Scientometrics

, Volume 101, Issue 2, pp 1553–1564 | Cite as

How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists?

Article

Abstract

Collaboration is believed to be influential on researchers’ productivity. However, the impact of collaboration relies on factors such as disciplines, collaboration patterns, and collaborators’ characters. In addition, at different career stages, such as the growth or the establishment career stages of scientists, collaboration is different in scale and scope, and its effect on productivity varies. In this paper, we study the relationships between collaboration and productivity in four disciplines, Organic Chemistry, Virology, Mathematics and Computer Science. Our study found that the productivity is correlated with collaboration in general, but the correlation could be positive or negative on the basis of which aspect of collaboration to measure, i.e., the scale or scope of the collaboration. The correlation becomes stronger as individual scientists progress through various stages of their career. Furthermore, experimental disciplines, such as Organic Chemistry and Virology, have shown stronger correlation coefficients than theoretical ones such as Mathematics and Computer Science.

Keywords

Collaboration Productivity Academic career age 

References

  1. Beaver, D. B. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration: part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830. Scientometrics, 1(2), 133–149.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(3), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnholtz, J. P. (2007). When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 58(14), 2226–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in scientific productivity: The case of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Scientometrics, 58(1), 49–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costas, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2010). A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 61(8), 1564–1581.Google Scholar
  8. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietz, J., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ding, W. W., Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E., & Winkler, A. E. (2010). The impact of information technology on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Science, 56(9), 1439–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duque, R. B. (2005). Collaboration paradox: Scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. He, Z.-L., Geng, X.-S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsu, J., & Huang, D. (2010). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86(2), 317–324.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jansen, D., Görtz, R., & Heidler, R. (2009). Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields. Scientometrics, 83(1), 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landry, R. (1998). The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy, 27(9), 901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liang, L., Kreschmer, H., Guo, Y., & Beaver, D. deB. (2001). Age structures of scientific collaboration in Chinese computer science. Scientometrics, 52(3), 471–486.Google Scholar
  21. Link, A. N., Paton, D., & Donald, S. S. (2002). An analysis of policy initiatives to promote strategic research partnerships. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1459–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Porac, J. (2004). Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy, 33(4), 661–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pravdi, N., & Olui -Vukovi, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10(5), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2009). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84(2), 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Collaboration and publication: How collaborative are scientists in South Africa? Scientometrics, 80(2), 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yoshikane, F., Nozawa, T., Shibui, S., & Suzuki, T. (2008). An analysis of the connection between researchers’ productivity and their co-authors’ past attributions, including the importance in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 79(2), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yoshikane, F., Nozawa, T., & Tsuji, K. (2006). Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors’ roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas. Scientometrics, 68(3), 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WISE LabDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.Joint-Institute for the Study of Knowledge Visualization and Scientific DiscoveryDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  3. 3.Joint-Institute for the Study of Knowledge Visualization and Scientific DiscoveryDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.College of Computing and InformaticsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations