This study attempts to describe, in a comparative way, scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities and understanding of Brazilian researchers of productivity level 1 at the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). In order to do so, a questionnaire was sent to the researchers of productivity level 1 at CNPq in the Mathematics, Dentistry and Information Science fields, with questions about scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities. We analyzed the scientific production of the researchers who answered the questionnaire and we have identified that 78% of the participants consider that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are different activities, and the potential and usual number of research collaborators is between 2 and 3 in Mathematics and Information Science, and between 5 and 6 collaborators in Dentistry. Differences among fields were pointed out by identifying main collaborators and co-authors. The reasons for collaborating vary according to the nature of the research, however, the percentages are high in these three areas: “training of researchers and students”, “desire to increase their own experience through the experience of others” and “increased productivity.” From the analysis of the scientific production declared in their Lattes Curriculum, we have found that the average number of authors per publication in the field of Information Science is 2.2 authors, in Mathematics is 2.8 authors per publication, and in Dentistry the average is 5.3 authors per publication. We have concluded that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are terms assigned to different activities for the analyzed fields.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
We see the social environment as the whole context involving the scientific environment. For instance: Brazil is a social environment of this research, which aims at analyzing three fields of the Brazilian science. Therefore, the context involving the fields—Social and Scientific Policies, Economy and location are the same.
Lattes Curriculum is a virtual platform developed by CNPq which integrates a database of researcher curriculums, institutions, and Brazilian research groups in the same information system. We estimate that all researchers linked at public research institutions in Brazil own a Lattes Curriculum, where their main technical and scientific productions are recorded. The platform can be accessed at this address: <lattes.cnpq.br/>.
Original reference: W.O. Hagstrom. The Scientific Community. Basic Books, New York, 1995.
Balancieri, R., et al. (2005). A análise de redes de colaboração científica sob as novas tecnologias da informação e comunicação: Um estudo na Plataforma Lattes. Ciência da Informação, 34(1), 64–77.
Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I: The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Bourdieu, P. (1976). Le champ scientifique. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 2/3(1), 88–104.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques: Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Seuil.
Debrun, M. (1996). A idéia de auto-organização. In M. Debrun et al. (Eds.), Auto-organização estudos interdisciplinares (pp. 3–23). Campinas: Coleção CLE 18.
Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field: A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Downloaded on April 13, 2012 from http://nsdl.niscair.res.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/968/1/Bib_Module_KUL.pdf.
Glänzel, W., Leta, J., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics, 67(1), 67–86.
Iglič, H., et al. (2017). With whom do researchers collaborate and why?. Scientometrics, 1–22. Disponível em: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2386-y. Accessed 28 May 2017.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leydesdorff, L., Park, H. W., & Wagner, C. (2013). International co-authorship relations in the social science index: Is internationalization leading the network? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1, 1–36.
Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization research collaboration on the individual level. Reseach Policy, 29(1), 31–40.
Mena-Chalco, J. P., et al. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1424–1445.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olmeda Gómez, C., Perianez- Rodriguez, A., & Ovalle-Perandones, M. A. (2008). Estructura de las redes de colaboración científica entre las universidades españolas. Ibersid 2008: Revista de Sistemas de Información e Comunicación, 2, 129–140.
Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: Uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2, 902.
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.
Picinin, C. T., Pilatti, L. A., Kovaleski, J. L., Graeml, A. R., & Pedroso, B. (2016). Comparison of performance of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grants in the field of Brazilian production engineering. Scientometrics, 109(2), 855–870.
Ponds, R., van Oort, F. G., & Frenken, K. (2009). Internationalization and regional embedding of scientific research in the Netherlands. In A. Varga (Ed.), Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: Geography, entrepreneurship and policy (pp. 109–137). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Queiroz, D. G. C. & Moura, A. M. M. (2016). A produção científica da matemática brasileira na web of science (2004–2013). In XVII ENANCIB, Salvador, Brazil, Conference Annals.
Rodrigues, L. O., Gouvêa, M. M., de Carvalho Marques, F. F., & Mourão, S. C. (2017). Overview of the scientific production in the pharmacy area in Brazil: Profile and productivity of researchers granted with fellowships by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1157–1171.
Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: Elsevier.
Sidone, O., Haddad, E., & Mena-Chalco, J. (2016). Scholarly publication and collaboration in Brazil: The role of geography. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 243–258.
Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, 13, 596–599.
Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(1), 1608–1618.
Wang, J. & Hicks, D. (2014). The organization of science: Teams and networks. In 19th international conference on science and technology indicators—STI 2014, Leiden: European Network of Indicator Developers (ENID), Conference annals.
This work was supported by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) and by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level -or Education- Personnel (CAPES). We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions which allowed us to greatly improve the content of our paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Hilário, C.M., Grácio, M.C.C. Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields. Scientometrics 113, 929–950 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2498-4
- Scientific collaboration
- Research collaboration
- Collaboration in science
- Self-organization in science