, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 53–72 | Cite as

International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level

  • Pu Han
  • Jin Shi
  • Xiaoyan Li
  • Dongbo Wang
  • Si Shen
  • Xinning Su


In order to gain a deeper understanding of the international collaboration of global library and information science (LIS), the present paper investigated the trends, networks as well as core groups of the international collaboration in LIS at the country and institution levels by combining bibliometric analysis and social network analysis. In this study, a total of 8,570 papers from 15 core journals during the period of 2000–2011 were collected. The results indicate that 66 % of papers are joint publications in global LIS. Two-country papers and two-institution papers are the two primary collaboration patterns in the international collaboration at the country and institution levels respectively. Through social network analysis, it is observed that the country collaboration network has reached a certain degree of maturity over the past 12 years in global LIS, while the international institution collaboration network has not yet matured and is made up of dozens of components. In the country collaboration network, the position of USA and UK are remarkable. Although the USA is positioned at the center of the network, institutions located in the USA are more inclined to have collaboration within domestic, suggesting institutions in the USA have a low tendency towards international collaboration. In the institution collaboration network, it is found that two groups located in the USA and Europe respectively. The results of the institution collaboration network also reveal that Katholieke Univ Leuven has not only the largest collaboration breadth, but also strong capabilities to control communication within the international institution collaboration network.


International collaboration Collaboration pattern Library and information science Evolutionary trend Bibliometric analysis Social network analysis 



The authors are grateful to anonymous referees and editors for their invaluable and insightful comments. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71273126 and 71303120) and the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11CYY031). The authors would like to thank Prof. YunBin Zhu (School of Foreign Studies, Anhui University), Dr. Jian Wu (School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing University of Posts & Telecommunications) for their useful comments and language editing which have greatly improved the manuscript.


  1. Ardanuy, J. (2012). Scientific collaboration in library and information science viewed through the web of knowledge: The Spanish case. Scientometrics, 90(3), 877–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börner, K., Penumarthy, S., Meiss, M., & Ke, W. (2006). Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major US research institutions. Scientometrics, 68(3), 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang, H. W. (2009). A bibliometric analysis of Asian authorship pattern in JASIST 1981–2005. In Asia Pacific conference on library and information education and practice. Tsukuba: Japan University of Tsukuba. Accessed October 20, 2012, from
  5. Chang, Y. W., & Huang, M. H. (2011). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 22–33.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H. W., & Huang, M. H. (2013). Prominent institutions in international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics. Scientometrics, 97(2), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chincilla-Rodriguez, Z., Ferligoj, A., Miguel, S., et al. (2012). Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: A case study. Scientometrics, 93(3), 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. New York: Cambridge university Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227, 669–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship 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
  15. He, B., Ding, Y., & Yan, E. J. (2012). Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 359–367.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu, C. P., Hu, J. M., Gao, Y., et al. (2011). A journal co-citation analysis of library and information science in China. Scientometrics, 86(3), 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jappe, A. (2007). Explaining international collaboration in global environmental change research. Scientometrics, 71(3), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kliegl, R., & Bates, D. (2011). International collaboration in psychology is on the rise. Scientometrics, 87(1), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lariviere, V., Sugimoto, C.R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science’s first hundred hears. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), 997–1016.Google Scholar
  22. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorship? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawani, S. M. (1981). Bibliometrics: Its theoretical foundations methods and applications. Libri, 31(4), 294–315.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, D. H., Seo, I. W., Choe, H. C., et al. (2012). Collaboration network patterns and research performance: The case of Korean public research institutions. Scientometrics, 91(3), 925–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu, H. I., Chang, B. C., & Chen, K. C. (2012). Collaboration patterns of Taiwanese scientific publications in various research areas. Scientometrics, 92(1), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCarty, C. (2002). Measuring structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure, 3. Accessed August 23, 2013,
  29. Milojevic, S., Sugimoto, C. R., Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). The cognitive structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1933–1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Nikzad, M., Jamali, H. R., & Hariri, N. (2011). Patterns of Iranian co-authorship networks in social sciences: A comparative study. Library and Information Science Research, 33(4), 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nisonger, T. E., & Davis, C. H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl-Davis study. College and Research Libraries, 66(4), 341–377.Google Scholar
  34. Schummer, J. (2007). The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics, 70(3), 669–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sin, S. C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1770–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics, 86(1), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, X. W., Xu, S. M., et al. (2012). The role of Chinese–American scientists in China–US scientific collaboration: A study in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 91(3), 737–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolfram, D. (2012). An analysis of Canadian contributions to the information science research literature: 1989–2008. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 36(1–2), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yan, E. J., Ding, Y., & Zhu, Q. H. (2010). Mapping library and information science in China: A coauthorship network analysis. Scientometrics, 83(1), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yan, E., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2011). Institutional interactions: Exploring the social, cognitive, and geographic relationships between institutions as demonstrated through citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1498–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu, Q., Shao, H. F., He, P. F., et al. (2013). World scientific collaboration in coronary heart disease research. International Journal of Cardiology, 167(3), 631–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao, D. Z. (2010). Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: A case study of the library and information science field. Scientometrics, 84(2), 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao, L. M., & Zhang, Q. P. (2011). Mapping knowledge domains of Chinese digital library research output, 1994–2010. Scientometrics, 89(1), 51–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pu Han
    • 1
  • Jin Shi
    • 2
  • Xiaoyan Li
    • 3
  • Dongbo Wang
    • 2
  • Si Shen
    • 2
  • Xinning Su
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Economics & ManagementNanjing University of Posts & TelecommunicationsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Information ManagementNanjing UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Microbiology & Immunology, School of Basic Medical SciencesNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations