Skip to main content

Does corresponding authorship influence scientific impact in collaboration: Brazilian institutions as a case of study

Abstract

This paper analyses the influence of a Brazilian institution delivering the corresponding author on its scientific citation impact, distinguishing between its collaborative papers with foreign institutions and those resulting from national collaboration. We retrieved from Scopus database a total of 607,454 Brazilian documents for all 443 Brazilian institutions with at least 100 documents published from 2003 to 2015. We evaluated the difference between the normalized citation impact as corresponding author and that as non-corresponding author, applying paired t-tests both for international and for national collaboration. As result, for international collaboration, it was observed that the normalized citation impact achieved by Brazilian institutions depends upon corresponding author status, and that, in case of non-corresponding authorship, the impact shows a significant benefit when the paper has a corresponding author from a foreign institution. In national collaboration, the institutions benefit as non-corresponding author, although the difference is too small to influence the practice of the institutions' scientific policies. Thus, the indicator of corresponding author provides additional information relevant to Brazilian institutions in international collaboration, but not in national institutional co-authorship, which is more influenced by the institution's recognized scientific tradition and publishing strategies/practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Alonso Arroyo, A., et al. (2016). Un análisis bibliométrico en el área de la Medicina: Colaboración científica entre Brasil y España (2002–2011). Investigación Bibliotecológica, 30(69), 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari, M., et al. (2014). Perceptions of authors' contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 1049–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., et al. (2014). The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: Evidence from Spain. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1385–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabezas-Clavijo, A., Jiménez-Contreras, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2013). ¿Existe relación entre el tamaño del grupo de investigación y su rendimiento científico? Estudio de caso de una universidad española. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 36(2), e006. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2013.2.984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Miguel, S., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). What factors are affecting the visibility of Argentinean publications in human and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidences beyond the geographic realm of the research. Scientometrics, 102(1), 789–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., et al. (2018a). Building ties across countries: International collaboration, field specialization, and global leadership. In 23th international conference on science and technology indicators, STI2018. Leiden, The Netherlands, 12–14 September 2018 (pp. 1509–1518).

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., et al. (2018b). Dependencies and autonomy in research performance: Examining nanoscience and nanotechnology in emerging countries. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1485–1504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2019). Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations. PLoSONE, 14(6), e0218309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2012). Approaching the ‘reward triangle’: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowledgments and ‘peer interactive communication’ in scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2000). Partial orders and measures for language preferences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(12), 1123–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. J Informetrics, 4(4), 608–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, J. A., et al. (2012). On first quartile journals wich are not of highest impact. Scientometrics, 90(3), 925–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field: A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Lange, C. A. (2002). Distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Leta, J., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics, 67(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Alcaide, G., et al. (2017). Dominance and leadership in research activities: Collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grácio, M. C. C., & Oliveira, E. F. T. (2013). Normalized Indicators of the International Brazilian Research: A scientometric study of the period between 1996 and 2011. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger & H. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2013—14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 2069–2071). Vienna: Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG

  • Hsiehchen, D., Espinoza, M., & Hsieh, A. (2015). Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Science Advances, 1(8), e1500211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICJME (2017). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, C., Calero-Medina, C., & Costas, R. (2018). Research funding landscapes in Africa. In C. Beaudry, J. Mouton, & H. Prozesky (Eds.), The next generation of scientists in Africa (pp. 26–42). Cape Town: African Minds.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., et al. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & Thjis, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67(1), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics, 92(2), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., Rousseau, R., & Zhong, Z. (2013). Non-English journals and papers in physics and chemistry: Bias in citations? Scientometrics, 95(1), 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., et al. (2018). The penalty of containing more non-English articles. Scientometrics, 114(1), 359–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2014). Scientific group leaders' authorship preferences: An empirical investigation. Scientometrics, 98(2), 909–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Illescas, C., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2011). A ranking of universities should account for differences in their disciplinary specialization. Scientometrics, 88(2), 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna-Morales, M. E., & Collazo-Reyes, F. (2007). Análisis histórico bibliométrico de las revistas latinoamericanas y caribeñas en los índices de la ciencia internacional: 1961–2005. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 30(4), 523–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., et al. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: A promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97, 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., López-Illescas, C., & Moed, H. F. (2014). How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions. Scientometrics, 98(1), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., et al. (2018). Statistical relationships between corresponding authorship, international co-authorship and citation impact of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Dannell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCImago. (2019). SJR—SCImago institutions rankings [Portal]. Retrieved June 2018, from https://www.scimagojr.com

  • Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analyzing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1897–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2009). Strength and weakness of national science systems: A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns. Scientometrics, 79(2), 389–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N., et al. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the science citation index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Perrot, F., & Barré, R. (1998). The Transition from “National” to “Transnational” model and related measures of countries’ performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2003). Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLS 184 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grácio, M.C.C., de Oliveira, E.F.T., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. et al. Does corresponding authorship influence scientific impact in collaboration: Brazilian institutions as a case of study. Scientometrics 125, 1349–1369 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03655-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03655-7

Keywords

  • Corresponding author
  • Influence of corresponding author on scientific impact
  • Brazilian institutions’ scientific production
  • The role of corresponding author in collaborative papers