Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 15–36 | Cite as

The measurement of international scientific collaboration

  • Terttu Luukkonen
  • R. J. W. Tijssen
  • O. Persson
  • G. Sivertsen
Article

Abstract

A growing science policy interest in international scientific collaboration has brought about a multitude of studies which attempt to measure the extent of international scientific collaboration between countries and to explore intercountry collaborative networks. This paper attempts to clarify the methodology that is being used or can be used for this purpose and discusses the adequacy of the methods. The paper concludes that, in an analysis of collaborative links, it is essential to use both absolute and relative measures. The latter normalize differences in country size. Each yields a different type of information. Absolute measures yield an answer to questions such as which countries are central in the international network of science, whether collaborative links reveal a centre — periphery relationship, and which countries are the most important collaborative partners of another country. Relative measures provide answers to questions of the intensity of collaborative links.

Keywords

Relative Measure Science Policy Absolute Measure International Network Scientific Collaboration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. 1.
    D. deB. Beaver, R. Rosen, Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 65–84.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, G. Sivertsen, Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration,Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17 (1992) 101–126.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. deB. Beaver, R. Rosen, Studies in scientific collaboration. Part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830,Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 133–149.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.g.G. Lewison, P. Cunningham, Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of transnational research,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 223–244; The EC SCIENCE/Stimulation Programme.Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 325–342.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.-F. Miquel, Y. Okubo, Indicators to measure internationalization of science. A paper presented at a conference organised by the OECD, ”Consequences of the Technology Economy Programme for the Development of Indicators”, Paris, 2nd–5th July 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. de Bruin, R. R. Braam, H. F. Moed, Bibliometric lines in the sand,Nature, 349 (1991) 559–562.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. J. W. Tijssen, H. F. Moed, Literature-based statistical analyses of international scientific cooperation. An exploratory case study of the Netherlands. In:A. F. J. van Raan, A. J. Nederhof, H. F. Moed (Eds),Science and Technology Indicators. Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies, Leiden, DSWO Press, 1989, p. 129–145.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Narin, E. S. Whitlow, Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science. Vol 1. Commission of the European Communities (EUR 12900 EN), 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Schubert, T. Braun, International collaboration in the sciences, 1981–1985,Scientometrics, 19 (1990) 3–10.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.-F. Miquel, Y. Okubo,op. cit. note 5 Indicators to measure internationalization of science. A paper presented at a conference organised by the OECD, “Consequences of the Technology Economy Programme for the Development of Indicators”, Paris, 2nd–5th July 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Lewison, P. Cunningham, Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of trans-national research,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 223–244.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. F. Moed, R. E. de Bruin, A. J. Nederhof, R. J. W. Tijssen International scientific co-operation and awareness within the European Community: Problems and perspectives,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 291–311.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Narin, K. Stevens, E. S. Whitlow Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 313–323.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, G. Sivertsen,op. cit., note 2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.-F. Miquel, Y. Okubo,op. cit., note 5 Indicators to measure internationalization of science. A paper presented at a conference organised by the OECD, “Consequences of the Technology Economy Programme for the Development of Indicators”, Paris, 2nd–5th July 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Schubert, T. Braun,op. cit., note 9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. J. W. Tijssen, H. F. Moed,op. cit., note 7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, G. Sivertsen,op. cit., note 2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Narin, E. S. Whitlow,op. cit., note 8 Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science. Vol 1. Commission of the European Communities (EUR 12900 EN), 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Earth and space science, mathematics, physics, biomedicine, biology, chemistry, engineering and technology, clinical medicine.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Science and Technology Policy — Review and Outlook 1991. OECD: Paris 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J.-F. Miquel, Y. Okubo,op. cit., note 5 Indicators to measure internationalization of science. A paper presented at a conference organised by the OECD, “Consequences of the Technology Economy Programme for the Development of Indicators”, Paris, 2nd–5th July 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, G. Sivertsen,op. cit. note 2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Anderson, P. M. D. Collins, J. Irvine, P. A. Isard, B. R. Martin, F. Narin, K. Stevens, Online approaches to measuring national scientific output: A cautionary tale,Science and Public Policy, 15 (1988) 153–161.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Our choice of the measures presented here has been guided by the following methodological and practical considerations: appropriateness, accessibility, and illustrative power.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Salton, D. Bergmark, A citation study of computer science literature,IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-22, 3 (1979) 393–440.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. H. A. Sneath, R. R. Sokal,Numerical Taxonomy, Freeman, San Francisco, 1973.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    E.g.T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, G. Sivertsen,op. cit., note 2.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. A. Goodman, The analysis of cross-classified data: independence, quasi-independence, and interactions in contingency tables with or without missing entries,Journal of American Statistical Association, 63 (1968) 1091–1131.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E.g.A. Schubert, T. Braun,op. cit., note 9.R. de Bruin, R. R. Braam, H. F. Moed,op. cit., note 6. Bibliometric lines in the sand,Nature, 349 (1991) 559–562.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. J. W. Tijssen,Cartography of science: scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods, Leiden, DSWO Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    I. Gómez, A. Méndez, Are peripheral countries profiting from scientific cooperation networks? In:P. Weingart, R. Sehringer, M. Winterhager (Eds),Representations of Science and Technology, Leiden, DWSO Press, 1992, 112–123.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    R. J. W. Tijssen, J. De Leeuw, A. F. J. van Raan, Quasi-correspondence analysis on scientometric transaction matrices,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 351–366, describes an alternative method for doing a quasi-correspondence analysis through the application of a standard correspondence analysis to a pre-processed data matrix.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terttu Luukkonen
    • 1
  • R. J. W. Tijssen
    • 2
  • O. Persson
    • 3
  • G. Sivertsen
    • 4
  1. 1.The Academy of FinlandHelsinki(Finland)
  2. 2.Centre for Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of LeidenLeiden(The Netherlands)
  3. 3.Inforsk GroupUniversity of UmeåUmeå(Sweden)
  4. 4.Institute for Studies in Research and Higher EducationOslo 2(Norway)

Personalised recommendations