Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 817–831 | Cite as

Citation increments between collaborating countries

  • Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes
  • Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote
  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
Article

Abstract

International collaboration enhances citation impact. Collaborating with a country increments the citations received from it. But some collaborating countries provide greater increments in this sense than others, and likewise some countries receive greater increments from their partner countries than others. We observed a certain tendency for these increments to be lower in countries with greater impacts. Also, all the countries studied had higher Domestic Impacts as a result of collaborating, although this increment was less than that obtained from other countries. Finally, there were differences in the behaviour of the countries between the various scientific disciplines, with the effects being greatest in Social Sciences, followed by Engineering.

Keywords

Citation increment Citation analysis Scientific collaboration in subject areas Scientometrics 

References

  1. Abt, H. (2007). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksnes, D. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardanuy, J. (2012). Scientific collaboration in Library and Information Science viewed through the Web of Knowledge: the Spanish case. Scientometrics, 90(3), 877–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardanuy, J., Urbano, C., & Quintana, L. (2009). A citation analysis of Catalan literary studies (1974–2003): Towards a bibliometrics of humanistic studies in minority languages. Scientometrics, 81(2), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. (2001). Authorship pattern in different disciplines. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 48(4), 139–147.Google Scholar
  6. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. (2004). Authorship collaboration in physics philosophy and political science, IASLIC National Seminar, 11th. Kolkata, 2004, 405–409.Google Scholar
  7. Bridgstock, M. (1991). The quality of single and multiple authored papers- an unresolved problem. Scientometrics, 21(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., González-Molina, A., & Moya Anegón, F. (2010). Newapproach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Information Visualization, 9(4), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding, Y., Foo, S., & Chowdhury, G. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of information retrieval. The International Information & Library Review, 30(4), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Figg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C., et al. (2006). Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy, 26(6), 759–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kraut R., Egido C., & Galeguer, J. (1988). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. ‘CSCW ‘88: Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work’, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  13. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international and scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences: A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies, 1980–1998. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–473.Google Scholar
  17. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international coauthorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995). Scientometrics, 45(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & De Roue, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration network and « Pheriphery effects » in the citation of New Zeland Crown Research Institutes articles, 1992–2000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsu, J. W., & Huang, D. W. (2010). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86(2), 317–324.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inzelt, A., Schubert, A., & Schubert, M. (2009). Incremental citation impact due to international co authorship in Hungarian higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 78(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katz, J., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(5), 438–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leta, J., & Chaimovich, H. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration: The Brazilian case. Scientometrics, 53(3), 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewinson, G., & Cunningham, P. (1991). Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of trans-domestic research. Scientometrics, 21(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luukkonen, T., Tijseen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ma, N., & Guan, J. C. (2005). An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in Molecular Biology. Scientometrics, 65(3), 343–355.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., Nederhof, A. J., & Tijssen, T. J. W. (1991). International scientific co operation and awareness within the European Community: Problems and perspectives. Scientometrics, 21(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Molteni, V., & Zulueta, M. A. (2002). Análisis de la visibilidad internacional de la producción científica argentina en las Bases de datos Social Science Citation Index y Arts and Humanities Citation Index de 1990–2000: Estudio bibliométrico. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25(4), 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Corera-Álvarez, E., González-Molina, A., Hassan-Montero, Y., & Vargas-Quesada, B. (2008). Indicadores bibliométricos de la actividad científica española: 2002–2006. Madrid: FECYT.Google Scholar
  34. Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J., González-Molina, A., et al. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europeand the citation of multidomestically authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pao, M. L. (1981). Coauthorship as communication measure. Library Research, 2, 327–338.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Price, D. J. S., & Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. (2008). SCImago Research Group. Accessed 26 March, 2009 http://www.scimagojr.com/.
  40. Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756–770.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Sudhier Pillai, K. G. (2007). Authorship patterns in physics literature: An informetric study on citations in doctoral theses of the Indian Institute of Science. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 54, 90–94.Google Scholar
  43. Zhao, Q., & Guan, J. (2011). International collaboration of three ‘giants’ with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 87(1), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zuckerman, H. A. (1968). Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: A study of social symbolism and its ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 276–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes
    • 1
  • Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote
    • 1
  • Félix de Moya-Anegón
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Información y Comunicación, SCImago GroupUniversidad de ExtremaduraBadajozSpain
  2. 2.CCHS, IPP, SCImago GroupCSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations