, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 443–466 | Cite as

Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field



This paper analyses existing trends in the collaborative structure of the Pharmacology and Pharmacy field in Spain and explores its relationship with research impact. The evolution in terms of size of the research community, the typology of collaborative links (national, international) and the scope of the collaboration (size of links, type of partners) are studied by means of different measures based on co-authorship. Growing heterogeneity of collaboration and impact of research are observed over the years. Average journal impact (MNJS) and citation score (MNCS) normalised to world average tend to grow with the number of authors, the number of institutions and collaboration type. Both national and international collaboration show MNJS values above the country’s average, but only internationally co-authored publications attain citation rates above the world’s average. This holds at country and institutional sector levels, although not all institutional sectors obtain the same benefit from collaboration. Multilateral collaboration with high-level R&D countries yields the highest values of research impact, although the impact of collaboration with low-level R&D countries has been optimised over the years. Although scientific collaboration is frequently based on individual initiative, policy actions are required to promote the more heterogeneous types of collaboration.


Scientific collaboration Research impact Bilateral and multilateral collaboration Spain Biomedicine Co-authorship 


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? Higher Education, 57, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaboration: evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, A., & Vinu-Kumar, B. S. (2000). International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 48 (3), 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part 2. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830. Scientometrics, 1 (2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordons, M., Gómez, I., Morillo, F., Aparicio, J., Aguillo, I., & Sancho, R. (2012b). Estructura y dinámica de los campos científicos en España a través del análisis de las redes de colaboración entre investigadores. Report. Madrid: IEDCYT-CCHS, CSIC.Google Scholar
  6. Bordons, M., & Barrigón, S. (1992). Bibliometric analysis of publications of Spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984–89). II. Contribution to subfields other than “Pharmacology and Pharmacy (ISI)”. Scientometrics, 25 (3), 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bordons, M., García-Jover, F., & Barrigón, S. (1993). Is collaboration improving research visibility? Spanish scientific output in Pharmacology and Pharmacy. Research Evaluation, 3 (1), 19–24.Google Scholar
  8. Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., & Costas, R. (2012a). Trends in the collaborative structure of the Spanish pharmacological scientific production and its influence over research impact. In: Proceedings of STI 2012. 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. (Vol. 1). Québec: Université du Québec à Montreal.Google Scholar
  9. Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: theoretical implication from two case studies. Research Policy, 35 (7), 975–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). Algoritmos para solventar la falta de normalización de nombres de autor en los estudios bibliométricos. Investigación bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información, 21 (42), 13–32.Google Scholar
  11. Costas, R., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2012). Referencing patterns of individual researchers: do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. Francescht, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 540–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García-Romero, A., Navarrete-Cortés, J., Escudero, C., Fernández-López, J. A., & Chaichío-Moreno, J. A. (2009). Measuring the influence of clinical trials citations on several bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 80 (3), 749–762.Google 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. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (2), 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glänzel, W., & Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54 (1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks trough co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative S and T research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61 (3), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & De Rouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: collaboration, networks and “periphery effects” in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 57 (3), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., & Sebastián, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44 (3), 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez, I., Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Moreno, L., & González-Albo, B. (2010). La actividad científica del CSIC a través del Web of Science. In: Estudio bibliométrico del periodo 2004–2009. Madrid: IEDCYTCCHS, CSIC.Google Scholar
  23. González-Albo, B., & Bordons, M. (2011). Articles vs. proceedings papers: do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (3), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorraiz, J., Reimann, R., & Gumpenberger, C. (2012). The importance of bilateral and multilateral differentiation in the assessment of international collaboration—a case study for Austria and six countries. Scientometrics, 91 (2), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hackett, E. (2005). Introduction: special gust-edited issue on scientific collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5), 667–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76 (1), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. He, Z. L. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (10), 2151–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jha, Y., & Welch, E. (2010). Relational mechanisms governing multifaceted collaborative behavior of academic scientists in six fields of science and engineering. Research Policy, 39 (9), 1174–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz, S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kostoff, R. N. (2007). The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72 (3), 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lander, B., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2011). Translational science and the hidden research system in universities and academic hospitals: a case study. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 537–544.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mattsson, P., Laget, P., NilssonVindefjärd, A., & Sundberg, C. J. (2010). What do European research collaboration networks in life sciences look like? Research Evaluation, 19 (5), 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McVeigh, M. E., & Mann, S. J. (2009). The journal impact factor denominator. Defining citable (counted) items. JAMA, 302 (10), 1107–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citations of multi-nationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21 (3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98 (2), 404–409.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Noma, E. (1986). Subject Classification and influence weights for 3,000 journals. In Research report under CHI and NIH contracts. New Jersey: Computer Horizons Inc. Research.Google Scholar
  39. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Diversity and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12 (4), 502–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. The Word Bank. Science and Technology Indicators. Retrieved, March 15, 2012.
  41. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41 (1), 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (6), 819–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  44. Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. A. (2010). Structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Research Evaluation, 19 (1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tijssen, R. J. W., Waltman, L., & van Eck, L. (2012). Research collaboration and the expanding science grid: measuring globalisation processes worldwide.
  46. Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Tijssen, R. (2007). Strength and weakness of national science systems. A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns. In: D. Torres-Salinas, & H. F. Moed, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 469–479). Madrid: CINDOC-CSIC.Google Scholar
  47. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Bordons
    • 1
  • Javier Aparicio
    • 1
  • Rodrigo Costas
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Estudios Documentales en Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT)Center for Human and Social Sciences (CCHS), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Centre for Science and Technology StudiesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations