Search Results

You are looking at 131 - 140 of 273 items for :

  • "Co-authorship" x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

Abstract  

We are currently experiencing an era that is facing increasing global environmental and societal problems (e.g., climate change, habitat destruction and economic recession). Scientific research projects are often required to emphasize and counter the effects of inequity and globalisation, and prioritise cooperation supported by cooperative research. This paper investigates whether publication of research that is carried out in least developed countries is done in cooperation with research institutes from these countries. The study uses the Current Contents database of peer-reviewed publications from more than 7,000 journals in all sciences (Biology and environmental sciences; Physical, chemical and earth sciences; Engineering, computing and technology; Life sciences; Clinical medicine; Arts and humanities; Social and behavioral sciences) published between 1 January 1999 and 3 November 2000. From a total of 1,601,196 papers published, 2,798 articles of research activities carried out in the 48 least developed countries were selected using title information as an indicator. Collaborative relationships between research institutions involved was then analysed within and between countries and sciences. Our results show that publications of research, carried out in the least developed countries, do not have co-authorship of local research institutes in 70% of the cases, and that a majority of the papers is published by research institutes from the most industrialised countries in the world. We employed the use of questionnaires sent to authors from papers in the above-mentioned database to detect possible causes of this high percentage of lack of authorship in the essential academic currency that 'publications' are. 'Neo-colonial science' is identified as one of them. In addition, there exists a large discrepancy between what the surveyed scientists say they find important in international collaboration and joint publishing, and the way they act to it. However, the interpretation given to the fact that institutional co-authorship is underrepresented for local research institutions in the least developed countries is less important than the fact itself, and future research should concentrate on a scientific way to equilibrate this adverse trend.

Restricted access

Abstract  

International collaboration is becoming an increasingly significant issue in science. During the last few years, a large number of bibliometric studies of co-authorships have been reported. Mostly, these studies have concentrated on country-to-country collaboration, revealing general patterns of interaction. In this study we analyze international collaborative patterns as indicated in the Indian publications by tracking out multi author publications as given in Science Citation Index (SCI) database. Correspondence analysis is used for analysis and interpretation of the results. According to correspondence analysis of the data set, Physics, Chemistry, Clinical medicine are the first, second and third largest subjects having international collaboration. USA, Italy, Germany, France, England are the top five countries with which India is collaborating. The data set shows an association between Physics and Italy, Switzerland, Algeria, Finland, South Korea, Russia, Netherlands contrasting an association between Biology & Biochemistry, Immunology, Ecology & Environment, Geosciences, Multidisciplinary subjects and England, Japan, Canada. It also shows an association between Agriculture and Philippines, Canada, Denmark in contrast to an association between Chemistry and Malaysia, Germany, France. An association between Clinical medicine, Astrophysics and England, Sweden, USA, New Zealand in contrast to an association between Agriculture and Canada, Philippines, Denmark is shown. An association between Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science, Neuroscience and Singapore, Canada, USA in contrast to an association between Chemistry, Astrophysics and Malaysia, Spain is shown. This association of collaborating countries and disciplines almost tallies with the publication productivity of these countries in different disciplines.

Restricted access

Summary  

Large scale bibliometric analysis is often hindered by the presence of homonyms, or namesakes, of the researchers of interest in literature databases. This makes it difficult to build up a true picture of a researcher's publication record, as publications by another researcher with the same name will be included in search results. Using additional information such as title and author addresses, an expert in the field can generally tell if a paper is by a researcher or a namesake; however, manual checking is not practical in large scale studies. Previously various methods have been used to address this problem, chiefly based on filtering by subject, funding acknowledgement or author address. Co-author inclusion is a novel algorithmic method based on co-authorship for dealing with problems of homonyms in large bibliometric surveys. We compared co-author inclusion and subject and funding based filter against the manual assignment of papers by a subject expert (which we assumed to be correct). The subject and funding based filtering identifies only 75% as many papers as assigned by manual scoring. By using co-author inclusion once we increase this to 95%, two further rounds produces 99% as many papers as manual filtering. Although the number of papers identified that were not assigned to the PIs manually also increases, the absolute number is low: rising from 0.2% papers with subject and funding filtering, to 3% papers for three rounds of co-author inclusion.

Restricted access

Summary  

In earlier studies by the authors, basic regularities of author self-citations have been analysed. These regularities are related to the ageing, to the relation between self-citations and foreign citations, to the interdependence of self-citations with other bibliometric indicators and to the influence of co-authorship on self-citation behaviour. Although both national and subject specific peculiarities influence the share of self-citations at the macro level, the authors came to the conclusion that - at this level of aggregation - there is practically no need for excluding self-citations. The aim of the present study is to answer the question in how far the influence of author self-citations on bibliometric meso-indicators deviates from that at the macro level, and to what extent national reference standards can be used in bibliometric meso analyses. In order to study the situation at the institutional level, a selection of twelve European universities representing different countries and different research profiles have been made. The results show a quite complex situation at the meso-level, therefore we suggest the usage of both indicators, including and excluding self-citations.

Restricted access

Abstract  

Scientometric predictors of research performance need to be validated by showing that they have a high correlation with the external criterion they are trying to predict. The UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) — together with the growing movement toward making the full-texts of research articles freely available on the web — offer a unique opportunity to test and validate a wealth of old and new scientometric predictors, through multiple regression analysis: Publications, journal impact factors, citations, co-citations, citation chronometrics (age, growth, latency to peak, decay rate), hub/authority scores, h-index, prior funding, student counts, co-authorship scores, endogamy/exogamy, textual proximity, download/co-downloads and their chronometrics, etc. can all be tested and validated jointly, discipline by discipline, against their RAE panel rankings in the forthcoming parallel panel-based and metric RAE in 2008. The weights of each predictor can be calibrated to maximize the joint correlation with the rankings. Open Access Scientometrics will provide powerful new means of navigating, evaluating, predicting and analyzing the growing Open Access database, as well as powerful incentives for making it grow faster.

Restricted access

Abstract  

The internationalization of ten of China’s English-language scientific journals is analyzed based on their Impact Factor, Total Citation, JCR list rank, international paper proportion and international citation proportion. Six of these journals were financed three times by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSF) between 2001–2006 and four journals maintained a higher impact factor (>1.0) in 2003–2005. The data show that though the total trend of Impact Factor and Total Citation keeps rising, their subject rank has shown a slight decrease. Moreover, the proportion of international papers and international citations do not match their JCR rank and IF: high rank journals have a low proportion of international papers (Chinese Phys Lett, Chinese Phys) and low rank journals have a high Impact Factor (Cell Res, Asian J Androl). This inconsistency may result from their insufficient internationalization either in international paper proportion (less than 20%) or in the amount of high-quality manuscripts, probably caused by their local journal title, circulation and low IF. Suggested means of improving internationalization include encouraging Chinese scientists to cite more home journals when they publish their papers in foreign journals; soliciting the submission of international co-authorships based on the unavailability of pure foreign authorship; cooperating with internationally recognized publishers to utilize their globalization platform; employing overseas scientists to recruit international papers; improving writing style and content, to enable greater accessibility to worldwide readers.

Restricted access

Abstract  

Co-authorship analyses are both difficult to perform and interpret. We have devised a new way of calculating and representing hierarchical author networks that depict relationships among authors in a more exhaustive and less equivocal manner than most available automatic analyses. Any structure, however complex, can be broken down into independent subclusters of authors that can be represented as individual interconnected networks. We illustrate our approach by analysing the authors of publications giving the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) as an affiliation in 1994 (from the ISI 1994 CD-ROM). The networks can be interpreted by referring to the official EMBL staff list (Annual Report 1993) and, in terms of research topics, by consulting the article titles and abstracts. In this respect, correspondence analyses of the author-publication matrices—that are the counterparts of the author-author matrices—prove extremely useful in structuring the thematic information. In fact, both methods—the hierarchical author networks and the correspondence analysis biplots—mutually enrich each other and provide a global picture of the inherent structure and interests of the EMBL as given by their 1994 publications.

Restricted access

Abstract  

Nanotechnology is a novel technological field said to be one of the key technologies in the 21st century revoltionizing information technology, materials and medicine. Bibliometric quantification is a way to show the emergence of a new technology.Braun et al.1 could establish an exponential growth pattern of publications in nano-science and technology starting in the early 1990s. Using their study as basis we intend to further characterize nanotechnology using bibliometric as well as patent data. We can show that the share of boundary-spanning publications is exceptionally high in the field of nanotechnology. Our co-authorship analysis indicates that countries follow different patterns of collaboration. Some countries tend to have bilateral relations while others collaborate with a much larger array of nations. Patent data in combination with bibliometric reveals differences in the application of science. In our conclusion we raise a number of questions requiring an analysis using also other types of data. Still, a closer investigation and disaggregation of bibliometric data may come up with additional findings.

Restricted access

Abstract  

In a recent study, de Lange and Glänzel introduced a model for the bibliometric analysis of the extent of multinational co-authorship links. They showed that this model can be considered a generalisation of the "fractionation approach" by Nederhof and Moed. The authors analysed international collaboration links (the Multilateral Collaboration Index) as a function of the share of internationally co-authored papers. The measurement of the deviation of individual countries from (sub-)field peculiarities proved, however, complicated. The intensifying international collaboration and, in several fields, the substantial growth of number of multinational papers (involving three or more countries) in the 90s necessitates a detailed analysis of co-publication distributions, that is, of the distributions of partner countries in a given country"s publication output. The main objective of the study is to elaborate such a measure to be used in addition to the share of international publications and the Multilateral Collaboration Index. In addition, a detailed analysis of national citation impact of domestic, bilateral and multilateral papers in the major science fields is conducted. The model, we develop and the statistical analysis that it allows, support the practical conclusion that the ratio of the number of international links and international papers turns out to be roughly proportional to the ratio of full and fractional publication counts.

Restricted access

Abstract  

We present some results of an evaluation of research performance of Spanish senior university researchers in Geology. We analyse to what extent productivity of individual researchers is influenced by the level of consolidation of the team they belong to. Methodology is based on the combination of a mail survey carried out among a defined set of researchers, and a bibliometric study of their scientific output. Differences among researchers have been investigated with regard to team size and composition, patterns of publication in domestic and foreign journals, productivity, co-authorship of papers, and impact of publications. Results indicate that not belonging to a research team represents a handicap at the time of publishing in top international journals. Researchers belonging to consolidated teams are more productive than their colleagues in non-consolidated teams, and these in turn more than individuals without team. Team size does not appear to be as important for scientific productivity as the number of researchers within the team that reached a stable job position. Analysis of the impact factor of journals has not revealed differences among researchers with regard to the visibility of their papers.

Restricted access