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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    See http://sciencewatch.com/about/met/journallist/ to find the list of ISI journals.

References

  1. Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105–115.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaver, D. B. (1986). Collaboration and teamwork in physics. Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 36, 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beaver, D. B. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60, 399–408.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Glänzel, W., & De Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lawani, S. M. (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics, 9, 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2167v2. Accessed 2 June 2010.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fereshteh Didegah.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gazni, A., Didegah, F. Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics 87, 251–265 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0343-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Collaboration patterns
  • Harvard University
  • Citation impact