, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 929–950 | Cite as

Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields

  • Carla Mara HilárioEmail author
  • Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio


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.


Scientific 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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I: The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1976). Le champ scientifique. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 2/3(1), 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques: Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field: A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Downloaded on April 13, 2012 from
  8. Glänzel, W., Leta, J., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics, 67(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iglič, H., et al. (2017). With whom do researchers collaborate and why?. Scientometrics, 1–22. Disponível em: Accessed 28 May 2017.
  10. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization research collaboration on the individual level. Reseach Policy, 29(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mena-Chalco, J. P., et al. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1424–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2012). World citation and collaboration networks: Uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2, 902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, 13, 596–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  27. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(1), 1608–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang, J. & Hicks, D. (2014). The organization of science: Teams and networks. In 19th international conference on science and technology indicatorsSTI 2014, Leiden: European Network of Indicator Developers (ENID), Conference annals.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNESP - Univ Estadual PaulistaMaríliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations