Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields
- 416 Downloads
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.
KeywordsScientific collaboration Research collaboration Co-authorship Collaboration in science Self-organization in science
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.
- Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques: Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar