, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 59–86 | Cite as

Publishing in international journals

An examination of trends in chinese co-authorship
  • Jo Royle
  • Louisa Coles
  • Dorothy Williams
  • Paul Evans


This paper examines patterns of Chinese authorship, focusing particularly on international co-authorship, in a sample of 37,526 articles from Elsevier journals published in 2004. Trends relating to potential influences such as subject, journal impact factor and article type are explored. A slightly higher proportion of articles with at least one Chinese author was observed as compared to previous studies. Articles that are a product of Chinese international collaboration account for almost 20% of the Chinese sample as a whole, a similar proportion to levels of international collaboration within the sample overall. Chinese international co-authorship is most common in the Earth & Environmental Sciences. Where China is involved in international collaboration, it is often a proactive participant: 49% of articles that are a result of Chinese international collaboration have a Chinese corresponding author. With some minor variations in subject categories, countries favoured in international co-authorship reflect world shares in publishing and factors such as geographical proximity and political links.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amin, M., Mabe, M. (2000), Impact Factors: use and abuse, Perspectives in Publishing, 1: 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Arunachalam, S., Doss, M. J. (2000), Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through coauthorship analysis, Current Science, 79: 621–628.Google Scholar
  3. Bassecoulard, E., Okubo, Y., Zitt, M. (2001), Insights in determinents of international scientific collaboration. In: Havemann, F., Wagner-Döbler, R., Kretschmer, H. (Eds), Collaboration in Science and Technology: Proceedings of the Second Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Infometrics, September 1st–3rd, 2000. Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung, Berlin, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, D. M., Taylor, D. M. (2003), Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers, Emergency Medicine, 15: 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordons, M., Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., Méndez, A. (1996), Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research, Scientometrics, 37: 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (1999), A global snapshot of scientific trends, UNESCO Courier, 52: 28–29.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2000), How balanced is the Science Citation Index’s journal coverage? A preliminary overview of macrolevel statistical data. In: Cronin, B., Barsky Atkins, H. (Eds), The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. American Society for Information Science, Medford, New Jersey, pp. 251–277.Google Scholar
  8. Buela-Casal, G. (2004), Assessing the quality of articles and scientific journals: Proposal for weighted impact factor and a quality index, Psychology in Spain, 8: 60–76.Google Scholar
  9. Carayannis, E. G., Laget, P. (2004), Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: Public-private, EU-US R&D partnerships, R & D Management, 34: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, L., Su, J., Mao, X. (2004), Funding pattern and policy research on National Science Foundation of China, Studies in Science of Science, 22: 581–588. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  11. Cronin, B. (1995), The Scholar’s Courtesy: The Role of Acknowledgements in the Primary Communication Process, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  12. Cronin, B. (2001), Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52: 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cronin, B. (2004), Bowling alone together: Academic writing as distributed cognition, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55: 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engels, A., Ruschenburg, T., Weingart, P. (2005), Recent internationalization of global environmental change research in Germany and the US, Scientometrics, 62: 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flanagin, A., Carey, L., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., Rennie, D. (1998), Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garfield, E. (1996), How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313: 411–413.Google Scholar
  17. Georghiou, L. (1998), Global cooperation in research, Research Policy, 27: 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giles, C. L., Councill, I. G. (2004), Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101: 17599–17604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W. (2001), National characteristics in international science co-authorship, Scientometrics, 51: 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glänzel, W., Moed, H. F. (2002), Journal impact measures in bibliometric research, Scientometrics, 53: 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2001), Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international coauthorship in Chemistry, Scientometrics, 50: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., Derouen, K. (2003), Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and ‘periphery effects’ in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000, Scientometrics, 57: 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gordon, M. D. (1980), A Critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication, Scientometrics, 2: 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. He, T., Zhang, J., Teng, L. (2005), Basic research in biochemistry and molecular biology in China: A bibliometric analysis, Scientometrics, 62: 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jin, B., Rousseau, R. (2004), Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In: Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Science and Technology Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht and London, pp. 497–514.Google Scholar
  26. Katz, J. S., Martin, B. R. (1997), What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King, D. A. (2004), The scientific impact of nations, Nature, 430: 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, J. T. (2000), How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurological research, Neurosurgery, 47: 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laband, D. N., Tollison, R. D. (2000), Intellectual collaboration, Journal of Political Economy, 108: 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laudel, G. (2002), What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11: 3–15.Google Scholar
  31. Leimu, R., Koricheva, J. (2005), Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience, 55: 438–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff, L., Zhou, P. (2005), Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63: 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ma, N., Guan, J. (2005), An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in molecular biology, Scientometrics, 65: 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthiessen, C. W., Schwarz, A. W., Find, S. (2002), The top-level global research system, 1997–99: Centres, networks and nodality. An analysis based on bibliometric indicators, Urban Studies, 39: 903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meadows, J. (2000), The growth of journal literature: A historical perspective. In: Cronin, B., Barsky Atkins, H. (Eds), The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. American Society for Information Science, Medford, New Jersey, pp. 87–107.Google Scholar
  36. Merton, R. K., Garfield, E. (1986), Foreword. In: Price, D. J. de Solla (Ed.), Little Science, Big Science… and Beyond. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. [Available at:]Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, M., Bhattacharya, S. (2004), Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration — an exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses, Scientometrics, 61: 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagpaul, P. S. (2003), Exploring a pseudo-regression model of transnational cooperation in science, Scientometrics, 56: 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pavitt, K. (1998), The social shaping of the national science base, Research Policy, 27: 793–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., Fischer, H. M., Brown, J., Kanfer, A., Bowker, G. (2004), Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams, Research Policy, 33: 661–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Price, D. J. de Solla (1963), Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A. (1994), Authorship! Authorship!: guests, ghosts, grafters and the two-sided coin (editorial), The Journal of the American Medical Association, 271: 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Russell, J. M. (2001), Scientific communication at the beginning of the twenty-first century, International Social Science Journal, 168: 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schummer, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology, Scientometrics, 59: 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seglen, P. O. (1997), Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, British Medical Journal, 314: 498–502.Google Scholar
  46. Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., Shapiro, M. (1994), The contributions of authors to multi-authored biomedical research papers, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 271: 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. The Publishers Association (2005), The Attitudes of Chinese Academics to Foreign Scholarly Journals: part 1, report, The Publishers Association, London.Google Scholar
  48. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998), The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results, Scientometrics, 42: 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Zimmermann, E. (2002), Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology — I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4: 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner, C. S. (2005), Six case studies of international collaboration in science, Scientometrics, 62: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner, C. S., Leydesdorff, L. (2005), Network structure, self organisation and the growth of international collaboration in science, Research Policy, 34: 1606–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang, Y., Wu, Y. (2001), Status and trend of scientific and technical collaboration between People’s Republic of China and Commonwealth of Australia. In: Havemann, F., Wagner-Döbler, R., Kretschmer, H. (Eds), Collaboration in Science and Technology: Proceedings of the Second Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Infometrics, September 1st–3rd, 2000. Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung, Berlin, pp. 211–219.Google Scholar
  53. Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ma, Z., Rousseau, R. (2005), Scientific collaboration in china as reflected in co-authorship, Scientometrics, 62: 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang, H., Guo, H. (1997), Research collaboration in China, Scientometrics, 38: 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhou, P., Leydesdorff, L. (2006), The emergence of China as a leading nation in science, Research Policy, 85: 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jo Royle
    • 1
  • Louisa Coles
    • 1
  • Dorothy Williams
    • 2
  • Paul Evans
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Communication and LanguagesThe Robert Gordon UniversityAberdeenScotland
  2. 2.Department of Information ManagementThe Robert Gordon UniversityAberdeenScotland
  3. 3.Elsevier Science and TechnologyChina BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations