Cooperation, scale-invariance and complex innovation systems: a generalization

The focus of this paper is the question “Can scale-invariant properties of collaborative research activities of a complex innovation system be quantified, modeled and used to inform decision makers about the effect that cooperation has on the impact of published peer-reviewed research?” Over the past few decades cooperative research activities have been extensively studied. Presently, encouragement and support for collaborative research and training is a cornerstone of many innovation policies and programs. Concurrently, the study of complex systems has produced tools and techniques that can be applied to the study of innovation systems. They have been shown to be complex systems with scale-invariant properties that can be measured and modeled providing novel insights to decision makers. An important factor contributing to the emergence of scale-invariant properties is the inseparable tension between competitive and cooperative activities among actors within a complex system. Peer-reviewed papers index in the 1990–2010 Web of Science and citations to these papers are used as a partial measure of size and impact, respectively. Documents are classified into 14 natural, health and applied sciences fields. Numbers of authors and country information from each paper are used to classify documents into various types of cooperation. Scale-invariant correlations between impact and sizes where prepared to provide measures and models used to explore the effects of cooperation types. It is shown that collaborative research tends to have greater impact and for a longer period of time that non-collaborative research. Cooperation in the more applied fields show higher growth of impact when compared to the growth of their sizes than cooperation in fields closer to the basic or ‘blue sky’ end of the R&D spectrum. Cooperation in a complex innovation system can have significant effects on the relative growth of impact with respect to growth of size and it enhances the sustainability of the Matthew Effect over time. Cooperative activities appear to sustain self-organization in a complex innovation system.

[1]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Self-organization of progress across the century of physics , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[2]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  International collaboration in psychology is on the rise , 2010, Scientometrics.

[3]  M. Newman.  Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law , 2005 .

[4]  M. Westoby,et al.  Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[5]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[6]  Xing-Xiu Wang,et al.  Why Complex Organizations Cooperate with Competitors? An Systematic Perspective , 2013 .

[7]  Antoine Allard,et al.  Constrained growth of complex scale-independent systems. , 2016, Physical review. E.

[8]  Diana Hicks,et al.  How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model , 1997, Scientometrics.

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

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

[11]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Web indicators for complex innovation systems , 2006 .

[12]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies , 2004, Scientometrics.

[13]  Lucio Biggiero,et al.  Hunting scale-free properties in R&D collaboration networks: Self-organization, power-law and policy issues in the European aerospace research area , 2015 .

[14]  A. Vanraan,et al.  Fractal dimension of co-citations , 1990, Nature.

[15]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future , 2001, Scientometrics.

[16]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property , 1988, Isis.

[17]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  The Matthew effect in empirical data , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[18]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  What Is a Complex Innovation System? , 2016, PloS one.

[19]  M E Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  L. Bettencourt,et al.  Urban Scaling and Its Deviations: Revealing the Structure of Wealth, Innovation and Crime across Cities , 2010, PloS one.

[21]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results , 1998, Scientometrics.

[22]  Aurora González-Teruel,et al.  Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and co-citation networks , 2015, Scientometrics.

[23]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Indicators for Complex Innovation Systems , 2006 .

[24]  M. Newman.  Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-Independent Bibliometric Indicators , 2005 .

[26]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals? , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Li Tang,et al.  Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China , 2011, Scientometrics.

[28]  Mario Coccia,et al.  Allometric models to measure and analyze the evolution of international research collaboration , 2016, Scientometrics.

[29]  S. Milojevic.  Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment , 2010 .

[30]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Coauthorship Patterns and Trends in the Sciences (1980-1998): A Bibliometric Study With Implications for Database Indexing and Search Strategies , 2002, Libr. Trends.

[31]  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.

[33]  James H. Brown,et al.  A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology , 1997, Science.

[34]  Noriko Hara,et al.  An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo,et al.  The scaling relationship between citation‐based performance and coauthorship patterns in natural sciences , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[37]  Éric Archambault,et al.  Towards a Multilingual, Comprehensive and Open Scientific Journal Ontology , 2013 .

[38]  Ji-Huan He,et al.  Allometric scaling laws in biology and physics , 2009 .

[39]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  Patterns of Technological Innovation , 1984 .

[40]  Leon Tikly.  Introducing complex systems , 2019 .

[41]  Antoine Allard,et al.  Complex networks are an emerging property of hierarchical preferential attachment , 2013, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[42]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Necmi Kemal Avkiran,et al.  Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research , 2006, Scientometrics.

[44]  Diana Hicks,et al.  Science policy for a highly collaborative science system , 1996 .

[45]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[46]  Kara L. Hall,et al.  The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[47]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[48]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Are multi-authored articles cited more than single-authored ones? Are collaborations with authors from other countries more cited than collaborations within the country? A case study. , 2001 .

[49]  T. Vicsek,et al.  Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society , 2005, Nature.

[50]  Olle Persson,et al.  The measurement of international scientific collaboration , 1993, Scientometrics.

[51]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[52]  Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo,et al.  The power–law relationship between citation‐based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals: A scale‐independent approach , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[53]  Richard J. Smith.  Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting. , 2009, American journal of physical anthropology.

[54]  Cristina Olimpia Rus.  FIBONACCI NUMBERS IN HORTICULTURE , 2008 .

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

[56]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Inheritance patterns in citation networks reveal scientific memes , 2014, ArXiv.

[57]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration , 1994, Scientometrics.

[58]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Statistical Physics of Human Cooperation , 2017, ArXiv.

[59]  R. Carter.  11 – IT and society , 1991 .

[60]  Éric Archambault,et al.  Scale-Adjusted Metrics of Scientific Collaboration , 2011 .

[61]  Li Zhai,et al.  Evolutionary analysis of international collaboration network of Chinese scholars in management research , 2013, Scientometrics.