Scientometrics

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 171–183 | Cite as

Does the higher citation of collaborative research differ from region to region? A case study of Economics

Article

Abstract

Many studies have found that collaborative research is, in general, more highly cited than non-collaborative research. This paper describes an investigation into the extent to which the association between high citation and collaboration for Economics articles published in 2000 varies from region to region and depends on the choice of indicator of citation level. Using data from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for 18 countries, 17 American states and four indicators of citation level the citation levels of the collaborative articles are compared with the citation levels of the non-collaborative articles. The main findings are that: (a) for every country and every indicator the mean citation level of the collaborative articles was at least as high as that for the non-collaborative articles, but for five US states and for at least one other indicator the citation level of collaborative articles was lower than that of non-collaborative articles, and (b) the extent to which collaborative articles were more highly cited varied considerably from country to country, from state to state, and from indicator to indicator. This indicates the importance of using multiple indicators when investigating citation advantage since the choice of indicator can change the results.

Keywords

Citation analysis Research collaboration 

References

  1. Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crase, D., & Rosato, F. D. (1992). Single versus multiple authorship in professional journals. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dancing, 63(7), 28–31.Google Scholar
  4. Frederiksen, L. F. (2004). Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility. Scientometrics, 61(2), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glänzel, W. (2002). Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980.1998). A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–473.Google Scholar
  8. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? a critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Schlemmer, B. (2004). A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics, 59(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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(3), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gómez, I., Fernandez, M. T., & Sebastian, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44(3), 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hart, R. L. (2007). Collaboration and article quality in the literature of academic librarianship. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. HEFCE. (2009). Interim report of the REF bibliometrics pilot exercise (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/rdreports/2009/rd13_09/rd13_09.doc. Accessed 1st Feb 2010.
  15. Herbertz, H. (1995). Does it pay to cooperate––a bibliometric case-study in molecular-biology. Scientometrics, 33(1), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(7), 1055–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leimu, R. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience, 55, 438–443.Google Scholar
  19. Leta, J., & Chaimovich, H. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration: The Brazilian case. Scientometrics, 53(3), 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 59(12), 1973–1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levitt, J. M. & Thewall, M. (2007). Two new indicators derived from the h-index for comparing citation impact: Hirsch frequencies and the normalised hirsch index. Proceedings of the 11th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics, pp. 874–875.Google Scholar
  22. Levitt, J. M., & Thewall, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewison, G. (2007). Counting citations: Fractionation of addresses and “world-scale”, a new scalar. Proceedings of the 11th conference of the international society for scientometrics and infometrics, pp. 880–881.Google Scholar
  24. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open-access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1963–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pereira, J. C. R., Fischer, A. L., & Escuder, M. M. L. (2000). Driving factors of high performance in Brazilian management sciences for the 1981–1995 period. Scientometrics, 49(2), 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Persson, O., Glänzel, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz, F., & Fang, Y. C. (2007). Citation data analysis on hydrogeology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 518–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Uthman, O. A. (2008). HIV/AIDS in Nigeria: A bibliometric analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases, 8(3). doi:10.1186/1471-2334-8-19.
  31. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vogel, E. E. (1997). Impact factor and international collaboration in Chilean physics: 1987–1994. Scientometrics, 38(2), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yi, H., Ao, X. L., & Ho, Y. S. (2008). Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate pentachlorophenol research. Scientometrics, 75(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, School of Computing and Information TechnologyUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations