Although many Indian surnames are common across the whole country, some are specifically associated with just one or a few
of the 35 states and union territories that comprise India today. For example, Reddy comes from Andhra Pradesh and Das, Ghosh
and Roy from West Bengal. We investigated the extent to which researchers with names associated with some of the larger states
were writing scientific papers in those states, and in other ones, and to see how these concentrations (relative to the whole
of India) had changed since the early 1980s. We found that West Bengalis, for example, were now significantly less concentrated
in their home state than formerly, and that their concentrations elsewhere were strongly influenced by the state’s geographical
distance from West Bengal and, to a lesser extent, by the correlation between the scientific profile of their host state and
their own preferences (which favoured physics and engineering over biology and mathematics). Thus they were strongly represented
in nearby Bihar, Assam and Orissa, and much less so in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The publication output of India and Bulgaria on epidemiology of neoplasms as reflected in Medline on CD-ROM for 1966–1999 was scientometrically analyzed. Indians have published 347 papers in 24 domestic journals but 444
papers in169 journals from 21 countries. Bulgarians have published 88 papers in 6 Bulgarian journals but 63 papers in 39 journals
from 13 countries. Some 17 journals from 8 countries contained papers by Indian and Bulgarian authors both. Oncology dominated
with 46 different journals. Indians have published papers in foreign journals of 30 thematic profiles but Bulgarians - of
12 ones. The collaboration of Indians and Bulgarians resulted from joint bilateral projects and/or postgraduate studies abroad.
Collaboration in science has become a prevailing trend and it will be worthwhile to study the patterns of co-authorships in
scientific research. In this study a three-dimensional behavioural pattern of Indian medicinal co-authorship network is presented.
The high evenness of this pattern has caused us to carry out a non-linear regression analysis. The pattern of Indian Medicinal
coauthorships can be described by the same non-linear mathematical function that describes the behavioural patterns of international
medicine co-authorship networks and networks of other scientific disciplines. The following question has arise: Is there a
general validity of this function in co-authorship networks?
The collaboration model of Kretschmer was applied to the co-authorshipnetwork of Indian medicine with the aim of being able to observe changes instructure over
a period of 30 years. The idea of Liang, on her “Distributionof Major Scientific and Cultural Achievements in Terms of Age” was putin relation to the collaboration
model by Kretschmer.
The growing importance of collaboration in research and the still underdeveloped state-of-the-art of research on collaboration
have encouraged scientists from16 countries to establish a global interdisciplinary research network under the title “Collaboration
in Science and in Technology” (COLLNET)with Berlin as its virtual centre which has been set up on January 1st, 2000.The network
is to comprise the prominent scientists, who work at present mostly in the field of quantitative science studies. The intention
is to work together in co-operation both on theoretical and applied aspects.
The causes of gender bias favoring men in scientific and scholarly systems are complex and related to overall gender relationships in most of the countries of the world. An as yet unanswered question is whether in research publication gender bias is equally distributed over scientific disciplines and fields or if that bias reflects a closer relation to the subject matter. We expected less gender bias with respect to subject matter, and so analysed 14 journals of gender studies using several methods and indicators. The results confirm our expectation: the very high position of women in co-operation is striking; female scientists are relatively overrepresented as first authors in articles. Collaboration behaviour in gender studies differs from that of authors in PNAS. The pattern of gender studies reflects associations between authors of different productivity, or “masters” and “apprentices” but the PNAS pattern reflects associations between authors of roughly the same productivity, or “peers”. It would be interesting to extend the analysis of these three-dimensional collaboration patterns further, to see whether a similar characterization holds, what it might imply about the patterns of authorship in different areas, what those patterns might imply about the role of collaboration, and whether there are differences between females and males in collaboration patterns.