有组织科研团队建设有赖于对科研合作现象和规律的科学认识。常用于科研合作模式研究的合著者网络默认同一成果的合作者间贡献均等,但这通常与科研合作实践相左。作者贡献声明数据的出现为揭示更细粒度的合作实践提供了重要素材。为此,...有组织科研团队建设有赖于对科研合作现象和规律的科学认识。常用于科研合作模式研究的合著者网络默认同一成果的合作者间贡献均等,但这通常与科研合作实践相左。作者贡献声明数据的出现为揭示更细粒度的合作实践提供了重要素材。为此,本研究提出一种利用贡献声明数据构建的新型合作网络——合贡献者网络,为深入研究科研合作问题提供新工具。本研究以PLoS(Public Library of Science)上的药学论文数据为例,以合著者网络为基准,从合贡献者网络的网络结构特征入手,认识此新型合作网络的物理性质;选取当前重要研究方向之一的“合作群体识别”为切入点,进一步认识合贡献者网络的应用价值。研究结果表明:①在网络结构形态上,合贡献者网络比合著者网络更稀疏;②在合作群体识别上,两种网络的群体识别结果部分一致,重合度约为57%;约32%的合作群体在合贡献者网络上发生了重组;③合贡献者网络中的合作群体发文主题比合著者网络更为聚焦,但检验结果并不显著。总体来看,在本研究的数据集上,合贡献者网络较之合著者网络显示出更良好的社区结构;合贡献者网络有助于识别出更细粒度的合作群体,且在所识别的合作群体上发文主题的一致性更高。展开更多
Purpose: In this contribution we provide two new co-authorship indicators based on fractional counting. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the idea of fractional counting we reflect on what should be an acceptable ...Purpose: In this contribution we provide two new co-authorship indicators based on fractional counting. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the idea of fractional counting we reflect on what should be an acceptable indicator for co-authorship between two entities. From this reflection we propose an indicator, the co-authorship score, denoted as cs, using the harmonic mean. Dividing this new indicator by the classical co-authorship indicator based on full counting, leads to a co-authorship intensity indicator.Findings: We show that the indicators we propose have many necessary or at least highly desirable properties for a proper cs-score. It is pointed out that the two new indicators can be used for countries, but also for institutions and other pairs of entities. A small example shows the feasibility of the co-authorship score and the co-authorship intensity indicator.Research limitations: The indicators are not yet tested in real cases.Practical implications: As the notions of co-authorship and collaboration have many aspects, we think that our contribution may help policy management to take yet another aspect into account as part of a multi-faceted description of research outcomes.Originality/value: The indicators we propose cover yet another aspect of co-authorship.展开更多
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
采用文献计量学方法,以Web of Science等数据库作为数据源,选取国内外14所著名研究型大学为研究对象,对其近5年间的国际合著论文进行统计分析,用量化数据探究研究型大学国际合著论文的发展现状与分布规律,包括SCI国际合著论文数量及国...采用文献计量学方法,以Web of Science等数据库作为数据源,选取国内外14所著名研究型大学为研究对象,对其近5年间的国际合著论文进行统计分析,用量化数据探究研究型大学国际合著论文的发展现状与分布规律,包括SCI国际合著论文数量及国际合著率、篇均被引次数、期刊平均影响因子、参与国家分布等。在大量客观数据的基础上,对国际合著论文与国内独著论文的多项影响力指标和分布特征进行比较研究,论证得出国际合著论文的质量在统计学上优于国内独著论文的结论,并进一步指出我国大学与国外一流大学的差距及其形成原因,提出若干发展建议。展开更多
文摘有组织科研团队建设有赖于对科研合作现象和规律的科学认识。常用于科研合作模式研究的合著者网络默认同一成果的合作者间贡献均等,但这通常与科研合作实践相左。作者贡献声明数据的出现为揭示更细粒度的合作实践提供了重要素材。为此,本研究提出一种利用贡献声明数据构建的新型合作网络——合贡献者网络,为深入研究科研合作问题提供新工具。本研究以PLoS(Public Library of Science)上的药学论文数据为例,以合著者网络为基准,从合贡献者网络的网络结构特征入手,认识此新型合作网络的物理性质;选取当前重要研究方向之一的“合作群体识别”为切入点,进一步认识合贡献者网络的应用价值。研究结果表明:①在网络结构形态上,合贡献者网络比合著者网络更稀疏;②在合作群体识别上,两种网络的群体识别结果部分一致,重合度约为57%;约32%的合作群体在合贡献者网络上发生了重组;③合贡献者网络中的合作群体发文主题比合著者网络更为聚焦,但检验结果并不显著。总体来看,在本研究的数据集上,合贡献者网络较之合著者网络显示出更良好的社区结构;合贡献者网络有助于识别出更细粒度的合作群体,且在所识别的合作群体上发文主题的一致性更高。
基金supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 7197415071573085)+1 种基金the National Social Science Foundation of China (18VSJ087)the National Laboratory Center for Library and Information Science in Wuhan University。
文摘Purpose: In this contribution we provide two new co-authorship indicators based on fractional counting. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the idea of fractional counting we reflect on what should be an acceptable indicator for co-authorship between two entities. From this reflection we propose an indicator, the co-authorship score, denoted as cs, using the harmonic mean. Dividing this new indicator by the classical co-authorship indicator based on full counting, leads to a co-authorship intensity indicator.Findings: We show that the indicators we propose have many necessary or at least highly desirable properties for a proper cs-score. It is pointed out that the two new indicators can be used for countries, but also for institutions and other pairs of entities. A small example shows the feasibility of the co-authorship score and the co-authorship intensity indicator.Research limitations: The indicators are not yet tested in real cases.Practical implications: As the notions of co-authorship and collaboration have many aspects, we think that our contribution may help policy management to take yet another aspect into account as part of a multi-faceted description of research outcomes.Originality/value: The indicators we propose cover yet another aspect of co-authorship.
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.
文摘采用文献计量学方法,以Web of Science等数据库作为数据源,选取国内外14所著名研究型大学为研究对象,对其近5年间的国际合著论文进行统计分析,用量化数据探究研究型大学国际合著论文的发展现状与分布规律,包括SCI国际合著论文数量及国际合著率、篇均被引次数、期刊平均影响因子、参与国家分布等。在大量客观数据的基础上,对国际合著论文与国内独著论文的多项影响力指标和分布特征进行比较研究,论证得出国际合著论文的质量在统计学上优于国内独著论文的结论,并进一步指出我国大学与国外一流大学的差距及其形成原因,提出若干发展建议。
