Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 1209–1230 | Cite as

The effect of collaborators on institutions’ scientific impact

Article

Abstract

The effect of collaborators on institutions scientific impact was examined for 81 institutions with different degrees of impact and collaboration. Not only collaborators including both core and peripheral collaborators cite each other more than non-collaborators, but also the first group cites each other faster than the second group even when self-citations were ignored. Although high impact institutions and more collaborative institutions receive more citations from their collaborators, it seems that the number of these citations increases only up to a certain point. In this regard, for example, there is a slight difference between top and middle collaborative institutions; however, only a small fraction of collaborators do not cite back the papers of these two groups of institutions. The benefit of collaboration varies based on the type of collaborators, institutions, papers, citers and the publication year of cited documents. For example, the effect of collaboration decreases as the institutions level of impact increases. Hence, collaborating more does not directly imply obtaining higher impact.

Keywords

Scientific collaboration Collaboration strategies Citation patterns Inter-organization collaborations 

References

  1. Ahn, J., Oh, D. H., & Lee, J. D. (2014). The scientific impact and partner selection in collaborative research at Korean universities. Scientometrics, 100(1), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajiferuke, I., Lu, K., & Wolfram, D. (2011). Who are the research disciples of an author? Examining publication recitation and oeuvre citation exhaustivity. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 292–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade, H. B., de Los Reyes Lopez, E., & Martín, T. B. (2009). Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the academic research groups’ scientific quality. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The citation speed index: A useful bibliometric indicator to add to the h index. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 444–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, H. W., & Huang, M. H. (2013). Prominent institutions in international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics. Scientometrics, 97(2), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: Acase study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Gazni, A., & Thelwall, M. (2014). The long-term influence of collaboration on citation patterns. Research Evaluation, 23(3), 261–271. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gazni, A., & Thelwall, M. (2015). The citation impact of collaboration between top institutions: A temporal analysis. Research Evaluation, rvv039. http://rev.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/12/31/reseval.rvv039.abstract.
  12. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators. Scientometrics, 59(3), 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, 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
  14. Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Forthcoming in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 434–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2010). Does the higher citation of collaborative research differ from region to region? A case study of Economics. Scientometrics, 85(1), 171–183.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman, M. E. J. (2013). Coauthorship and citation in scientific publishing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.0473.
  20. Thagard, P. (1997). Noûs, 31(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2010). A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. N. (2005). Signals in science-On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. PLoS One, 7(3), e33339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. White, H. D., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N. (2004). Does citation reflect social structure?: Longitudinal evidence from the “Globenet” interdisciplinary research group. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69(1), 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1313–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhao, Q., & Guan, J. (2011). International collaboration of three ‘giants’ with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 87(1), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Gazni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vincent Larivière
    • 3
    • 4
  • Fereshteh Didegah
    • 5
  1. 1.Regional Information Center for Science and TechnologyShirazIran
  2. 2.ISCShirazIran
  3. 3.École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’informationUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies (OST), Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie (CIRST)Université du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Research Unit for the Sociology of EducationUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations