyzed were obtained from 25 semi-structured interviews exploring collaboration in different professional, institutional, disciplinary, and regional contexts. Relying on Network Analysis of Qualitative Data, we were able to identify the most relevant drivers (e.g., personal relationships, common research interests, and cross-cultural understandings) and deterrents (e.g., political and legal challenges and institutional contexts) of diasporic collaborations influenced by institutional, national, and sociopolitical power dynamics. Our use of diasporic academic collaborations is intended to transcend this study; that is, although our analytic sample is comprised by diasporic Mexican academics, we argue that similar barriers and drivers may apply to academics from other countries who may be interested in participating in diasporic academic collaborations. Accordingly, we invite other researchers to expand this understudied research topic by providing access to our interview protocols and the detailed list of codes used to apply Network Analysis of Qualitative Data.
... That is, most contemporary articles indexed in Web of Science acknowledge external funding. Given the rise in international collaboration during this same period 39,40 , and increased investments in multi-country infrastructures (e.g., the Large Hadron Collider) 41 , one might expect that we would observe a concomitant rise in internationally co-funded articles. This, however, is not the case: only about 10% of publications acknowledge funding from multiple countries and the proportion has remained relatively stable over the last five years (see Fig. 1a). ...
... 40 . This result roughly comparable to the results of Álvarez-Bornstein, who found the rate of missing information from acknowledgement in WoS is quite low that funding information was entirely lost (neither the funder nor the grant number is collected) in 7.1% of sampled articles and is partially lost (only the funder or the grant number is collected) in 5.8% of sampled articles 39 . Wang and Shapira find that the likelihood of misreporting funding information in WoS is relative low for nanotechnology; only one paper is found to incorrectly index the funding field from funding acknowledgement among the 150 sampled publications 30 . ...
Research and development investments are key to scientific and economic development and to the well-being of society. Because scientific research demands significant resources, national scientific investment is a crucial driver of scientific production. As scientific production becomes increasingly multinational, it is critically important to study how nations' scientific activities are funded both domestically and internationally. By tracing research grants acknowledged in scholarly publications, our study reveals a duopoly of China and the United States in the global funding landscape, with a contrasting funding pattern; while China has surpassed the United States both in acknowledged domestic and international funding with its strong funding activity for the Chinese institutions, the United States largely maintains its place as the most important research partner for most countries. Our results also highlight the precarity of low- and middle-income countries to global funding disruptions. By revealing the complex interdependence and collaboration between countries in the global scientific enterprise, our study informs future studies investigating the national and global scientific enterprise and how funding leads to both productive cooperation and dependencies.
... The multiplication and densification of these networks can also be seen by the fact that the average number of co-authors per article has doubled in the last forty years and that the average distance between the location of co-authors has increased (Olechnicka et al., 2018). The documentation suggest that international collaborations contribute to the number of papers (Gazni et al., 2012) and citations (Glänzel & Schubert, 2001). The internationalization of research has also increasingly become a field of strategic intervention (Lee & Haupt, 2019) as governments and higher education institutions (HEIs) increasingly promote international collaborations and partnerships to enhance productivity, research impact, and countries' knowledge diplomacy (Barbosa & Neves, 2020). ...
... Similarly, when the five countries under study are taken together, academics who report that their institution expects them to publish internationally are 1.31 times more likely to collaborate with international colleagues, 1.16 times more likely to characterize their research as "international" in scope or orientation and count a greater proportion of internationally co-authored publications. Studies have shown that universities -and especially research-intensive institutions -put pressure on academics to publish in internationally recognized journals (Xu et al., 2021), for which one strategy is to collaborate with international colleagues (Gazni et al., 2012). The proportion of research funding from international agencies is statistically significantly related to the three DVs, but the effect size is very small. ...
This study analyses the most striking characteristics of academics with international educational and research experiences, and their engagement in teaching, research, and governance in Argentina, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, and Russia. Drawing on findings from the international database of the APIKS project, the study depicts an overview of a portrait of key characteristics of academics from various backgrounds with international educational and research experiences in the seven case countries. Further, the comparative study suggests that more differences and fewer similarities were confirmed in their engagement in teaching, research, and governance between the seven case countries. Finally, the study suggests that not only were the similarities and differences in these aspects identified based on the cross-country analysis in a more comprehensive way, but also, more details of these aspects were analysed and classified into patterns among the seven case countries in terms of both academic rank/generation and disciplines.KeywordsInternationally mobile academicsComparative studyAPIKS projectInternationalisation of the academy
... The multiplication and densification of these networks can also be seen by the fact that the average number of co-authors per article has doubled in the last forty years and that the average distance between the location of co-authors has increased (Olechnicka et al., 2018). The documentation suggest that international collaborations contribute to the number of papers (Gazni et al., 2012) and citations (Glänzel & Schubert, 2001). The internationalization of research has also increasingly become a field of strategic intervention (Lee & Haupt, 2019) as governments and higher education institutions (HEIs) increasingly promote international collaborations and partnerships to enhance productivity, research impact, and countries' knowledge diplomacy (Barbosa & Neves, 2020). ...
... Similarly, when the five countries under study are taken together, academics who report that their institution expects them to publish internationally are 1.31 times more likely to collaborate with international colleagues, 1.16 times more likely to characterize their research as "international" in scope or orientation and count a greater proportion of internationally co-authored publications. Studies have shown that universities -and especially research-intensive institutions -put pressure on academics to publish in internationally recognized journals (Xu et al., 2021), for which one strategy is to collaborate with international colleagues (Gazni et al., 2012). The proportion of research funding from international agencies is statistically significantly related to the three DVs, but the effect size is very small. ...
Internationalization is often depicted as an instrument for disseminating educational values and practices of hegemonic powers for cultural influence and domination. Core countries in the “Global North” dictate what counts as knowledge creation and feed dependencies with semi-periphery countries, most in the “Global South.” This divide creates global higher education hubs that distinguish systems at the core from those at the periphery. One of the mechanisms through which this divide solidifies is the training of future researchers. This chapter examines data from the perspectives of 5340 faculty members in Chile, Malaysia, and Turkey, three semi-periphery countries. We first ask to what extent do universities employ faculty with PhD training in core countries. We then test whether faculty’s perspectives on internationalization differ between those trained in core systems and those trained elsewhere. Second, we explore differences in terms of time allocation, preferences, and overall satisfaction. In general, results indicate that differences across countries are more significant than those among faculty members, and all faculty members feel a strong pressure for publishing abroad. However, those trained in core countries collaborate more with colleagues abroad, are slightly more critical about internationalization resources at their institutions, and allocate more time to external activities.KeywordsSemi-periphery countriesInternational orientationsFaculty perceptionsDoctoral educationInternational comparative
... 3 ha sido el aumento significativo de publicaciones en revistas científicas (Gazni et al., 2012;Larivière et al., 2014;Larivière et al., 2016), lo que ha propiciado una mayor disponibilidad de conocimiento de múltiples áreas y temáticas en la actual sociedad de la información. ...
El aumento de artículos científicos a nivel mundial, particularmente, en el campo de la educación geográfica, ha sido constante durante el siglo XXI. En Latinoamérica, este incremento se caracteriza por seguir un modelo de acceso abierto total conocido como diamante. Sin embargo, acceso abierto total no es sinónimo de accesibilidad, en tanto localizar artículos científicos en educación geográfica en la región resulta complejo, por la dispersión de las revistas en Internet y la falta de un sistema de consulta unificado y efectivo de artículos científicos en el campo. Por tanto, el presente artículo muestra los resultados de la creación de un geovisualizador y sistema de consulta de investigación en educación geográfica latinoamericana del siglo XXI. El estudio describe el proceso para la construcción del geovisualizador, así como el procedimiento bajo el cual se pueden hacer consultas espacio-temporales cruzando información de 2335 artículos del año 2000 al 2022, tomando como referencia año de publicación, temas de investigación y palabras clave, así como el enlace directo a las revistas para su consulta. Se espera que el geovisualizador se convierta en una herramienta de difusión del conocimiento académico sobre educación geográfica y un soporte a procesos de investigación en la región.
... In the example use case that we present here, we connect World Bank data as a global economic dataset to Dimensions as a scientometric dataset on a country level using ISO country coding as our gateway. Our use case is not novel in scope as many other authors have carried out similar studies, see for example (Gazni et al., 2012;Chetwood et al., 2015), but the methodology that we introduce is. We believe that it demonstrates the potential to perform sophisticated analyses with great speed and opens up this possibility to many at low cost through the use of Cloudbased infrastructures, and as such represents an opportunity to improve the application of bibliometric and scientometric analysis in a much broader range of policy areas. ...
This e-book presents a collection of articles hand-picked by editors from publications in Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics between 2020 and 2024.
... International connections work as major channels or 'global pipelines' that increase knowledge production (Singh et al., 2016). It has been shown that the lack of connectivity to the outside world is a reason to fall into lock-in non-innovative development paths (Gazni et al., 2012;Miguelez et al., 2019) We now consider the inclusion of two relevant network indicators of the patentees influencing the likelihood of transitioning 17 : − 'Degree'. As stated in Section 3.3, in networks driven by preferential attachment the nodes with higher connections are more likely to make new links than those with lower degrees. ...
... Co-authorship networking between academic and industrial researchers represents one of the most verifiable and concrete manifestations of cross-sector scientific collaboration [10]. A substantial body of literature has demonstrated that such collaborative efforts tend to yield higher scientific impact and are associated with more frequent knowledge exchange, ultimately enhancing researcher productivity [11][12][13][14][15]. As a specialized form of co-authorship, IAC serves as a pivotal source of novel knowledge production technological advancement and a driving force behind regional economic growth and innovation competitiveness. ...
This investigation delves into the evolving patterns and regional variances in industry-academia collaboration (IAC) within Functional Nucleic Acids (FNAs) research. Analyzing publications and patents from 1990 to 2021, we dissected IAC at individual and collective levels, documenting the count and share of IAC endeavors, key partners, and regional differences. Results indicate a rising trend in IAC publications and collaborating institutions, while patent trends display a mix of increases, decreases, and steady states. The United States leads in IAC activities, correlating with its prowess in scientific research and technological innovation. Notably, regional discrepancies in IAC are mainly due to intra-regional variations, with Asia and Europe experiencing the most pronounced disparities.
... Institutional collaboration network analysis effectively demonstrates collaboration patterns among research institutions, revealing the network structure and predicting collaboration trends [64]. The NetworkX function library in Python was utilized with the Louvain algorithm to detect and identify nodes, grouping them into graphs that represent collaboration clusters. ...
The process of urbanization has accelerated economic growth while also presenting social challenges. Urban renewal is crucial for achieving sustainable urban development, especially by preserving traditional villages as cultural heritage sites within cities. This study employs Python algorithm programming and visual analysis functions to conduct a bibliometric analysis of 408 research papers on the preservation of traditional village cultural heritage in urban renewal from 1999 to 2023 in the Web of Science core database. The objective is to examine the historical background, current status, and future trends in this area. The analysis explores cooperation networks, co-citation relationships, co-occurrence patterns, and emerging characteristics of research on traditional village cultural heritage protection in urban renewal. It focuses on various aspects, such as authors, institutions, countries, journals, documents, and keywords. The results indicate that the study of traditional village cultural heritage protection in urban renewal can be divided into three developmental stages. "Sustainable development", "cultural heritage", "historic urban landscapes", and "rural revitalization" are the research hotspots and future trends in this field. The results of this study provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of research hotspots in this field and can help researchers willing to work in this research area quickly understand the research frontiers and the general situation.
... Institutional collaboration network analysis effectively demonstrates collaboration patterns among research institutions, revealing the network structure and predicting collaboration trends [64]. The NetworkX function library in Python was utilized with the Louvain algorithm to detect and identify nodes, grouping them into graphs that represent collaboration clusters. ...
The process of urbanization has accelerated economic growth while also presenting social challenges. Urban renewal is crucial for achieving sustainable urban development, especially by preserving traditional villages as cultural heritage sites within cities. This study employs Python algorithm programming and visual analysis functions to conduct a bibliometric analysis of 408 research papers on the preservation of traditional village cultural heritage in urban renewal from 1999 to 2023 in the Web of Science core database. The objective is to examine the historical background, current status, and future trends in this area. The analysis explores cooperation networks, co-citation relationships, co-occurrence patterns, and emerging characteristics of research on traditional village cultural heritage protection in urban renewal. It focuses on various aspects, such as authors, institutions, countries, journals, documents, and keywords. The results indicate that the study of traditional village cultural heritage protection in urban renewal can be divided into three developmental stages. “Sustainable development”, “cultural heritage”, “historic urban landscapes”, and “rural revitalization” are the research hotspots and future trends in this field. The results of this study provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of research hotspots in this field and can help researchers willing to work in this research area quickly understand the research frontiers and the general situation.
... Se realizó un mapeo científico basado en un análisis bibliométrico para documentar y resumir las características de los conocimientos base sobre los Estudios Organizacionales a nivel global. El mapeo científico, a diferencia de métodos de revisión como los meta análisis o la síntesis de investigación, no se enfoca en la integración de resultados sustantivos de un cuerpo de conocimiento (Gazni et al, 2012;Aria y Cuccurullo, 2017). En lugar de eso, busca describir la evolución, composición y estructura intelectual de una temática específica. ...
Organizational studies allow us to analyze and understand the functioning of organizations, generate knowledge and improve their management and performance, from perspectives different from the classic ones with which the organizational phenomenon has been analyzed in a traditional way; These perspectives invite a critical look at this phenomenon. However, it is relevant to evaluate its potential to provide theories, models and tools that help advance the field of management and improve the effectiveness and sustainability of organizations. To date, no review has been identified in Scopus that synthesizes the literature on organizational studies from a bibliometric analysis, by doing so, this article provides a basis for researchers in organizational studies to learn about various future lines of research. The objective of this document is to review scientific documents published in Scopus(r) on organizational studies, to propose a structure of published scientific knowledge, so that different future lines of research are offered. 1091 documents were found that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the database that were processed with Bibliometrix, VosViewer and ToS. The main lines of research identified were: a) Leadership and management of organizational change; b) Changing, diverse and inclusive work environments; c) Legitimation, sustainability and organizational responsibility.
... In this study, we aimed to explore the relative strength of countries in their global context, which led us to choose size-independent measurements. Within this group of size-independent measurements, two different approaches emerged: bilateral similarity measures, and multilateral similarity measures as follows: "A study of collaboration in laser science and technology" [19] International Collaboration Index "Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries" [20] Number of international publications "Impact analysis of domestic and international research collaborations: a Malaysian case study" [21] Internationality index "A bibliometric analysis of lab-on-a-chip research from 2001 to 2013" [22] The second approach is bilateral similarity measures [7,8,13,29,30]. In this approach, the observed bilateral RC numbers are adjusted by the total RC numbers of the two countries involved. ...
Although previous studies of today’s globalised and competitive research landscape have mentioned the research collaborations of CANZUK countries (i.e., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), none have yet studied them in detail. Further, such studies have used different measures of international research collaboration (IRC), resulting in disparate findings. This paper, therefore, analyses the strengths of CANZUK research collaborations, how those collaborations have changed over time, and assesses the effect of three ways of measures on the results (absolute strength, bilateral similarity, and multilateral similarity). We provide a detailed characterisation of the CANZUK research network and its relationships with partner countries, which reveals that the most collaborative CANZUK countries are the UK and Australia, among other findings. We also confirm that many findings differ depending on which measures are used. We offer an explanation of this difference with reference to the nature of the measures (i.e., what they really measure) and make suggestions for suitable measures in future studies depending on their purpose. Finally, we discuss how this study’s findings can be used by research policy makers (in CANZUK and elsewhere) in deciding on research strategy and by researchers in appropriately measuring IRC.
... Una definición amplia de la colaboración en la investigación se puede entender como "trabajar en estrecha colaboración con otros para producir nuevos conocimientos, o para desarrollar o aplicar los conocimientos existentes" [Woolley, Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Turpin & Marceau, 2014, p. 6 La colaboración internacional para la investigación científica se está convirtiendo en una fuerza clave en la ciencia de vanguardia, y para la producción de una gran cantidad de resultados de alta calidad en la investigación [Gui, Liu & Du, 2019]. Los beneficios y las ventajas de la colaboración en la investigación incluyen: compartir y transferir conocimientos, equipamiento, consolidar capital nacional e internacional, conectar a los académicos con una amplia red científica, acelerar el proceso de investigación, complementar sus capacidades para la obtención de resultados de investigación de mayor calidad e impacto, y aumentar la visibilidad y el prestigio de los artículos [Gazni, Sugimoto & Didegah, 2011;Sebastián, 2019]. El grado en que los gobiernos solicitan asesoramiento científico, y los medios por los cuales lo realizan, varían considerablemente [Hutchings & Stenseth, 2016]. ...
Este artículo presenta la experiencia de trabajo colaborativo e interdisciplinario entre científicos y comunicadores, en el marco de la Red de Investigación de Estresores Marinos — Costeros en Latinoamérica y el Caribe (REMARCO), creada en el año 2018. Se reflexiona acerca de las acciones logradas desde su creación, y la dinámica establecida entre el grupo científico y el de comunicación. Se concluye que el trabajo colaborativo ha permitido que los científicos aprendan a realizar divulgación de los resultados de sus investigaciones, mientras los comunicadores adquieren conocimientos técnicos sobre la problemática de los estresores marino-costeros, logrando sinergias en beneficio de la divulgación científica; con puntos de mejora que deberán ser solventados en el futuro próximo.
... Law is perhaps an extreme example, with each country having different legal frameworks. This may be partly why international research collaboration is greater in the natural sciences than the social sciences, and rare in the humanities (Lariviere et al., 2006;Gazni et al., 2012). ...
International collaboration is sometimes encouraged in the belief that it generates higher quality research or is more capable of addressing societal problems. Nevertheless, while there is evidence that the journal articles of international teams tend to be more cited than average, perhaps from increased international audiences, there is no science‐wide direct academic evidence of a connection between international collaboration and research quality. This article empirically investigates the connection between international collaboration and research quality for the first time, with 148,977 UK‐based journal articles with post publication expert review scores from the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF). Using an ordinal regression model controlling for collaboration, international partners increased the odds of higher quality scores in 27 out of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) and all Main Panels. The results therefore give the first large scale evidence of the fields in which international co‐authorship for articles is usually apparently beneficial. At the country level, the results suggests that UK collaboration with other high research‐expenditure economies generates higher quality research, even when the countries produce lower citation impact journal articles than the United Kingdom. Worryingly, collaborations with lower research‐expenditure economies tend to be judged lower quality, possibly through misunderstanding Global South research goals.
... El avance tecnológico que generan las empresas es de vital importancia para evidenciar su competitividad; muchas veces la madurez tecnológica determina su éxito, continuidad o supervivencia. El avance tecnológico y el fortalecimiento de las capacidades de innovación en las empresas constituyen uno de los elementos más importantes en el incremento de la innovación de un país [Tejinder, 2010;Gazni et al., 2012]. ...
Las remesas que los participantes, de la Region de Atlacomulco- México, en el PTAT envían a México son destinadas a la apertura o capitalización de micronegocios y son factor de crecimiento en la propensión a invertir. Los migrantes declaran que no
hubiera sido posible realizar estas inversiones sin el ingreso conseguido
en Canadá. También, la ganancia anual de quienes tienen
negocios agrícolas en México es potencialmente un medio para incrementar
la propensión a invertir. Sin embargo, aquellos migrantes que ya tienen
algún negocio en México muestran una propensión negativa a invertir
las remesas en negocios. Esto puede ser interpretado como que llegaron
al umbral de sus expectativas de inversión, reduciendo sus restricciones
de liquidez y decidiendo gastar las remesas en bienes de consumo duradero
y no duradero, y dejando que el flujo de capital del negocio sea el
factor de reinversión.
... This hinders purposeful reading. Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity in armed situations ( Gazni A, Sugimoto CR, and Didegah F , 2012) Human trafficking charges, particularly in organized crime syndicates, are not excluded by "widespread or systematic." The ICC tries to destroy criminal network leaders. ...
Human trafficking crimes threaten societies' security and stability. They also hinder social growth and harm economic, social, and security institutions. These crimes also confront global security agencies, pushing the international community to fight them. By establishing accords and conventions to address slavery and enslavement, one of the most disgraceful global afflictions and a grave infringement on human rights, including the trafficking, sale, and exploitation of individuals, sometimes called transnational organized crime, Unfortunately, every country is vulnerable to humanitarian violations. through Crossing borders takes many forms. There is also a lack of accurate statistical data and thorough information on human trafficking, especially for women and children. in the light of the lack of agreement on basic assessments, data, and indications of the volume and geographic distribution of different kinds of trafficking makes tackling this problem difficult. A crime cannot be called a "phenomenon" without specifying its scope. also, the victims' ambition for quick and large financial gain drives them into trouble. Organized crime syndicates exploit this tendency, coupled with poverty, unemployment, military conflicts, and natural disasters. Family disintegration, population growth, slums, globalization, the Internet, and an environment of culture that exploits people, especially vulnerable groups, contribute to perceiving them as a commodity that can generate income. Human trafficking victims face security, economic, social, political, psychological, and health risks. Some of these effects may be lethal. The victim's broke immigration and employment rules, as well as fraud, forgery, bribery, smuggling, and rape. Thus, this crime may exceed traditional criminality by including a variety of interrelated violations that result in inhumane deeds. Technology serves as a catalyst for the amplification of trafficking operations, facilitating the widespread commercialization and exploitation of victims. Victims are subject to recurrent exploitation when perpetrators reproduce identical advertisements and engage in live-streaming activities across various platforms, with the intention of maximizing their reach and financial gains. Technology has also contributed to reducing the barriers for individuals involved in human trafficking. In the past, criminal organizations would have had to establish physical control and dominance over specific urban areas, typically relying on a large network of members. However, newcomers to the human trafficking industry can now effectively operate an online business without the necessity of a physical criminal infrastructure and with a smaller workforce. Consequently, the acquisition of technological expertise may enhance the potency of a criminal organization while also rendering it more elusive to law enforcement entities. So the paper will clarify the challenges of these serious crimes in all their forms (traditional and modern) and the weakness of international, rigorous cooperation in confrontation and its negative impacts on international society as a whole.
... In addition, more and more scholars collaborate across institutions, disciplines, and country boundaries (Elsevier, 2017;Gazni et al., 2012;Larivière et al., 2015;Leahey, 2016); those who do tend to produce publications with higher average impact (Adams, 2013;Abramo et al., 2019a;Chinchilla-Rodriguez et al., 2018) and exhibit higher productivity (Barjak & Robinson, 2008). Collaborations by women are more likely to be domestic than are collaborations by men (Abramo et al., 2013;Larivière et al., 2013;Zippel, 2017). ...
Global and team science approaches are on the rise, as is attention to the network underpinnings of gender disparities in scientific collaboration. Many network studies of men’s and women’s collaboration rely on bounded case studies of single disciplines and/or single countries and limited measures related to the collaborative process. We deploy network analysis on the scholarly database Scopus to gain insight into gender inequity across regions and subject areas and to better understand contextual underpinnings of stagnancy. Using a dataset of over 1.2 million authors and 144 million collaborative relationships, we capture international and unbounded co-authorship networks that include intra- and inter-disciplinary co-authorship ties across time (2009–2013). We describe how gender informs structural features and status differences in network relationships, focusing on men and women authors in 16 region-subject pairs. We pay particular attention to how connected authors are (first- and second-order degree centrality), attributes of authors’ collaborative relationships (including the “quality” and other characteristics of these ties), tendencies towards gender homophily (proportion of same-gender ties), and the nature of men’s and women’s interdisciplinary and international reach. Men have more advantageous first-order connections, yet second-order collaborative profiles look more similar. Men and women exhibit homophilous attachment to authors of the same gender, consistent over time. There is notable variation in the level of gender disparity within subjects across countries. We discuss this variation in the context of global trends in men’s and women’s scientific participation and cultural- and country-level influences on the organization and production of science.
... 3 ha sido el aumento significativo de publicaciones en revistas científicas (Gazni et al., 2012;Larivière et al., 2014;Larivière et al., 2016), lo que ha propiciado una mayor disponibilidad de conocimiento de múltiples áreas y temáticas en la actual sociedad de la información. ...
El aumento de artículos científicos a nivel mundial, particularmente, en el campo de la educación geográfica, ha sido constante durante el siglo XXI. En Latinoamérica, este incremento se caracteriza por seguir un modelo de acceso abierto total conocido como diamante. Sin embargo, acceso abierto total no es sinónimo de accesibilidad, en tanto localizar artículos científicos en educación geográfica en la región resulta complejo, por la dispersión de las revistas en Internet y la falta de un sistema de consulta unificado y efectivo de artículos científicos en el campo. Por tanto, el presente artículo muestra los resultados de la creación de un geovisualizador y sistema de consulta de investigación en educación geográfica latinoamericana del siglo XXI. El estudio describe el proceso para la construcción del geovisualizador, así como el procedimiento bajo el cual se pueden hacer consultas espacio-temporales cruzando información de 2335 artículos del año 2000 al 2022, tomando como referencia año de publicación, temas de investigación y palabras clave, así como el enlace directo a las revistas para su consulta. Se espera que el geovisualizador se convierta en una herramienta de difusión del conocimiento académico sobre educación geográfica y un soporte a procesos de investigación en la región.
... Vgl. Adams, Pendlebury, Potter & Szomszor (2019);Gazni, Sugimoto, Cassidy & Didegah (2012). ...
... Studies of scientific cooperation between authors of scientific articles mainly focus on the international level. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Much less is known about intercontinental scientific cooperation. In the Web of Science database, 11 we were able to identify only two articles 12,13 dealing with this topic. ...
Scientific cooperation on an international level has been well studied in the literature. However, much less is known about this cooperation on an intercontinental level. In this paper, we address this issue by creating a collection of approximately 13.8×106 publications around the papers by one of the highly cited authors working in complex networks and their applications. The obtained rank-frequency distribution of the probability of sequences describing continents and the number of countries—with which authors of papers are affiliated—follows the power law with an exponent −1.9108(15). Such dependence is known in the literature as Zipf’s law, and it has been originally observed in linguistics; later, it turned out that it is very commonly observed in various fields. The number of distinct “continent (number of countries)” sequences in a function of the number of analyzed papers grows according to power law with exponent 0.527(14); i.e., it follows Heap’s law.
... International collaboration: The study showed that only 8.90% of the total research papers from the ICAR ASRIs were published in collaboration with other countries. India is one of the countries with less (<20%) international collaborative papers (Gazni et al. 2012). The top collaborating countries with India are USA (3.13%; 417 papers) followed by Germany, Japan, and England (Supplementary Table 5). ...
In the current study we have undertaken the scientometric analysis to map research publications from 19 different animal science research institutions under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), for a period of two decades (1998 to 2020), using the Web of Science (WoS) platform of Clarivate Analytics. We analyzed different scientometric parameters like year-wise citation records, institute-wise publication output, authorship pattern, publication types, top collaborating countries, research areas and journals, and relative growth rate and doubling time. Current analysis revealed that the maximum number of research articles were published in 2017 and ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute contributed to the highest number of research papers and citations during thestudy period. Multi-authorship papers were significantly higher than single and double-authored papers. The study showed that in the field of animal sciences, the USA is the top collaborator with India resulting in 417 collaborative research papers. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences carried the maximum number of research papers published by researchers from ICAR-Animal Science Research Institutes (ASRI) during 1998-2020. Relative Growth Rate (RGR) showed a decreasing trend in research publications while the doubling time increased during this period. The paper provides a comprehensive account of the research trends in animal sciences research and also insights for strengthening research focus in India.
... [8][9][10][11] Furthermore, assigning authorship without any intellectual contribution continues to grow. [3,11,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]20] The increasing concern of unfair authorship assignment parallels the ever-growing number of Multi-Authored Papers (MAP) involving collaborative research [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] as well as team research. [6,7] Nevertheless, declaration of contribution such as those recommended by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [33] and proposed by Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) [11] are among the commonly used sources to declare author contributions for Intellectual Activities (IA) involved in the production of a paper. ...
... Research collaboration refers to research activities that involve collaborations on various levels such as researchers, academic institutions, public institutions, and/or industrial institutions, each bringing distinct expertise to the conducted research (Rensburg et al., 2015;Sonnenwald, 2007). Research collaboration is of utmost importance for the quality of research and has received immense attention from policymakers in the last decades (Cummings & Kiesler, 2007;He et al., 2009;Gazni et al., 2012;Zhai et al., 2014). This is due to the potential benefits of research collaboration as it helps to expand expertise, utilize resources more efficiently, enable interdisciplinary knowledge creation, and lead to more funding opportunities (Bikard et al., 2015;Finardi, 2015;Bukvova, 2010). ...
Bibliometric studies are increasingly employed for research assessment by using statistical methods to analyze scientific outputs and impacts. The main objective of this study is to investigate the research performance of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) with a focus on KSA’s most productive universities. The study describes the research profile of KSA in terms of productivity, scientific impact, and collaboration dimensions. We evaluated the scientific activities of KSA from the period 2011 to 2020 and identified the most productive universities by considering the average national production, analyzing data year by year and identifying research trends. In addition, we examined and compared different collaboration patterns in KSA to understand researchers’ directions and interests in possible national areas of research going forward. The implication of our study is to provide evidence-based highlights (empirical pieces of evidence) to researchers and policymakers through our analyses of research in KSA.
... Studies showed in the past have examined how coauthorship is related to different factors.13,[22][23][24][25] According to research findings, most articles are written by groups of researchers. ...
Background and Aim
Scientific collaborations play a vital role in advancing research in various disciplines, including medical informatics, health information management, medical librarianship, and information sciences. This study aims to provide an overview of Iranian researchers' scientific output in three disciplines and their collaboration networks.
Methods
The study utilized data from Scopus database and analyzed 2086 records of Iranian researchers' research outcomes over 10 years. Each article's citations were averaged to determine its impact factor. The study also reviewed the number of articles and citations in the past decade.
Results
The findings show that scientific output in the disciplines of medical informatics, health information management, medical librarianship, and information sciences has significantly increased among Iranian researchers in the past decade. The analysis of collaboration networks indicates a strong connection between these disciplines, with medical informatics having the highest degree of collaboration.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the scientific collaborations among Iranian researchers in medical informatics, health information management, medical librarianship, and information sciences. The findings can be used to inform future research and collaboration initiatives in these disciplines. The results suggest that Iranian researchers in these disciplines have made significant progress in scientific output and collaboration. However, further efforts are required to improve the quality and impact of their research.
... An increase in the number of authors per publication is observed in recent years, likely due to collaboration alliances that can help reduce research expenses and publication costs, test complex hypotheses, or simply build scientific networks (Baethge 2008;Gazni et al. 2012;Abramo and D'Angelo 2015;Poulin and Presswell 2016). Classical descriptions tend to have one or two authors but with limited descriptions, while recent descriptions are more robust due to collaborations between researchers of different areas (Poulin and Presswell 2016;Guerra et al. 2018) and publications appearing in higher-ranked journals (Abramo and D'Angelo 2015). ...
... The role of collaboration in skill alignment may also explain the disciplinary differences observed in our study, where Social Sciences, Humanities, Mathematics, and Computer Science show systematically lower levels of skill alignment. These disciplines traditionally have lower collaboration rates than the Natural Sciences or Engineering 41 . ...
Scientific institutions play a crucial role in driving intellectual, social, and technological progress. Their capacity to innovate depends mainly on their ability to attract, retain, and nurture scientific talent and ultimately make it available to other organizations, industries, or the economy. As researchers change institutions during their careers, their skills are also transferred. The extent and mechanisms by which academic institutions manage their internal portfolio of scientific skills by attracting and sending researchers are far from being understood. We examine 25 million publication histories of 9.2 million scientists extracted from a large-scale bibliographic database covering thousands of research institutions worldwide to understand how the skills of mobile scientists align with those present in-house. We find a clear association between top-ranked institutions and greater skill alignment, i.e., the degree to which skills of incoming academics match those of their colleagues at the institution. We uncover similar high-alignment for scientists leaving top-ranked institutions. This type of academic alignment is more pronounced in engineering and life, health, earth, and physical sciences than in mathematics, computer science, social sciences, and the humanities. We show that over the past two decades, institutions generally have become more closely aligned in their overall skill profiles. We interpret these results in terms of levels of proactive management of the composition of the scientific workforce, diversity, and internal collaboration strategies at the institutional level.
... On the one hand, scientific collaborations involving the South remain an understudied field because scholars have been mainly interested in countries leading scientific production, which have been exclusively located in the North for a long time (Losego and Arvanitis 2008;Barré 2010;Arellano Hernández et al. 2012;Kervran et al. 2017). Work on North-South and South-South scientific collaborations is thus scarce and either falls under studies adhering to the theory of dependency or relying on bibliometric data based on co-authorship analysis, which, in either case, tells us little about Southern researchers' strategies when trying to secure funding for their projects (Katz and Martin 1997;Glä ser et al. 2002;Adams et al. 2005;Edler and Flanagan 2009;Ubfal and Maffioli 2011;Gazni et al. 2012;Leydesdorff et al. 2013;Chen et al. 2019). ...
North–South research funding dynamics have been progressively marked by the rise of project-based funding responding to agencies’ predefined research topics. Still, Southern researchers’ behaviour to cope with Northern agencies’ project frameworks remains an understudied question. This article addresses this gap by examining Southern applicants’ practices when preparing proposals for collaborative research for development projects in the social sciences, in particular their strategies to appropriate Northern donors’ frameworks. Findings single out that the appropriation process leads to the co-creation of a new cognitive framework accommodating both researchers’ and funders’ interests expressed in different agendas. This article also contributes to shedding light on Southern researchers’ active role in the face of asymmetric relationships. Finally, findings inform research management about the importance of defining relatively large frameworks that include applicants’ knowledge, competences, and contextual features to enhance local relevance while contributing to the policy debate on project-based funding impact on contemporary research.
... Quantitative studies of science have begun to examine N-S scientific collaborations at scale, using large scale bibliographic metadata available through, e.g., OpenAlex, Web of Science, and Microsoft Academic Graph, to investigate the implications for research capacity strengthening for southern scientists. Studies have focused on equity concerns in N-S scientific collaborations, such as the tendency for N-S collaborations in research on marine biodiversity to increase the "collaboration capital" of western scientists (i.e., scientists from high income nations) and not that of scientists from low or low to middle income nations (Tolochko and Vadrot, 2021) and documented uneven N-S collaboration practices like "helicopter science" (Gazni et al., 2012;Haelewaters et al., 2021). Likewise, Gomez et al. (2022) found less citation attention goes to southern publications (Khanna et al., 2022). ...
Collaborations between scientists from the global north and global south (N-S collaborations) are a key driver of the “fourth paradigm of science” and have proven crucial to addressing global crises like COVID-19 and climate change. However, despite their critical role, N-S collaborations on datasets are not well understood. Science of science studies tend to rely on publications and patents to examine N-S collaboration patterns. To this end, the rise of global crises requiring N-S collaborations to produce and share data presents an urgent need to understand the prevalence, dynamics, and political economy of N-S collaborations on research datasets. In this paper, we employ a mixed methods case study research approach to analyze the frequency of and division of labor in N-S collaborations on datasets submitted to GenBank over 29 years (1992–2021). We find: (1) there is a low representation of N-S collaborations over the 29-year period. When they do occur, N-S collaborations display “burstiness” patterns, suggesting that N-S collaborations on datasets are formed and maintained reactively in the wake of global health crises such as infectious disease outbreaks; (2) The division of labor between datasets and publications is disproportionate to the global south in the early years, but becomes more overlapping after 2003. An exception in the case of countries with lower S&T capacity but high income, where these countries have a higher prevalence on datasets (e.g., United Arab Emirates). We qualitatively inspect a sample of N-S dataset collaborations to identify leadership patterns in dataset and publication authorship. The findings lead us to argue there is a need to include N-S dataset collaborations in measures of research outputs to nuance the current models and assessment tools of equity in N-S collaborations. The paper contributes to the SGDs objectives to develop data-driven metrics that can inform scientific collaborations on research datasets.
... Bibliometric methods are becoming increasingly prevalent in examining research topics from diverse perspectives, such as collaborations, citations and more, to determine global rankings of scientific institutions (Ellegaard and Wallin, 2015;Gazni et al., 2012;Wallin, 2005). The use of bibliometrics is crucial for comprehending the strengths and limitations of a particular field (Bornmann et al., 2015;Zeinoun et al., 2020). ...
The study gauges the research performance of the BRICS bloc in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) research using Performance analysis and Science mapping. The Web of Science database is used for the study and articles published between 2013 and 2022 have been selected for analysis. Data analysis and visualisation have been done using the Bibliometrix R package and VOSviewer. The findings reveal an upward trend in publications. Furthermore, China has been the most prolific nation in terms of productivity and impact. Scientometrics is the leading source in terms of publications while the International Journal of Information Management is the most cited source. With regard to author productivity, Zhang Y has the highest number of publications while Lowry PB is the most cited author. Wuhan University is the most productive organization. In terms of collaboration, the USA is the primary partner for the entire BRICS group, particularly China and collaboration among the BRICS isn’t as significant as it is with the non-BRICS countries. This study provides insightful information about recent scientific developments in the field of LIS. Additionally, by using this research as a guide, researchers from different fields will be able to analyse how the body of knowledge on a certain subject has evolved over time. This study also outlines potential research directions in this field of research.
... Although some institutions are large enough to conduct both large-scale sampling programs and molecular analysis of the samples, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) of the United States, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/swfsc-strandingcollections (accessed on 9 April 2023), many sources agree that collaborations between institutions improve the quality of a stranding database, promote scientific advancement and aid the installment of effective conservation and management measures [5,62,63]. The New Zealand Cetacean Tissue Archive, https://mmeg.wordpress.fos.auckland.ac.nz (accessed on 9 April 2023), is an example of a collaborative program between institutions, which was established in 1991. ...
Cetacean strandings are regularly recorded along the coast of Chile. However, crucial information such as species and sex of the individuals involved in these events can often be difficult to assess. In this context, the use of molecular tools as a complementary method can improve a stranding database, particularly by correcting misidentifications and providing new data for unidentified samples. This new information is especially important in the case of species that are poorly known or of high conservation interest. In this study, we evaluate how molecular tools can support and complement the field work records of strandings in Chile by identifying, corroborating, or correcting the identification of the species and sex of the recorded individuals. We obtained samples through a collaboration with the government agency that is in charge of assisting with cetacean strandings and collected the relevant information. Multidisciplinary approaches like this, and inter-institutional collaborations, can improve the study of cetacean strandings and the decisions in management and conservation policies around them.
Abstract
Cetacean strandings are a valuable source of information for several studies from species richness to conservation and management. During the examination of strandings, taxonomic and sex identification might be hindered for several reasons. Molecular techniques are valuable tools to obtain that missing information. This study evaluates how gene fragment amplification protocols can support the records of strandings done in the field in Chile by identifying, corroborating, or correcting the identification of the species and sex of the recorded individuals. Through a collaboration between a scientific laboratory and government institution in Chile, 63 samples were analyzed. Thirty-nine samples were successfully identified to the species level. In total, 17 species of six families were detected, including six species of conservation interest. Of the 39 samples, 29 corresponded to corroborations of field identifications. Seven corresponded to unidentified samples and three to corrected misidentifications, adding up to 28% of the identified samples. Sex was successfully identified for 58 of the 63 individuals. Twenty were corroborations, 34 were previously unidentified, and four were corrections. Applying this method improves the stranding database of Chile and provides new data for future management and conservation tasks.
... Furthermore, underrepresentation of countries and human communities already disenfranchised and at greater risk for encountering infectious disease amplifies social inequity [7]. One caveat of our assessment is that publications from lower income or developing countries may not have been indexed in the publication data repositories accessed (i.e., Web of Science and PubMed) due to publication barriers such as language, publication fees, or lack of equitable partnerships or collaborative networks [65][66][67][68][69]. The potential misrepresentation of science from low-income countries highlights a possible equity issues within the dissemination of research which, in turn, could lead to the exclusion of relevant discoveries in the global health agenda [68][69][70]. ...
Background
Climate change presents an imminent threat to almost all biological systems across the globe. In recent years there have been a series of studies showing how changes in climate can impact infectious disease transmission. Many of these publications focus on simulations based on in silico data, shadowing empirical research based on field and laboratory data. A synthesis work of empirical climate change and infectious disease research is still lacking.
Methods
We conducted a systemic review of research from 2015 to 2020 period on climate change and infectious diseases to identify major trends and current gaps of research. Literature was sourced from Web of Science and PubMed literary repositories using a key word search, and was reviewed using a delineated inclusion criteria by a team of reviewers.
Results
Our review revealed that both taxonomic and geographic biases are present in climate and infectious disease research, specifically with regard to types of disease transmission and localities studied. Empirical investigations on vector-borne diseases associated with mosquitoes comprised the majority of research on the climate change and infectious disease literature. Furthermore, demographic trends in the institutions and individuals published revealed research bias towards research conducted across temperate, high-income countries. We also identified key trends in funding sources for most resent literature and a discrepancy in the gender identities of publishing authors which may reflect current systemic inequities in the scientific field.
Conclusions
Future research lines on climate change and infectious diseases should considered diseases of direct transmission (non-vector-borne) and more research effort in the tropics. Inclusion of local research in low- and middle-income countries was generally neglected. Research on climate change and infectious disease has failed to be socially inclusive, geographically balanced, and broad in terms of the disease systems studied, limiting our capacities to better understand the actual effects of climate change on health.
Graphical abstract
... Although the internationality should not be considered as quality per se, the wider national representation may bring the diversity of ideas and introduce benefits for the advancement of science. An analysis performed on 14,000,000 documents indexed in WoS [25] has shown extensive cooperation between developed Western countries, as well as the more collaborative attitude of the high-impact institutions. The distance between collaborating countries also matters and it is explored by emerging discipline called spatial scientometrics [26][27][28]. ...
The number of published scientific paper grows rapidly each year, totaling more than 2.9 million annually. New methodologies and systems have been developed to analyze scientific production and performance indicators from large quantities of data available from the scientific databases, such as Web of Science or Scopus. In this paper, we analyzed the international scientific production and co-authorship patterns for the most productive authors from Serbia based on the obtained Web of Science dataset in the period 2006–2013. We performed bibliometric and scientometric analyses together with statistical and collaboration network analysis, to reveal the causes of extraordinary publishing performance of some authors. For such authors, we found significant inequality in distribution of papers over journals and countries of co-authors, using Gini coefficient and Lorenz curves. Most of the papers belong to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and the field of applied sciences. We have discovered three specific collaboration patterns that lead to high productivity in international collaboration. First pattern corresponds to mega-authorship papers with hundreds of co-authors gathered in specific research groups. The other two collaboration patterns were found in mathematics and multidisciplinary science, mainly application of graph theory and computational methods in physical chemistry. The former pattern results in a star-shaped collaboration network with mostly individual collaborators. The latter pattern includes multiple actors with high betweenness centrality measure and identified brokerage roles. The results are compared with the later period 2014–2023, where high scientific production has been observed in some other fields, such as biology and food science and technology.
