Purpose:The aim of this study is to analyze the evolution of international research collaboration from 1980 to 2021.The study examines the main global patterns as well as those specific to individual countries,country...Purpose:The aim of this study is to analyze the evolution of international research collaboration from 1980 to 2021.The study examines the main global patterns as well as those specific to individual countries,country groups,and different areas of research.Design/methodology/approach:The study is based on the Web of Science Core collection database.More than 50 million publications are analyzed using co-authorship data.International collaboration is defined as publications having authors affiliated with institutions located in more than one country.Findings:At the global level,the share of publications representing international collaboration has gradually increased from 4.7%in 1980 to 25.7%in 2021.The proportion of such publications within each country is higher and,in 2021,varied from less than 30%to more than 90%.There are notable disparities in the temporal trends,indicating that the process of internationalization has impacted countries in different ways.Several factors such as country size,income level,and geopolitics may explain the variance.Research limitations:Not all international research collaboration results in joint co-authored scientific publications.International co-authorship is a partial indicator of such collaboration.Another limitation is that the applied full counting method does not take into account the number of authors representing in each country in the publication.Practical implications:The study provides global averages,indicators,and concepts that can provide a useful framework of reference for further comparative studies of international research collaboration.Originality/value:Long-term macro-level studies of international collaboration are rare,and as a novelty,this study includes an analysis by the World Bank’s division of countries into four income groups.展开更多
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the coverage of the scientific literature in Scopus and Web of Science from the perspective of research evaluation.Design/methodology/approach: The academic communities ...Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the coverage of the scientific literature in Scopus and Web of Science from the perspective of research evaluation.Design/methodology/approach: The academic communities of Norway have agreed on certain criteria for what should be included as original research publications in research evaluation and funding contexts. These criteria have been applied since 2004 in a comprehensive bibliographic database called the Norwegian Science Index(NSI). The relative coverages of Scopus and Web of Science are compared with regard to publication type, field of research and language.Findings: Our results show that Scopus covers 72 percent of the total Norwegian scientific and scholarly publication output in 2015 and 2016, while the corresponding figure for Web of Science Core Collection is 69 percent. The coverages are most comprehensive in medicine and health(89 and 87 percent) and in the natural sciences and technology(85 and 84 percent). The social sciences(48 percent in Scopus and 40 percent in Web of Science Core Collection) and particularly the humanities(27 and 23 percent) are much less covered in the two international data sources. Research limitation: Comparing with data from only one country is a limitation of the study, but the criteria used to define a country's scientific output as well as the identification of patterns of field-dependent partial representations in Scopus and Web of Science should be recognizable and useful also for other countries. Originality/value: The novelty of this study is the criteria-based approach to studying coverage problems in the two data sources.展开更多
The "Norwegian Model" attempts to comprehensively cover all the peer-reviewed scholarly literatures in all areas of research in one single weighted indicator. Thereby, scientific production is made comparabl...The "Norwegian Model" attempts to comprehensively cover all the peer-reviewed scholarly literatures in all areas of research in one single weighted indicator. Thereby, scientific production is made comparable across departments and faculties within and between research institutions, and the indicator may serve institutional evaluation and funding. This article describes the motivation for creating the model in Norway, how it was designed, organized and implemented, as well as the effects and experiences with the model. The article ends with an overview of a new type of bibliometric studies that are based on the type of comprehensive national publication data that the Norwegian Model provides.展开更多
Purpose: This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based rese...Purpose: This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research funding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book publishers.Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on analysis of previously published studies, policy papers, and reported experiences related to the construction and use of lists of scholarly publication channels. Findings: Several countries have systems for research funding and/or evaluation, that involve the use of national lists of scholarly publication channels(mainly journals and publishers). Typically, such lists are selective(do not include all scholarly or non-scholarly channels) and differentiated(distinguish between channels of different levels and quality). At the same time, most lists are embedded in a system that encompasses multiple or all disciplines. This raises the question how such lists can be organized and maintained to ensure that all relevant disciplines and all types of research are adequately represented. Research limitation: The conclusions and recommendations of the study are based on the authors' interpretation of a complex and sometimes controversial process with many different stakeholders involved.Practical implications: The recommendations and the related background information provided in this paper enable mutual learning that may feed into improvements in the construction and maintenance of national and other lists of scholarly publication channels in any geographical context. This may foster a development of responsible evaluation practices.Originality/value: This paper presents the first general overview and typology of different kinds of publication channel lists, provides insights on expert-based versus metrics-based evaluation, and formulates a set of recommendations for the responsible construction and maintenance of publication channel lists.展开更多
文摘Purpose:The aim of this study is to analyze the evolution of international research collaboration from 1980 to 2021.The study examines the main global patterns as well as those specific to individual countries,country groups,and different areas of research.Design/methodology/approach:The study is based on the Web of Science Core collection database.More than 50 million publications are analyzed using co-authorship data.International collaboration is defined as publications having authors affiliated with institutions located in more than one country.Findings:At the global level,the share of publications representing international collaboration has gradually increased from 4.7%in 1980 to 25.7%in 2021.The proportion of such publications within each country is higher and,in 2021,varied from less than 30%to more than 90%.There are notable disparities in the temporal trends,indicating that the process of internationalization has impacted countries in different ways.Several factors such as country size,income level,and geopolitics may explain the variance.Research limitations:Not all international research collaboration results in joint co-authored scientific publications.International co-authorship is a partial indicator of such collaboration.Another limitation is that the applied full counting method does not take into account the number of authors representing in each country in the publication.Practical implications:The study provides global averages,indicators,and concepts that can provide a useful framework of reference for further comparative studies of international research collaboration.Originality/value:Long-term macro-level studies of international collaboration are rare,and as a novelty,this study includes an analysis by the World Bank’s division of countries into four income groups.
文摘Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the coverage of the scientific literature in Scopus and Web of Science from the perspective of research evaluation.Design/methodology/approach: The academic communities of Norway have agreed on certain criteria for what should be included as original research publications in research evaluation and funding contexts. These criteria have been applied since 2004 in a comprehensive bibliographic database called the Norwegian Science Index(NSI). The relative coverages of Scopus and Web of Science are compared with regard to publication type, field of research and language.Findings: Our results show that Scopus covers 72 percent of the total Norwegian scientific and scholarly publication output in 2015 and 2016, while the corresponding figure for Web of Science Core Collection is 69 percent. The coverages are most comprehensive in medicine and health(89 and 87 percent) and in the natural sciences and technology(85 and 84 percent). The social sciences(48 percent in Scopus and 40 percent in Web of Science Core Collection) and particularly the humanities(27 and 23 percent) are much less covered in the two international data sources. Research limitation: Comparing with data from only one country is a limitation of the study, but the criteria used to define a country's scientific output as well as the identification of patterns of field-dependent partial representations in Scopus and Web of Science should be recognizable and useful also for other countries. Originality/value: The novelty of this study is the criteria-based approach to studying coverage problems in the two data sources.
文摘The "Norwegian Model" attempts to comprehensively cover all the peer-reviewed scholarly literatures in all areas of research in one single weighted indicator. Thereby, scientific production is made comparable across departments and faculties within and between research institutions, and the indicator may serve institutional evaluation and funding. This article describes the motivation for creating the model in Norway, how it was designed, organized and implemented, as well as the effects and experiences with the model. The article ends with an overview of a new type of bibliometric studies that are based on the type of comprehensive national publication data that the Norwegian Model provides.
文摘Purpose: This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to the construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research funding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book publishers.Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on analysis of previously published studies, policy papers, and reported experiences related to the construction and use of lists of scholarly publication channels. Findings: Several countries have systems for research funding and/or evaluation, that involve the use of national lists of scholarly publication channels(mainly journals and publishers). Typically, such lists are selective(do not include all scholarly or non-scholarly channels) and differentiated(distinguish between channels of different levels and quality). At the same time, most lists are embedded in a system that encompasses multiple or all disciplines. This raises the question how such lists can be organized and maintained to ensure that all relevant disciplines and all types of research are adequately represented. Research limitation: The conclusions and recommendations of the study are based on the authors' interpretation of a complex and sometimes controversial process with many different stakeholders involved.Practical implications: The recommendations and the related background information provided in this paper enable mutual learning that may feed into improvements in the construction and maintenance of national and other lists of scholarly publication channels in any geographical context. This may foster a development of responsible evaluation practices.Originality/value: This paper presents the first general overview and typology of different kinds of publication channel lists, provides insights on expert-based versus metrics-based evaluation, and formulates a set of recommendations for the responsible construction and maintenance of publication channel lists.
