The collaboration behaviors of scientists in Italy: A field level analysis

The analysis of research collaboration by field is traditionally conducted beginning with the classification of the publications from the context of interest. In this work we propose an alternative approach based on the classification of the authors by field. The proposed method is more precise if the intended use is to provide a benchmark for the evaluation of individual propensity to collaborate. In the current study we apply the new methodology to all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences, measuring the propensity to collaborate for the various fields: in general, and specifically with intramural colleagues, extramural domestic and extramural foreign organizations. Using a simulation, we show that the results present substantial differences from those obtained through application of traditional approaches.

[1]  K. Subramanyam,et al.  Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review , 1983 .

[2]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  Zhang Haiqi,et al.  Scientific research collaboration in China , 1997 .

[4]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital , 2004 .

[5]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[6]  Ali Gazni,et al.  Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications , 2011, Scientometrics.

[7]  Mohammed Shahadat Uddin,et al.  Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network , 2011, Scientometrics.

[8]  H. B. Mann,et al.  On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other , 1947 .

[9]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research , 2011, Scientometrics.

[10]  Kevin L. Ross,et al.  An Analysis of the Determinants of Co-authorship in Economics , 1992 .

[11]  D. Crane.  SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS: A TEST OF THE “INVISIBLE COLLEGE” HYPOTHESIS* , 1977 .

[12]  Hong Guo,et al.  Scientific research collaboration in China , 2006, Scientometrics.

[13]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[14]  Enric Banda.  A Europe of Science , 2000, Science.

[15]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  O. Persson,et al.  Understanding Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration , 1992 .

[17]  Jesús Rey-Rocha,et al.  The effect of team consolidation on research collaboration and performance of scientists. Case study of Spanish university researchers in Geology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[18]  Robert D. Tollison,et al.  Intellectual Collaboration , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[20]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Assessing national strengths and weaknesses in research fields , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[21]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities , 2006, Scientometrics.

[22]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Gender differences in research collaboration , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[23]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[24]  Olle Persson,et al.  Studying research collaboration using co-authorships , 1996, Scientometrics.

[25]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[26]  Cédric Gossart,et al.  Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey , 2009, Scientometrics.

[27]  Cristiano Giuffrida,et al.  A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[28]  Réjean Landry,et al.  On the Determinants of Scientists' Collaboration , 1997 .

[29]  Mark P. Carpenter,et al.  International Research Collaboration , 1979 .

[30]  R. Tijssen,et al.  Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe , 2010 .

[31]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[32]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university , 2009 .

[33]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations , 2004, Scientometrics.

[34]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems , 2011, Scientometrics.

[35]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[36]  Helmut A. Abt,et al.  The future of single-authored papers , 2007, Scientometrics.

[37]  Olle Persson,et al.  Research collaboration at Nordic universities , 2006, Scientometrics.

[38]  W. Glänzel,et al.  A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes , 2009 .

[39]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Network Structure, Self-Organization and the Growth of International Collaboration in Science.Research Policy, 34(10), 2005, 1608-1618. , 2005, 0911.4299.

[40]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[41]  Frances Cairncross.  The death of distance : how the communications revolution will change our lives , 1997 .

[42]  S. M. Lawani,et al.  Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research , 2005, Scientometrics.

[43]  W. Kruskal,et al.  Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis , 1952 .

[44]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: A comparison between Europe and the USA , 2004 .

[46]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations , 2005, Scientometrics.

[47]  Jean Tague-Sutcliffe,et al.  Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research , 1988, Scientometrics.

[48]  J. Moody.  The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999 , 2004 .

[49]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  The global science base of information and communication technologiges: Bibliometric analysis of ICT research papers , 2006, Scientometrics.

[50]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation , 2000 .

[51]  Grit Laudel,et al.  Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[52]  D. Crane.  Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: A Test of the "Invisible College" Hypothesis , 1969 .

[53]  Kyo Kageura,et al.  Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks , 2004, Scientometrics.

[54]  Leo Egghe.  Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures , 1991, Inf. Process. Manag..

[55]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Local, Domestic and International Scientific Collaboration in Biomedical Research , 1996, Scientometrics.

[56]  Francisco J. Acedo,et al.  Co-Authorship in Management and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis , 2006 .

[57]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Shadows of the Past in International Cooperation: Collaboration Profiles of the Top Five Producers of Science , 2000, Scientometrics.

[58]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Cross-national preference in co-authorship, references and citations , 2006, Scientometrics.