... Thus, the role of diverse individual, disciplinary, professional, and institutional characteristics should be considered. Also, since IRC often leads to an increased amount of scientific production (Abramo, D'Angelo, & Solazzi, 2011;Gazni, Sugimoto, & Didegah, 2011;Kwiek, 2020), identifying the factors significantly related to IRC appears critical for policymakers and institutional leaders in Turkish HE and similar country cases. ...
Globalizing forces in higher education put growing pressure on both institutions and academics worldwide to become engaged in international research collaboration (IRC). Similarly, in Türkiye, the recent governmental and institutional strategies have been ambitiously promoting academics’ endeavors toward IRC. This study examines factors influencing IRC in Turkish higher education based on academics’ attitudes and behaviors. We utilized relevant questions of an international research project and investigated the relationships between IRC and individual, professional, and institutional factors through a survey design. Our findings indicate that despite globalizing trends, a considerable proportion of the participant Turkish academics tend not to establish IRC. We also found that obtaining a doctoral degree abroad, holding higher academic titles, being employed in foundation universities, and orientation towards research that is multidisciplinary or international in scope are influential in establishing IRC. Based on national (i.e., Türkiye) developments and global trends in higher education and the academic profession, we discuss our findings and suggest measures and actions for policymakers and administrators.
Conducting an in-depth analysis of 235,746 research papers in the field of artificial intelligence spanning from 2001 to 2020, this study quantified the extent of research leadership in international collaborations by discerning the country of the corresponding author. To comprehensively investigate both endogenous and exogenous effects, we employed the Generalized Exponential Random Graph Model, an advanced methodology adept at characterizing network structures with real-valued edges. This research elucidates the pivotal role of intrinsic structural factors influenced by edge dependencies and evaluates their impact on research leadership in international collaborations. Specifically, our findings reveal a positive and significant effect of the mutual effect and the transitivity effect. Furthermore, language and geography no longer play a significant role in generating international research collaborations between two countries. Additionally, scientific productivity also holds an important position in generating research leadership. However, R&D expenditures no longer facilitate the establishment of leadership for international research collaboration.
This study presents a systematic review of the scientific and technological production related to the use of systems based on UV, H2O2, and Cl2 for the elimination of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and genes associated with antibiotic resistance (ARGs). Using the Pro Know-C (Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist) methodology, a portfolio was created and analyzed that includes 19 articles and 18 patents published between 2011 and 2022. The results show a greater scientific-technological production in UV irradiation systems (8 articles and 5 patents) and the binary combination UV/H2O2 (9 articles and 4 patents). It was emphasized that UV irradiation alone focuses mainly on the removal of ARB, while the addition of H2O2 or Cl2, either individually or in binary combinations with UV, enhances the removal of ARB and ARG. The need for further research on the UV/H2O2/Cl2 system is emphasized, as gaps in the scientific-technological production of this system (0 articles and 2 patents), especially in its electrochemically assisted implementation, have been identified. Despite the gaps identified, there are promising prospects for the use of combined electrochemically assisted UV/H2O2/Cl2 disinfection systems. This is demonstrated by the effective removal of a wide range of contaminants, including ARB, fungi, and viruses, as well as microorganisms resistant to conventional disinfectants, while reducing the formation of toxic by-products.
In 2023, the University of Jyväskylä conducted a comprehensive assessment of its research activities over the period from 2018 to 2022, with the faculties acting as the units of assessment. Independent institutes were included as a part of a faculty according to their discipline. The subjects of the assessment were the research environment, doctoral training and the societal impact of research conducted at the University of Jyväskylä. The primary goal of the assessment was to facilitate the development of the key preconditions for high-quality, high-impact research and doctoral training. One way to achieve this goal is to use the outcome of the assessment for the planning and strategy work of the units as well as that of the University. The assessment consisted of a self-assessment as well as an external assessment by an 11-person international multidisciplinary panel. To support the assessment, the units of assessment and the assessment panel were provided with background material that consisted of statistics on funding, research personnel, mobility, doctoral training, and publishing. In addition to statistical data on the units, the panel received the units’ self-assessment reports and research development plans. Development plans describe the actions each unit is taking to develop the areas for improvement they have identified. In May 2023, the assessment panel visited the University, where it met members of the units of assessment, the rector and the vice rectors, interviewed the research personnel and leadership of each unit, and visited research facilities. After the visit, the panel authored a joint report on each unit of assessment, where it gave constructive feedback on the units’ research development plans and assessed the units without giving a numerical rating or ranking them. The units received recommendations and ideas on how to further strengthen the quality of their research environments and doctoral training, as well as the societal impact of their research. The units used the feedback to finalize their research development plans. In addition to the unit-level recommendations, the panel pointed out overall challenges the University should address and provided suggestions for overcoming them. It suggested, among other measures, that the University review its tenure track system, reconsider moving some key administrative services back to the faculties, strengthen post-award support, develop a research leave scheme, and continue the JYU Visiting Fellow Programme. The panel also identified challenges the University should address to develop its well-functioning doctoral training. These challenges included the structure of the Graduate School, the number of doctoral students, and the sense of isolation experienced by some doctoral students. The panel saw that the potential for societal impact of research conducted at JYU could be boosted through, for example, training, support, and encouragement. For detailed feedback and recommendations, see Section 4 of the panel report. The final report presents the principles, process, and results of the assessment. The report contains summaries of the research development plans but not the complete plans and the self-assessment reports, as these are intended for internal use only.showless
ABSTRAK Penelitian dilakukan untuk mempelajari pola kepengarangan, kolaborasi penulis, dan memetakan artikel berdasarkan kata kunci pada Jurnal Ilmu Ternak dan Veteriner terbitan tahun 2010-2019. Analisis bibliometrik telah dilakukan untuk menentukan pola kepengarangan dan kolaborasi penulis. Pemetaan artikel dengan memanfaatkan kata kunci juga dilakukan dengan bantuan aplikasi VOSviewer. Hasil penelitian menemukan 313 artikel ilmiah dengan jumlah penulis sebanyak 1.107 orang. Pola kepengarangan didominasi oleh penulis ganda dengan persentase terbesar 32,88%, dimana artikel ilmiah ditulis oleh empat penulis dan indeks kolaborasi (CI) sebesar 0,9828. Pemetaan artikel dengan VOSviewer mengelompokkan artikel-artikel JITV berdasarkan kata kunci dalam 5 klaster. ABSTRACT A study has been conducted to study authorships pattern, author collaboration, and articles mapping based on keywords in Jurnal Ilmu Ternak dan Veteriner (JITV) for the 2010-2019 period. Bibliometric analysis has been carried out to determine the patterns of authorship and collaboration of authors. Articles mapping based on keywords has also been done with the VOSviewer application. The results revealed 313 scientific articles with 1,107 authors. The authorship pattern was dominated by multiple authors with the largest percentage 32.88% which scientific articles written by four authors, and collaboration index (CI) of 0.9828. Article mapping with VOSviewer application grouped JITV articles based on its keywords into 5 clusters.
In the context of the increasing global connectivity in science, this article investigates the internal heterogeneity of international research collaborations (IRCs). We focus on the prevalence of shared heritage collaborations and the rise of multiple institutional affiliations as a collaboration mechanism. An analytical typology of IRCs based on the characteristics of collaborating researchers' location and heritage is developed and empirically tested on the dataset of Russia's publications in 2015. We found that shared heritage IRC and IRC via multiple affiliations are the cornerstones of internationalization. Significant structural differences are revealed between conventional IRC and these nonconventional IRCs across fields of science, locations, visibility of international partners, and the sources of funding. These results contribute towards a better understanding of IRC as a complex, heterogeneous phenomenon, which encompasses a variety of arrangements for knowledge creation across borders. A more nuanced understanding of IRC is needed for smarter university strategy, metric development, and policymaking.
The increasing prevalence of large research teams in contemporary science has prompted an investigation into the trends of team size in library and information science (LIS). In this study, we analysed 103,299 LIS publications written by 129,560 unique authors between 2000 and 2020 sourced from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) data sets. We conducted a temporal analysis from multiple dimensions, including journal quartiles, research topics and researchers with varying impact levels. In addition, we employed two multivariate linear regression models – with and without author fixed effects – to scrutinise the relationship between team size and publication impact. Our findings reveal continuous growth in LIS team size. Notably, publications in higher-quartile journals tend to have larger teams; the team size of technical topic publications is generally larger than that of theoretical topic publications; and researchers with a higher h-index are able to assemble larger teams. Although we observed that co-authored papers have a higher average citation impact than single-authored papers, the overall positive impact of team expansion on citation growth is not always significant within the common LIS team size range (three to six authors). Our research suggests that indiscriminately increasing the size of a team may not be a prudent decision.
The phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross‐disciplinary, and large‐scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co‐corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co‐corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high‐quality journals usually have higher proportions of co‐corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.
The goal of the paper is to identify groups/clusters of countries with similar scientific collaboration “profiles” inside the group and to other groups of countries. The collaboration is described by co-authorship of a publication network that can be analyzed on the original co-authorship network. However, the network is dominated by large values in rows and columns of the most scientifically productive countries, which highly correlates with their sizes. This problem is especially relevant for countries with a big diversity such as post-Soviet countries. Normalization of the collaboration network allows making the countries’ collaboration comparable; therefore the question about its applicability and sensitivity to the collaboration structure is relevant. We analyze co-authorship networks of post-Soviet countries for the period 1993–2018. We use three types of network normalizations to make publication output of the countries comparable, namely affinity normalization, Jaccard normalization, and activity normalization. They provide different views on the scientific collaboration structure of the countries. We reveal the effect of the country size is the strongest when using the affinity normalization and it seems there is no countries ‘size effect for the activity normalization. Affinity normalizations reveal a big imbalance of collaboration between post-Soviet countries caused by their sizes. Russia has a great impact due to its size. Jaccard normalization reveals countries` collaboration is influenced by their neighborhood or by the size of national sciences. Activity normalization detects the research potential of a particular country. We also observe during the past twenty-five years the scientific collaboration has significantly changed, and the previously dominant position of Russia is decreasing. New groups of intense scientific collaboration have formed, affected by geographical neighborhood.
As scientific research is increasingly the product of international collaborations, this chapter aims at examining the relationship between international research collaboration practices and outcomes in Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, and Lithuania. Relying upon the theory of scientific and technical human capital, and proceeding to correlations and logistic and multiple regressions, findings suggest that collaboration practices and outcomes are correlated but the strength of the relationship is weak. Findings also point to the influence of degrees being obtained abroad, with institutional incentives and international funding on both research collaboration practices and outcomes.
Facebook mentions to scholarly papers have provided a novel way for reflecting and measuring the process of informal scientific communication. To uncover the underlying mechanism of Facebook Altmetrics, it is essential to investigate characteristics of its contextual data. Take library and information science papers for empirical study, three categories of contextual data were gathered, namely data of mentioned LIS papers, data of Facebook users and data of Facebook post. Hybrid methods including statistical analysis, content analysis and visualization analysis were adopted to analyze the data. Results show that: (1) Positive open access status and active Facebook account would help get scholarly paper mentioned but would not boost the number of Facebook mentions. Number of citations, number of collaborative institutions, and number of collaborative countries showed a significantly positive correlation with the number of Facebook mentions. Health information management was identified to be the most mentioned research topic while bibliometrics and scientific evaluation has received on average the highest number of Facebook mentions. (2) Scientific Facebook users that mention LIS papers were widely scattered geographically but dominated by USA, Spain, Germany, Brazil and Australia. Institutional users (89%) and academic users (84%) are prevailing, especially universities (14%), research institutes (12%), libraries (11%), academic associations (9%) and commercial organizations (8%). (3) Most scientific Facebook posts were relatively short, while the language distribution was less skewed than that of scientific tweets. The post content is mostly a combination of text, links, and pictures and with neutral sentiment. Different types of users have demonstrated significantly different style of content and concerned topics. These findings indicate that Facebook mentions to LIS papers mainly reflect the institutional level advocacy and attention, with low level of engagement, and could be influenced by several features including collaborative patterns and research topics.
Has sociology become more socially integrated over the last 30 years? Recent work in the sociology of knowledge demonstrates a direct linkage between social interaction patterns and the structure of ideas, suggesting that scientific collaboration networks affect scientific practice. I test three competing models for sociological collaboration networks and find that a structurally cohesive core that has been growing steadily since the early 1960s characterizes the discipline's coauthorship network. The results show that participation in the sociology collaboration network depends on research specialty and that quantitative work is more likely to be coauthored than non-quantitative work. However, structural embeddedness within the network core given collaboration is largely unrelated to specialty area. This pattern is consistent with a loosely overlapping specialty structure that has potentially integrative implications for theoretical development in sociology.
International scientific collaboration has increased both in volume and importance. In this article, the authors study the interpretation of macro-level data on international co authorship collaboration. They address such questions as how one might explain country- to-country differences in the rates of international coauthorship, networks of interna tional scientific collaboration among countries, and patterns of international collaboration in scientific fields. Attention is drawn to cognitive, social, historical, geopolitical, and economic factors as potential determinants of the observed patterns. They present a methodology that gives one a measure, independent of size, of countries'propensities to collaborate internationally.
Science and technology has been shown to result from dynamic interactions occurring at many levels and across various sectors. This study maps and analyses the network operating at the global level. Using the Science Citation Index (CD-Rom version) for 1990 and 2000, the networks created by international co-authorships are revealed. We analyse the observed linkages at the global level and on regional bases. The architecture of the network is further explored using statistical methods and factor analysis to reveal intense relationships as well as the core members of a global network. Findings show that, in the ten years between 1990 and 2000, the global network has expanded to include more nations, but the structure of this network has become more pronounced. Regional networks show emerging hubs. However, in some cases, the regions have been disconnected from the global level. A core set of advanced industrial nations has expanded from six in 1990 to eight in 2000. Factor analysis suggests that various large countries compete with each other for partners in the global network.
There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation-based indicators.
Collaboration generally involves more authors than ‘no collaboration’ work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self-citation
will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important ‘amplifier’ of measured
impact. Although this effect is certainly possible and already demonstrated recently, it should not be considered as the only
or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between ‘no collaboration’ and international collaboration. Using
data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, we prove that higher rates of self-citation
in international collaboration do not play any significant role as ‘impact amplifier’. The central point is that proper impact
measurement must involve corrections for self-citations.
Under the sponsorship of the U.S. National Science Foundation, CHI Research, Inc. developed the bibliometric indicators for the U.S. National Science Board'sScience Indicators Reports starting withScience Indicators 1972. In the work reported here, for the Commission of the European Communities, CHI has extended the Science Indicators techniques and database to a study of publication, coauthorship and citation within 28 scientific fields related to various European Community programs.Perhaps the most important finding of the research was that internationally coauthored papers — papers authored by scientists affiliated with institutions in more than one EC country — were cited two times as highly as papers authored by scientists working at a single institution within a single country. These EC-EC internationally coauthored papers were cited as highly as EC-Non EC and Non-EC papers. This indicates that the internationally linked European science is of as high impact as any other science in the world.A second key finding was that, after compensating for national scientific size, the degree of international coauthorship did not appear to be particularly dependent upon size. However, linguistic and cultural factors were found to be very strong. The patterns of coauthorship amongst the European countries are far from homogeneous, and are quite heavily affected by linguistic, historical, and cultural factors.Finally, it was found that international coauthorship is increasing steadily, both within and outside of the Community, with some evidence that international cooperation is increasing more rapidly in scientific fields that have been targeted by the Commission.
Using the Science Citation Index (CD-Rom version) for 1990 and 2000, this paper analyses international co-authorships. The paper presents the methodology for identifying these co-authorships. Analysis is presented on observed linkages at the global level and on regional bases. The architecture of the network is further explored using statistical methods and factor analysis to reveal intense relationships as well as the core members of a global network. Findings show that, in the 10 years between 1990 and 2000, the global network has expanded to include more nations and it has become more interconnected. Regional networks show emerging hubs. Within the global network, a core set of countries has expanded from six in 1990 to eight in 2000. Factor analysis suggests that large countries compete with each other for partners in the global network. We discuss implications for public policy of the rise of a global network of scientists operating somewhat independently of national interests.
Based on LUC evaluation data we investigate the citation output of single-authored articles versus the output of articles with two or more collaborators. This is done for 'citable' articles published in journals covered by the JCR (ISI), and for all other articles (published in non-ISI journals, in conference proceedings or in edited books). Citations to books are not included in the study. We further compare citation results for collaborations within the country and with scientists from abroad. Results: multi-authored articles have usually higher citation frequencies than single-authored ones, but this relation does not hold in all cases. On the other hand, it seems favourable (in the sense of receiving more citations) for a small university in a small country, to collaborate with scientists from abroad.
From a historical and sociological perspective, this essay presents and develops the first comprehensive theory of scientific collaboration: collaborative scientific research, formally acknowledged by co-authorships of scientific papers, originated, developed, and continues to be practiced as a response to the professionalization of science. Following an overview of the origins and early history of collaboration in the 17th and 18th centuries, a study of the first professionalized scientific community, that of Napoleonic France, confirms that, as the theory predicts, collaboration is a typical research style associated with professionalization. In the early 19th century, virtually all joint research was performed by French scientists; collaborative research only appeared much later in England and Germany when they, too, underwent professionalization. That historical finding, which constitutes a puzzling anomaly for any other view of scientific teamwork, here conforms to theoretical expectation. Several other predictions of the theory are presented, to be taken-up in subsequent studies.
ext">
The main objective of this study is the elaboration of national characteristics in internationalscientific co-authorship relations. An attempt is made to find statistical evidence of symmetry andasymmetry in co-publication links, of the relation between international co-authorship and bothnational research profiles and citation impact. Four basic types can be distinguished in the relativespecialisation of domestic and internationally co-authored publications of 50 most activecountries in 1995/96 concerning the significance of the difference between the two profiles.Co-publication maps reveal structural changes in international co-authorship links in the lastdecade. Besides stable links and coherent clusters, new nodes and links have also been found. Notall links between individual countries are symmetric. Specific (unidirectional) co-authorshipaffinity could also be detected in several countries.As expected, international co-authorship, on an average, results in publications with highercitation rates than purely domestic papers. However, the influence of international collaborationon the national citation impact varies considerably between the countries (and within oneindividual country between fields). In some cases there is, however, no citation advantage for oneor even for both partners.
ere is, however, no citation advantage for oneor even for both partners.
Up to now the contribution of scientific institutions to technology is considered to be primarily indirect. However, an analysis
of patent applications of European public research institutions shows that they contribute about one half of all patent applications
in selected science-based technology fields in the life sciences and nanotechnology. This finding documents a high direct
contribution of science institutions to the generation of technology. The share of public non-profit institutions proves to
be important, in particular in early stages of the technology life cycle; scientific institutions obviously play the role
of lead actors. A comparison between European and German data reveals a lower, but still quite high share of public research
institutes in other areas of science-based technology, so that the general statement of a high direct technology contribution
holds. With regard to scientific institutions, patent indicators do not replace, but rather complement publication indicators
and reflect an additional dimension of performance.
The incidence of extramural collaboration in academic research activities is increasing as a result of various factors. These
factors include policy measures aimed at fostering partnership and networking among the various components of the research
system, policies which are in turn justified by the idea that knowledge sharing could increase the effectiveness of the system.
Over the last two decades, the scientific community has also stepped up activities to assess the actual impact of collaboration
intensity on the performance of research systems. This study draws on a number of empirical analyses, with the intention of
measuring the effects of extramural collaboration on research performance and, indirectly, verifying the legitimacy of policies
that support this type of collaboration. The analysis focuses on the Italian academic research system. The aim of the work
is to assess the level of correlation, at institutional level, between scientific productivity and collaboration intensity
as a whole, both internationally and with private organizations. This will be carried out using a bibliometric type of approach,
which equates collaboration with the co-authorship of scientific publications.
This paper introduces a citation-based "systems approach" for analyzing the various institutional and cognitive dimensions
of scientific excellence within national research systems. The methodology, covering several aggregate levels, focuses on
the most highly cited research papers in the international journal literature. The distribution of these papers across institutions
and disciplines enables objective comparisons their (possible) international-level scientific excellence. By way of example,
we present key results from a recent series of analyses of the research system in the Netherlands in the mid 1990s, focussing
on the performance of the universities across the various major scientific disciplines within the context of the entire system"s
scientific performance. Special attention is paid to the contribution in the world"s top 1% and top 10% most highly cited
research papers. The findings indicate that these high performance papers provide a useful analytical framework - both in
terms of transparency, cognitive and institutional differentiation, as well as its scope for domestic and international comparisons
- providing new indicators for identifying "world class" scientific excellence at the aggregate level. The average citation
scores of these academic "Centres of Scientific Excellence" appear to be an inadequate predictor of their production of highly
cited papers. However, further critical reflection and in-depth validation studies are needed to establish the true potential
of this approach for science policy analyses and evaluation of research performance.
Collaboration is one of the remarkable characteristics of contemporary basic research. Using bibliometric method, we quantitatively
analyze international collaboration publication output between China and the G7 countries based on Science Citation Index.
The results indicate that international collaboration publication output between China and the G7 countries has shown exponential
growth aroused by the growth of science in China. USA is the most important collaboration country and the international collaboration
between China and the G7 countries display differences at each research field.
International collaboration as measured by co-authorship relations on refereed papers grew linearly from 1990 to 2005 in terms of the number of papers, but exponentially in terms of the number of international addresses. This confirms Persson et al.'s [Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometrics values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432] hypothesis of an inflation in international collaboration. Patterns in international collaboration in science can be considered as network effects, since there is no political institution mediating relationships at that level except for the initiatives of the European Commission. Science at the international level shares features with other complex adaptive systems whose order arises from the interactions of hundreds of agents pursuing self-interested strategies. During the period 2000–2005, the network of global collaborations appears to have reinforced the formation of a core group of fourteen most cooperative countries. This core group can be expected to use knowledge from the global network with great efficiency, since these countries have strong national systems. Countries at the periphery may be disadvantaged by the increased strength of the core.
We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th-century scholarship by analyzing and classifying more than 4,500 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that the intensity of acknowledgment varies by discipline, reflecting differences in prevailing sociocognitive structures and work practices. We demonstrate that the acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing, one that provides a revealing insight into the nature and extent of subauthorship collaboration. Complementary data on rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of collaboration and the increasing division of labor in contemporary research and scholarship.
International co-authorship relations and university–industry–government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981–2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university–industry–government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Six case studies of international cooperation at the subfield level are presented and compared. The cases examine international collaboration by detailing co -authorship links among researchers by field, evidenced at the level of the nation. Cases are offered based on possible drivers for collaboration: sharing ideas, cooperati ng around equipment, cooperating around resources, and exchanging data. Scientometric and network analysis of linkages are presented and discussed for each of the six cases: astrophysics, geophysics, mathematical logic, polymers, soil science, and virology . Visualizations of the cosine matrices within each field are compared for 1990 and 2000. The research shows that international collaboration grew in all the fields at rates higher than the international average. The possibility that rapid increases in int ernational collaboration in science can be attributed in part to certain drivers related to access to resources or equipment sharing could not be upheld by the data. Other possible explanations for the rapid growth of collaboration are offered, including t he possibility that weak ties evidenced by geographically remote collaboration can promote new knowledge creation.
A basic dichotomy is generally made between publication practices in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE) on the one hand and social sciences and humanities (SSH) on the other. However, while researchers in the NSE share some common practices with researchers in SSH, the spectrum of practices is broader in the latter. Drawing on data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index from 1980 to 2002, this paper compares collaboration patterns in the SSH to those in the NSE. We show that, contrary to a widely held belief, researchers in the social sciences and the humanities do not form a homogeneous category. In fact, collaborative activities of researchers in the social sciences are more comparable to those of researchers in the NSE than in the humanities. Also, we see that language and geographical proximity influences the choice of collaborators in the SSH, but also in the NSE. This empirical analysis, which sheds a new light on the collaborative activities of researchers in the NSE compared to those in the SSH, may have policy implications as granting councils in these fields have a tendency to imitate programs developed for the NSE, without always taking into account the specificity of the humanities.
Policy makers, at various levels of governance, generally encourage the development of research collaboration. However the underlying determinants of collaboration are not completely clear. In particular, the literature lacks studies that, taking the individual researcher as the unit of analysis, attempt to understand if and to what extent the researcher’s scientific performance might impact on his/her degree of collaboration with foreign colleagues. The current work examines the international collaborations of Italian university researchers for the period 2001–2005, and puts them in relation to each individual’s research performance. The results of the investigation, which assumes co-authorship as proxy of research collaboration, show that both research productivity and average quality of output have positive effects on the degree of international collaboration achieved by a scientist.
This paper examines co-authorship of research articles in Thomson Reuters citation indexes in order to assess knowledge co-production
in selected sub-Saharan African countries. Two indicators, namely publications and citations, were analysed to establish the
patterns of knowledge co-production and its scientific impact, respectively. The study found that knowledge production through
collaborative research among sub-Saharan African countries is minimal and contributes only a small percentage when compared
to collaboration between sub-Saharan African countries and their foreign counterparts. Similarly, the scientific impact of
international collaboration was higher than that of continental collaboration. Countries belonging to the same geographic
region contributed to each other’s knowledge production more frequently than they did to the countries outside their region.
It is recommended that, for knowledge co-production in sub-Saharan Africa to improve, various measures such as encouraging
student and staff exchange, hosting more regional conferences and encouraging research networks need to be put in place.
While collaboration is associated with higher article citation rates, a body of research has suggested that this is, in part,
related to the access to a larger social network and the increased visibility of research this entails, rather than simply
a reflection of greater quality. We examine the role of networks in article citation rates by investigating article publication
by the nine New Zealand Government-owned Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), drawing on the Science Citation Index. We analyse
an aggregate data set of all CRI publications with duplicates removed, and, in addition, investigate each CRI. We find that
a greater number of authors, countries and institutions involved in co-publication increases expected citation rates, although
there are some differences between the CRIs. However, the type of co-publication affects the expected citation rates. We discover
a 'periphery effect' where greater levels of co-publication with domestic institutions decreases expected citation rates.
We conclude that scientists working on the periphery looking to increase the visibility of their research should strive to
link their research to the international research community, particularly through co-publication with international authors.
This paper maps the domain of earth and environmental sciences (EES) and investigates the relationship between cognitive problem
structures and internationalisation patterns, drawing on the concepts of systemic versus cumulative global environmental change
(GEC) and mutual task dependence in scientific fields. We find that scientific output concentration and internationalisation
are significantly higher in the systemic GEC fields of Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography than in the cumulative
GEC fields Ecology and Water Resources. The relationship is explained by stronger mutual task dependence in systemic GEC fields.
In contrast, the portion of co-authorships with developing, emerging and transition countries among all international publications
is larger for Water Resources than for the three other fields, consistent with the most pressing needs for STI capacity development
in these countries.
This study examines the extent of inter-institutional collaboration between scholars in the 48 major Canadian universities, and also determines the factors that influence such collaboration. Documents included in the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index of the online ISI's Web of Science database for the period 1990- October 31, 2003 were used as sources of data for the study. Making use of the author's affiliation field, we were able to determine the number of publications co- authored by scholars in each pair of universities. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the influence of factors such as geographical distance, province, language, time zone, age, and peer group on collaboration. Only province and peer group were included in the final regression model.
There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation-based indicators. Collaboration generally involves more authors than 'no collaboration' work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self-citation will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important 'amplifier' of measured impact. Although this effect is certainly possible and already demonstrated recently, it should not be considered as the only or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between 'no collaboration' and international collaboration. Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, we prove that higher rates of self-citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as 'impact amplifier'. The central point is that proper impact measurement must involve corrections for self-citations.
For scientists and policy-makers it is important to understand the value of networks and collaborations for scientific quality
and commercialisation of research results. The interplay between funding mechanisms and research collaborations is of particular
importance in this context. We explore this interplay with an empirical analysis of international research collaborations
involving EU countries as manifested by co-publication patterns and participation in life science projects funded by EU Framework
Programmes. Our data confirms the importance of geographical proximity, however, it also indicates that ‘top-down’ funding
disbursed through FPs is related to collaborations that are more European despite encouragement of collaborations with non-European
partners. In contrast, copublication patterns suggest that European researchers tend to co-author more with global, rather
than exclusively European partners and that this tendency is on the rise. These findings shed light on the influence of different
funding policies that seek to nurture more diverse and integrated research partnerships.
Collaboration in science has been the subject of many studies. In this study we focus on the influence of the research profile
of an institute on its collaborative behaviour and pattern. The classification model developed by the authors provides a helpful
tool to identify the specialisms of a research institution and to create groups of similar institutions that enable study
of the relationship between science fields and collaborative behaviour. First we show the effect of research profile on the
shares of different types of collaboration. Next, citation indicators are used to investigate the changes on impact and publication
strategy over the different types of collaboration. Finally we try to find for each group the research profile of the most
preferred partners.
Has sociology become more socially integrated over the last 30 years? Recent work in the sociology of knowledge demonstrates a direct linkage between social interaction patterns and the structure of ideas, suggesting that scientific collaboration networks affect scientific practice. I test three competing models for sociological collaboration networks and find that a structurally cohesive core that has been growing steadily since the early 1960s characterizes the discipline coauthorship network. The results show that participation in the sociology collaboration network depends on research specialty and that quantitative work is more likely to be coauthored than non-quantitative work. However, structural embeddedness within the network core given collaboration is largely unrelated to specialty area. This pattern is consistent with a loosely overlapping specialty structure that has potentially integrative implications for theoretical development in sociology.
What goes on in the scientific networks and the research teams? What is the collaborative situation like? Why do scientists collaborate? This study focuses on the micro level of research collaboration and investigates the reasons for and effects of collaboration for the individual scientist through a survey and a number of interviews. The interaction within the research team is highlighted, showing the feelings and conditions which encompass the teamwork. The empirical findings are conceptualized in a model where research collaboration is suggested to be understood as dependent on how the reasons, forms and effects respectively vary. The collaborations are characterized by strong pragmatism and a high degree of self-organization. Finally, the science policy implications of this study are discussed. It is suggested that research policy should provide financial and organizational possibilities for the researchers to establish joint ventures and also fund projects on a team or network basis.
An attempt is made to find statistical evidences of the relation between international co-authorship and citation impact. It was found that international co-authorship, in average, results inpublications with higher citation rates than purely domestic papers. No correlation has beenfound, however, between the strength of co-authorship links and the relative citation eminence ofthe resulting publications. International co-authorship links in chemistry, as represented by thewell-known Salton's measure, displayed a characteristic pattern reflecting geopolitical, historical,linguistic, etc. relations among countries. A new indicator, representing also the asymmetry ofco-authorship links was used to reveal main "attractive" and "repulsive" centres of co-operation.
A sample was selected fromThe Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London to examine the development of collaboration in scientific research from 1901–1991. The variables under study were: changes with time, as reflected in the 19 years sampled; the number of collaborative papers, which were subdivided by number of authors, type of collaboration, and the number of unique departmental subject titles; and the number of authors involved in producing collaborative papers, in which the proportion and the mean number of authors per paper were computed according to type of collaboration. It was found that, while the proportion of collaborative papers fluctuated over the years, the number corresponded to an exponential increase over time. The collaboration in the first half of the century was sporadic but grew rapidly in the second half, especially the collaboration involving many authors from different institutions and countries in the production of a publication. The trend toward interdisciplinarity has become pronounced since the 1960s. The phenomenon was found to be associated with the average number of authors per interdisciplinary paper and the type of collaboration. The limitations of the study are indicated and future studies are suggested.
This article aims at a characterization of the cooperation behavior among five large scientific countries (France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States of America) from 1986 to 1996. It looks at the cooperation profiles of these countries using classical measures such as the Probabilistic Affinity. The results show the major influence which historical, cultural and linguistic proximities may have on patterns of cooperation, with few changes over the period of time studied.A lack of specific affinities among the three largest European countries is revealed, and this contrasts with the strong linkage demonstrated between United States and Japan. The ensuing discussion raises some questions as to the process of Europeanization in science. The intensity of bilateral cooperation linkages is then studied with regard to field specialization by country, and this analysis yields no general patterns at the scale studied. Specific bilateral behaviors are also analyzed.
