, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 627–657

Shadows of the Past in International Cooperation: Collaboration Profiles of the Top Five Producers of Science

  • Michel Zitt
  • Elise Bassecoulard
  • Yoshiko Okubo


This article aims at a characterization of the cooperation behavior among five large scientific countries (France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States of America) from 1986 to 1996. It looks at the cooperation profiles of these countries using classical measures such as the Probabilistic Affinity. The results show the major influence which historical, cultural and linguistic proximities may have on patterns of cooperation, with few changes over the period of time studied.A lack of specific affinities among the three largest European countries is revealed, and this contrasts with the strong linkage demonstrated between United States and Japan. The ensuing discussion raises some questions as to the process of Europeanization in science. The intensity of bilateral cooperation linkages is then studied with regard to field specialization by country, and this analysis yields no general patterns at the scale studied. Specific bilateral behaviors are also analyzed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. de Beaver D, R. Rosen, Studies in Scientific Collaboration, Part I, Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 65-84, and following parts (1978, 1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Frame, M. Carpenter, International Research Collaboration, Social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 481-497.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Harsanyi, Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems — Bibliometrics and the Study of Scholarly Collaboration, Library and Information Science Research, 15 (1993) 325-354.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. F Moed, R. E. De Bruin, A. J. Nederhof, A. F. J. Van Raan, R. J. W. Tijssen, State of The Art of Bibliometric Indicators, an Overview of Demand and Supply, CEC Monitor/Spear Eur 14582 En, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. F. Miquel, Y. Okubo, N. Narvaez, L. Frigoletto, Les Scientifiques sont-ils ouverts à la Coopération Internationale?, La Recherche, 20(206) (1989), 116-118.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Melin, O Persson, Studying Research Collaboration Using Co-authorships, Scientometrics, 36(3) (1996), 363-377.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. S. Katz, B. R. Martin, What is Research Collaboration?, Research Policy, 26 (1997) 1-18.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Herbertz, Does it Pay to Cooperate? A Bibliometric Case Study in Molecular Biology, Scientometrics, 33 (1995) 117-122.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Narin, E. S. Whitlow, Measurement of Scientific Cooperation and Co-Authorship in EC-Related Areas of Science, EC-Report Eur 12900, Luxemburg, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. L. Pao, Global and Local Collaborators: a Study of Scientific Collaborations, Information Processing and Management, 28(1) (1992), 99-109Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Kretschmer, Analysis of Social Relations in Coauthorship Networks, JISSI, 2(2–3) (1996), 75-89.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Mendez, I. Gomez, Collaboration Research in Spain in the Field of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Scientometrics, 24(1) (1992), 137-148.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Bordons, I. Gomez, M. T. Fernandez, M. A. Zuleta, A. Mendez, Local, Domestic and International Scientific Collaboration in Biomedical Research, Scientometrics, 37(2) (1996), 279-295.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Okubo, J. F. Miquel, International Scientific Collaboration of Japan — Co-authorship Analysis, Journal of Science Policy and Research Management, 6(4) (1991), 261-280.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. M. Russell, The Increasing Role of International Cooperation in Science and Technology Research in Mexico, Scientometrics, 34(1) (1995), 45-61.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Narvaez, L. P. Frigoletto, J. F. Miquel, International Scientific Collaboration in Latin America, Scientometrics, 24 (1992) 373-392.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Alami, J. C. Dore, J. F. Miquel, International Scientific Collaboration in Arab Countries, Scientometrics, 23(1) (1992), 249-263.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Leclerc, Y. Okubo, L. Frigoletto, J. F. Miquel, Scientific Co-operation between Canada and the European Community, Science and Public Policy, 19 (1992) 15-24.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Braun, W. GlÁnzel, International Collaboration: Will It Be Keeping Alive East European Research?, Scientometrics, 36(2) (1996), 247-254.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Schubert, T. Braun, International Collaboration in the Sciences, 1981–1985, Scientometrics, 19(1–2) (1990), 3-10.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Leclerc, J. GagnÉ, The Continentalization of Science, Scientometrics, 31(3) (1994), 261-292.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Callon, Vers des Archipels de la Science, Science et Technologie, 34 (1991) 66-69.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Y. Okubo, J. F. Miquel, L. Frigoletto, J. C. DorÉ, Structure of International Collaboration in Science: Typology of Countries through Multivariate Techniques Using a Link Indicator, Scientometrics, 25(2) (1992), 321-351.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. F. Miquel, Y. Okubo, Structure of International Collaboration in Science — Part II: Comparisons of Profiles ín Countries Using a Link Indicator, Scientometrics, 29(2) (1994), 271-297.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. F. Miquel, D. Martin-Rovet, Programmes for Young Scientists in France concerning International Academic Exchange — The Case of the CNRS, Proceedings of International Symposium on the Cultivation of Young Scientists and International Exchange, December 3–4, 1987, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Halary, Les exilés du savoir, L'Harmattan, Paris, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    La coopération internationale. In: Rapport annuel du conseil superieur de la recherche et de la technologie sur l'evaluation de la politique nationale de recherche et de developpement technologique, Conseil superieur de la recherche et de la technologie, Ministere de la recherche et de l'espace, Paris 1992, 108-111.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Gusmao, L'engagement francais dans l'Europe de la recherche, Economica, Paris, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. S. Nagpaul, Exploring a Pseudo-regression Model of Transnational Cooperation in Science, Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Colima (Mexico), 1999, 375-385.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Bassecoulard, M. Zitt, Indicators in a Research Institute: A Multi-level Classification of Scientific Journals, Scientometrics, 44(3) (1999), 323-346.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Schubert, W. GlÄnzel, T. Braun, Against Absolute Methods: Relative Scientometric Indicators and Relational Charts as Evaluation Tools, in: A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. Lindsey, Production and Citation Measures in the Sociology of Science: The Problem of Multiple Authorship, Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 145-162.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    B. Maltras, J. Vega, M. A. Quintanilla, Measuring Multinational Cooperation in Science and Technology: Different Methods applied to the European Framework Programs, Proceedings of the 5th Conf. ISSI, River Forest (Chicago), Learned Information Inc., 1995, 303-312.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Indicateurs de l'activité scientifique, — Compendium 1991, Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Science, Québec 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Arunachalam, R. Srinivasan, V. Raman, International Collaboration in Science: Participation by the Asian Giants, Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 7-22.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    European Report on Science and Technology Indicators: Section C: Scientific Co-publication Patterns, European Commission, Brussels, 1998, 663-672.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. Luukkonen, R. J. W. Tijssen, G. Persson, G. Sivertsen, The Measurement of International Scientific Collaboration, Scientometrics, 28(1) (1993), 15-36.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Science & Technologie — Indicateurs 1994, Economica, Paris, 1993.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Zitt, N. Teixeira, Science Macro Indicators: some Aspects of OST Experience, Scientometrics, 35(2) (1996), 209-222.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. J. Nederhof, H. F. Moed, Modelling Multinational Publication: Development of an Online Fractionation Approach to Measure National Scientific Output, Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 39-52.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    C. de Lange, W. GlÄnzel, Modelling and Measuring Multilateral Co-authorship in International Scientific Collaboration. Part I. Development of a New Model Using a Series Expansion Approach, Scientometrics, 49(3) (1997), 593-604. W. GlÄnzel, C. de Lange, Modelling and Measuring Multilateral Co-authorship in International Scientific Collaboration. Part II. A Comparative Study on the Extent and Change of International Scientific Collaboration Links, Scientometrics, 40 (3) (1997), 605–626.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. Zitt, A. Sigogneau, F. Laville, R. BarrÉ, Territorial Concentration and Evolution of S&T Activities in the EU: a Descriptive Analysis, Research Policy, 28 (1999) 545-562.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    H. Moed, R. E. De Bruin, A. J. Nederhof, R. J. W. Tijssen, International Scientific Cooperation and Awareness within the European Community: Problems and Perspectives, Scientometrics, 21(3) (1991), 291-311.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    L. Leydesdorff, The Impact of EC Science Policies on the Transnational Publication System, Technology Analysis and Management, 4 (1992) 279-298.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Y. Okubo, L'internationalisation de la science, Futuribles, 210 (1996) 43-56.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Y. Okubo, Science et Technologie — le Mariage Japonais, Edition ESKA, Paris, 1997.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    J. S. Katz, Geographical Proximity and Scientific Collaboration, Scientometrics, 31(1) (1993), 31-34.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    E. C. Engelsmann, A. F. J. Van Raan, The Netherlands in Modern Technology: A Patent-Based Assessment, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Den Haag, 1990.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    L. A. Goodman, The Analysis of Cross-classified Data: Independence, Quasi-independence and Interactions in Contingency Tables with or without Missing Entries, Journal of American Statistical Association, 63 (1968) 1091-1131.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    C. Nora-Chouteau, Une méthode de reconstitution et d'analyse des donneés incomplètes, Thèse d'Etat Paris VI, 1975.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. De Leeuw, P. G. M. Van Der Heijden, Correspondence Analysis of Incomplete Contingency Tables, Psychometrika, 53(2) (1988), 223-233.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    D. J. de S. Price, The Analysis of Square Matrices of Scientometric Transactions, Scientometrics, 3 (1981) 55-63.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    E. Noma, An Improved Method for Analyzing Square Scientometric Transactions Matrices, Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 297-316.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    R. Tijssen, J. De Leeuw, A. F. J. Van Raan, Quasi-Correspondence Analysis on Square Scientometrics Matrices, Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 347-361.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    H. Grupp, Foundations of the Economics of Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1998, p. 184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Zitt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elise Bassecoulard
    • 2
  • Yoshiko Okubo
    • 1
  1. 1.Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST)ParisFrance
  2. 2.LERECO, INRANantesFrance

Personalised recommendations