International Collaboration in Science: The Global Map and the Network

The network of international co-authorship relations has been dominated by certain European nations and the USA, but this network is rapidly expanding at the global level. Between 40 and 50 countries appear in the center of the international network in 2011, and almost all (201) nations are nowadays involved in international collaboration. In this brief communication, we present both a global map with the functionality of a Google Map (zooming, etc.) and network maps based on normalized relations. These maps reveal complementary aspects of the network. International collaboration in the generation of knowledge claims (that is, the context of discovery) changes the structural layering of the sciences. Previously, validation was at the global level and discovery more dependent on local contexts. This changing relationship between the geographical and intellectual dimensions of the sciences also has implications for national science policies.

[1]  Olle Persson,et al.  Are highly cited papers more international? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[2]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[3]  Sujin Choi.  Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars?: international scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization , 2011, Scientometrics.

[4]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science , 2010, Scientometrics.

[5]  G. Laudel.  What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .

[6]  Jonathan Adams.  Collaborations: The rise of research networks , 2012, Nature.

[7]  M. Gondwe,et al.  Global research report on Africa. , 2010, Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi.

[8]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea , 2011, Scientometrics.

[9]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003) An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix , 2007, Scientometrics.

[10]  C. Wagner,et al.  The New Invisible College , 2009 .

[11]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[12]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

[13]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  Ernesto Zumelzu,et al.  Scientific cooperation between Chile and Spain: Joint mainstream publications (1991-2000) , 2004, Scientometrics.

[15]  J. Ben-David,et al.  The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study , 1973 .

[16]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[17]  Caroline S. Wagner,et al.  Unseen science: Representation of BRICs in global science , 2011, 2011 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy.

[18]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study , 2006, Scientometrics.

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

[20]  Benedetto Lepori,et al.  Coordination modes in public funding systems , 2011 .

[21]  Thomas Schøtt.  The world scientific community: Globality and globalisation , 1991 .

[22]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  International collaboration clusters in Africa , 2013, Scientometrics.

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

[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]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international coauthorship relations , 2009 .

[27]  F. Braudel,et al.  French historical method. The `Annales' paradigm , 1978, Medical History.

[28]  Karl R. Popper.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1977 .

[29]  S. W. Woolgar.  The Identification and Definition of Scientific Collectivities , 1976 .

[30]  Ki-Seok KwonHan,et al.  Has globalization strengthened South Korea's national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea , 2012 .

[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.

[32]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Ralph Schroeder,et al.  The Emerging Governance of E-Infrastructure , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..