The following kinds of data were collected on three samples of cancer research literature representing three levels of quality: (1) collaboration as measured by the number of authors per paper, (2) quantitative productivity of countries, (3) diachronous citations covering the first five years of publication, (4) total self-citations, (5) proportions of self-citations made by first-named authors, and (6) the extent of dispersion of articles among journals. Analyses showed that as the number of authors per paper increases, the proportion of high quality papers also increases and the Collaborative Index can be used to measure quality in the aggregate. It was found that the quantity and quality of cancer research done in a country are positively related. All analyses of the citation data confirmed the hypotheses that highly rated papers are significantly more highly cited than average papers and the rates of uncitedness decline with quality. The proportion of self-citations to total citations decreases with increasing quality and, on average, first-named authors of quality papers cite them proportionally fewer times than first-named authors of run-of-the mill papers do. This study also shows that, as quality increases, the extent of literature scatter or dispersion increases.
Consider a country's national output, measured by counting the number of authors from countryc that collaborate in every paper in a bibliography. Depending on whether countryc appears at least once in every paper, we are able to deduce the corresponding relationship betweenc's fractional score and its fraction of multinational papers to whichc belongs.
One of these models, a slowly decreasing concave function is similar to the relation observed byNederhof andMoed
1 between the fractionated score of a countryc and its fraction of multinational papers.
The proof of the models developed here uses a stochastic property of weighting schemes, namely that the average fractional
score of a country equals its total score.
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.
This article examines the emerging phenomenon of global cooperation in research between industrialised countries, manifested in large increases in copublication between Europe and other regions, increasing focus on single global facilities in big science and the emergence of global cooperative programmes. Motivations for cooperation are examined, distinguishing between direct benefits to the research and indirect strategic, economic or political benefits. Barriers include the growing significance of competitiveness issues and a mismatch of institutions. It is concluded that formal arrangements are beginning to catch up with the very substantial extent of `bottom-up' global cooperation. Issues are raised for European programmes including the nature of a European platform within global alliances, the strategic position of Europe in the broader pattern of scientific relations and the impracticability of maintaining programmes with restricted access to foreign participants.
What goes on in the scientific networks and the research teams? What is the collaborative situation like? Why do scientists collaborate? This study focuses on the micro level of research collaboration and investigates the reasons for and effects of collaboration for the individual scientist through a survey and a number of interviews. The interaction within the research team is highlighted, showing the feelings and conditions which encompass the teamwork. The empirical findings are conceptualized in a model where research collaboration is suggested to be understood as dependent on how the reasons, forms and effects respectively vary. The collaborations are characterized by strong pragmatism and a high degree of self-organization. Finally, the science policy implications of this study are discussed. It is suggested that research policy should provide financial and organizational possibilities for the researchers to establish joint ventures and also fund projects on a team or network basis.
This paper explores recent trends in the size of scientific teams and in institutional collaborations. The data derive from 2.4 million scientific papers written in 110 top U.S. research universities over the period 1981–1999. The top 110 account for a large share of published basic research conducted in the U.S. during this time.We measure team size by the number of authors on a scientific paper. Using this measure we find that team size increases by 50% over the 19-year period. We supplement team size with measures of domestic and foreign institutional collaborations, which capture the geographic dispersion of team workers. The time series evidence suggests that the trend towards more geographically dispersed scientific teams accelerates beginning with papers published at the start of the 1990s. This acceleration suggests a sharp decline in the cost of collaboration. Our hypothesis is that the decline is due to the deployment of the National Science Foundation's NSFNET and its connection to networks in Europe and Japan after 1987.Using a panel of top university departments we also find that private universities and departments whose scientists have earned prestigious awards participate in larger teams, as do departments that have larger amounts of federal funding. Placement of former graduate students is a key determinant of institutional collaborations, especially collaborations with firms and with foreign scientific institutions. Finally, the evidence suggests that scientific output and influence increase with team size and that influence rises along with institutional collaborations. Since increasing team size implies an increase in the division of labor, these results suggest that scientific productivity increases with the scientific division of labor.
This study illustrates the application of a descriptive multivariate statistical method, Correspondence Factorial Analysis (CFA), to the analysis of a dataset of over 6 million bibliometric entries (data from ISI). CFA is used to show how the 48 most prolific nations stand in relation to each with regard to their publication interests in 17 specific disciplinary areas and one multidisciplinary field over the period 1981–1992. The output of a CFA is a map displaying proximity among variables (countries and disciplines) and constitutes an impartial working document for experts interested in the evaluation of science. The present study focuses on three aspects of a CFA: (1) The normalized “publication patterns” of countries with a common feature (e.g., that belong to the same geopolitical zone, economic union, etc.) can be pooled in order to highlight the position of the union with respect to individual countries; (2) complex CFA maps can be simplified by selecting reference countries or disciplines and observing how the remaining countries and disciplines relate to these references; (3) data on additional countries (new publication profiles) or on additional variables (e.g., socio-economic data on all the countries under study) can be introduced into the CFA maps used as mathematical models. Our CFA of the ISI dataset reveals the scientific interests of nations in relative terms. The main cleavage (the first factorial axis) is between countries that still concentrate on the disciplines of the industrial revolution such as physics and chemistry (or that have turned toward their offspring, materials sciences) and those that have veered toward more “modern” disciplines such as the life sciences (e.g., clinical medicine), the environment, and computer sciences. The second cleavage, along the second factorial axis, is between countries that focus on the agricultural sciences (the land surface) and those interested in the geosciences (the sea, earth's mantle, and mining). The third and fourth axes discriminate even further between earth, life, and abstract sciences highlighting the ostensible relationship between (organic) chemistry and all life science disciplines and between physics and disciplines related to engineering, materials sciences, etc. The CFA maps disclose the specific behavior of each country with respect to these cleavages. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
This article deals with the role of internationally co-authored papers (co-publications). Specifically, we compare, within
a data-set of German research units, citation and co-publication indicators as a proxy for the unobserved quality dimension
of scientific research. In that course we will also deal with the question whether both citations and co-publications are
considerably related. Our results suggest that, although there is a strong partial correlation between citations and co-publications
within a multivariate setting, we cannot use reasonably normalised co-publication indicators as an alternative proxy for quality.
Thus, concerning quality assessment, there remains a primer on citation analysis.
Multinational papers are defined here as ones written by authors who reside in different countries during the course of research.
For each of 16 fields of science, I scanned the first 200 papers in 2005 in four major journals publishing original research
papers. Those journals produced 40% of all the citations among those journals with Impact Factors greater than 1.0. The frequencies
of multinational papers ranged from 13% in surgery to 55% in astronomy. Although one can list a dozen factors which might
contribute toward multinational papers, I lack the data to test most of those. There are only minor correlations with team
sizes and Impact Factors, inadequate to explain the range. There is a larger, but not convincing, dependence upon the fractions
of single-author papers and its cause, if real, is unclear. However, the most prominent factor seems to be the nature of the
objects studied; if they are usually local (e.g. in one hospital or in one laboratory), the papers tend to be domestic but
if most of the objects are available simultaneously to scientists in many countries (e.g. the sky in astronomy or the oceans
and the Earth’s atmosphere in geosciences or widespread diseases in the area of infectious diseases or plants and animals
widely distributed in biology), the papers are often international. Auxiliary results for 2005 are an average of 5.5 � 0.3
authors per paper and 6.6 � 1.0% one-author papers.
Many studies have found that collaborative research is, in general, more highly cited than non-collaborative research. This
paper describes an investigation into the extent to which the association between high citation and collaboration for Economics
articles published in 2000 varies from region to region and depends on the choice of indicator of citation level. Using data
from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for 18 countries, 17 American states and four indicators of citation level the
citation levels of the collaborative articles are compared with the citation levels of the non-collaborative articles. The
main findings are that: (a) for every country and every indicator the mean citation level of the collaborative articles was
at least as high as that for the non-collaborative articles, but for five US states and for at least one other indicator the
citation level of collaborative articles was lower than that of non-collaborative articles, and (b) the extent to which collaborative
articles were more highly cited varied considerably from country to country, from state to state, and from indicator to indicator.
This indicates the importance of using multiple indicators when investigating citation advantage since the choice of indicator
can change the results.
Several bibliometric studies have shown that international or multicountry papers are generally more cited than domestic or
single country papers. Does this also hold for the most cited papers? In this study, the citation impact of domestic versus
international papers is analyzed by comparing the share of international papers among the hundred most cited papers in four
research specialities, from three universities, four cities and two countries. It is concluded that international papers are
not well represented among high impact papers in research specialities, but dominate highly cited papers from small countries,
and from cities and institutions within them. The share of international papers among highly cited papers is considerably
higher during 2001–2008 compared to earlier years for institutions, cities and countries, but somewhat less for two of the
research fields and slightly higher for the other two. Above all, domestic papers from the USA comprise about half of the
highly cited papers in the research specialities.
Summary The macro-level country-by-country co-authorship, cross-reference and cross-citation analysis started in our previous paper,1
continues with revealing the cross-national preference stucture of the 36 selected countries. Preference indicators of co-authorship,
cross-reference and cross-citation are defined, presented and discussed. The study revealed that geopolitical location, cultural
relations and language are determining factors in shaping preferences whether in co-authorship, cross-reference or cross-citation.
Areas like Central Europe, Scandinavia, Latin America (supplemented with Spain and Portugal), the Far East or the Australia-New
Zealand-South Africa triad form typical “clusters” with mutually strong preferences towards each other. The USA appears to
have a distinguished role enjoying universal preference, which - in the cross-reference and cross-citation case - is asymmetric
for the greater part of the countries under study.
Bibliographic records are extensively used in the study of citations. Based on ISI data, this paper examines citation patterns
of the publications of South African scientists in recent years. In particular, the focus of this paper is on citations as
to the collaborative dimensions of South African scientists in their publications. The study reveals that the number of citations
received by a publication varies not only according to the collaboration but also to the types of collaboration of the authors
who are involved in its production. Furthermore, it emerges that the impact of citations on publications differs from discipline
to discipline, and affiliating sector to sector, regardless of collaboration.
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.
As scientific collaboration is a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly important, studies on scientific collaboration are
numerous. Despite the proliferation of studies on various dimensions of collaboration, there is still a dearth of analyses
on the effects, motives and modes of collaboration in the context of developing countries. Adopting Wallerstein’s world-system
theory, this paper makes use of bibliometric data in an attempt to understand the pattern of collaboration that emerges between
South Africa and Germany. The key argument is that we can expect the collaborative relationship between South Africa and Germany
to be one that is shaped by a centre–periphery pattern. The analyses show that a theory of scientific collaboration building
on the notion of marginality and centre–periphery can explain many facets of South African–German collaboration, where South
Africa is a semi-peripheral region, a centre for the periphery, and a periphery for the centre.