, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 823–839 | Cite as

International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines



This paper studies disciplinary differences in citation impacts of different types of co-publishing. The citation impacts of international, domestic inter-organizational and domestic intra-organizational co-publications, and single-authored publications, are compared. In particular, we examine the extent to which the number of authors explains the potential differences in citation impacts when compared to the influence of different types of international and domestic collaborations. The analysis is based on Finland’s publications in Thomson Reuters Web of Science database in 1990–2008. Finland is a small country, thus, it has fewer opportunities to find collaborators inside own country when compared to larger countries. Finland’s science policy has underlined internationalization and research collaboration as key means to increase the quality and impact of Finnish research. This study indicates that both international and domestic co-publishing have steadily increased during the past two decades in all disciplinary groups. International co-publications gain on average more citations than domestic co-publications. In natural sciences and engineering, co-authorship explains only a small proportion of variability in publications’ citation rates. When the effect of the number of authors is taken into account there are no big differences in citation impacts between international and domestic co-publications. However, international co-publications by ten authors or more gather significantly more citations than other publications. In humanities, the difference in citation impacts between co-authored publications in relation to single-authored publications is significant. However, international co-publications are not on average more highly cited in relation to domestic co-publications in humanities.


Co-publishing Research collaboration Research policy Citation impact 


  1. Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: a network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission. (2008). A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area. Science, Technology and Competitiveness. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Finnish Ministry of Education. (2004). Management and Steering of Higher Education in Finland. Publications from the Finnish Ministry of Education 2004:20.Google Scholar
  4. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Report from the Finnish Citation Index Working Group II. Finnish research organizations’ publications and citations in the Web of Science, 19902009. Publications from the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture 2018:18.Google Scholar
  5. Frame, J., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International Research Collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Gossart, C., & Özman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hakala, J. (1998). Internationalisation of Science: Views of the Scientific Elite in Finland. Science Studies, 11(1), 52–74.Google Scholar
  11. Herbertz, H. (1995). Does it pay to Cooperate? A bibliometric case-study in molecular-biology. Scientometrics, 33(1), 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Himanen, L., Auranen, O., Puuska, H.-M., & Nieminen, M. (2009). Influence of research funding and science policy on university research performance: a comparison of five countries. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsu, J., & Huang, D. (2011). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86(2), 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, J. S. (2012). Scale-Independent Measures: Theory and Practice. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, September 5–8, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Katz, J., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaukonen, E., Miettinen, M., Piirainen, T., Puuska, H.-M., & Vuolanto, P. (2009). Internationalisation of university research: Practices and problems, in: Ahonen, P.-P., Hjelt, M., Kaukonen, E., & Vuolanto, P. (Eds), Internationalisation of Finnish scientific research. Publications of the Academy of Finland 7/09, pp. 91–122.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kyvik, S. (1991). Productivity in academia: Scientific publishing at Norwegian universities. Rådet for samfunnsvitenskapelig forskning, NAVF.Google Scholar
  19. Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2010). What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines? Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larivière, 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. Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 762–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(5), 438–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown: Citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Moed, H., de Bruin, R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muhonen, R., Puuska, H.-M., & Leino, Y. (2012). International co-publishing in Finland. Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2012:19.Google Scholar
  28. Must, U. (2012). Alone or together: Examples from history research. Scientometrics, 91(2), 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nederhof, A. J., & Visser, M. S. (2004). Qualitative deconstructions of citation impact indicators. Waxing field impact but waning journal impact. Journal of Documentation, 60(6), 668–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. NordForsk. (2010). International Research Cooperation in the Nordic countries. A Publication from the NORIA-net “The Use of bibliometrics in research policy and evaluation activities”. Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2012). Main Science and Technology Indicators. Key Figures. Volume 2012/1. OECD.Google Scholar
  33. 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), 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Persson, O., Luukkonen, T., & Hälikkä, S. (2000). A bibliometric study of Finnish science. VTT, Group for Technology Studies Working Papers No. 48/00.Google Scholar
  35. Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). International collaboration in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 19(1–2), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre-periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83(1), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics, 81(1), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Raan, A. (1997). Science as an international enterprise. Science and Public Policy, 24(5), 290–300.Google Scholar
  40. van Raan, A. (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
  41. Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna-Mari Puuska
    • 1
    • 2
  • Reetta Muhonen
    • 1
  • Yrjö Leino
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.CSC - IT Centre for ScienceEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations