Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Solazzi, M. (2011a). Are researchers that collaborate more at the international level top performers? An investigation on the Italian university system. Journal of Informetrics 5(1), 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Solazzi, M. (2011b). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics 86(3), 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: a comparison between Europe and the USA. Technovation 24(7), 517–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bammer, G. (2008). Enhancing research collaborations: three key management challenges. Research Policy 37(5), 875–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74(1), 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics 85(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present and future. Scientometrics 52(3), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1(1), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2006). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 64(1), 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabanac, G. (2012). Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: a scientometric study of 77 leading journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(5), 977–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (1981). The need for a theory of citing. Journal of Documentation 37(1), 16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, P., Norris, R., Resh, V., Reynoldson, T., Rosenberg, D., & Barbour, M. (1999). Collaboration in scientific research: a critical need for freshwater ecology. Freshwater Biology 42(1), 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortnow L. (2009) Time for computer science to grow up. Communications of the ACM 52(8), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M. (2010). The role of conference publications in computer science: a bibliometric view. Communications of the ACM 53(12), 129–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet M. (2011) Collaboration in computer science: a network science approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(10), 1992–2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics 4(4), 540–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2000). Use of journal citation reports and journal performance indicators in measuring short and long term journal impact. Croatian Medical Journal 41(4), 368–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the Impact Factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 3(2), 363–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(2), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics 51(1), 69–115.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hauptman, R. (2005). How to be a successful scholar: publish efficiently. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 36(2), 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibañez, A., Bielza, C., & Larrañaga, P. (2012). Analysis of scientific activity in Spanish public universities in the area of computer science. Revista Española de Documentacion Cientifica (accepted).

  • Katz, J., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, W., & Wallis, W. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47(260), 583–621.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Laine, C., & Mulrow, C. (2005) Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests. Annals of Internal Medicine 143(8), 611–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B., Guerrero Bote, V.P., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., & de Moya Anegon, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(3), 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., & Amara, N. (1998). The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy 27(9), 901–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(3), 434–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics 86(3), 747–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, H., & Whitney, D. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18(1), 50–60.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G., & Olson, J. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction 15(2), 139–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glanzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, P. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 39(5), 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S. (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science 10(1), 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Perez, R., Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E., & Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2002). Spanish personal name variations in national and international biomedical databases: implications for information retrieval and bibliometric studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association 90(4), 411–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolinsky, L., & Lercher, A. (2012). Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline. Scientometrics 91(3), 911–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (2009). Programmers, professors, and parasites: credit and co-authorship in computer science. Science and Engineering Ethics 14(5), 476–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics 81(1), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanRaan, A. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research result. Scientometrics 42(3), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, J., Billa, C., & Goldenstein, S. (2011). Invisible work in standard bibliometric evaluation of computer science. Communications of the ACM 54(5), 141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics 62(1), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zetterstrom, R. (2004). The number of authors of scientific publications. Acta Paediatrica 93(5), 581–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Work partially supported by Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, TIN2008-04528-E, TIN2010-20900-C04-04, Cajal Blue Brain and Consolider Ingenio 2010-CSD2007-00018 grants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Intelligence Group, Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial, Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus de Montegancedo s/n, Boadilla del Monte, 28660, Madrid, Spain

    Alfonso Ibáñez, Concha Bielza & Pedro Larrañaga

Authors
  1. Alfonso Ibáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Concha Bielza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Larrañaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfonso Ibáñez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ibáñez, A., Bielza, C. & Larrañaga, P. Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009. Scientometrics 95, 689–716 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0883-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0883-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation