, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 251–265 | Cite as

Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications

  • Ali Gazni
  • Fereshteh DidegahEmail author


This study aims to investigate the influence of different patterns of collaboration on the citation impact of Harvard University’s publications. Those documents published by researchers affiliated with Harvard University in WoS from 2000–2009, constituted the population of the research which was counted for 124,937 records. Based on the results, only 12% of Harvard publications were single author publications. Different patterns of collaboration were investigated in different subject fields. In all 22 examined fields, the number of co-authored publications is much higher than single author publications. In fact, more than 60% of all publications in each field are multi-author publications. Also, the normalized citation per paper for co-authored publications is higher than that of single author publications in all fields. In addition, the largest number of publications in all 22 fields were also published through inter-institutional collaboration and were as a result of collaboration among domestic researchers and not international ones. In general, the results of the study showed that there was a significant positive correlation between the number of authors and the number of citations in Harvard publications. In addition, publications with more number of institutions have received more number of citations, whereas publications with more number of foreign collaborators were not much highly cited.


Collaboration patterns Harvard University Citation impact 


  1. Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: a network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, D. B. (1986). Collaboration and teamwork in physics. Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 36, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. B. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordons, M., Garcia Jover, F., & Barrigon, S. (1993). Is collaboration improving research visibility? Research Evaluation, 3(1), 19–24.Google Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glänzel, W., & De Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lawani, S. M. (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics, 9, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Narin, F., & Whitlow, E. S. (1990). Measurement of scientific co-operation and co-authorship in CEC related areas of science. Report EUR 12900. Office for Official Publications in the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  13. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patel, N. (1972). Collaboration in the professional growth of American Sociology. Social Science Information, 12(6), 77–92.Google Scholar
  15. Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams: mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency and Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997). Science as an international enterprise. Science and Public Policy, 24(5), 290–300.Google Scholar
  19. Wagner-Doebler, R. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behaviour since 1800 from a bibliometric point of view. Scientometrics, 52, 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan A. F. J. (2010). Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Accessed 2 June 2010.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Islamic World Science Citation CenterShirazIran
  2. 2.Shahid Chamran UniversityAhvazIran
  3. 3.MLIS, Research Department of Islamic World Science Citation CenterShirazIran

Personalised recommendations