The European Physical Journal Special Topics

, Volume 222, Issue 6, pp 1467–1478 | Cite as

Collaboration range: Effects of geographical proximity on article impact

  • Andrea ApolloniEmail author
  • Jean-Baptiste Rouquier
  • Pablo JensenEmail author
Regular Article Applications in Different Domains


Spatial scientometrics studies how geography influences knowledge creation. In the recent years there has been a surge in this kind of studies, due to the increase of international collaborations. Most of the work in this field has been focused on the geographical distribution of researchers, whilst few have considered how proximity between coauthors influences research quality. In this work we leverage a dataset of geolocalized articles to assess the effect of geographical distance on article impact. More precisely, the dataset, provided by the Observatory of Science and Technology (O.S.T.), consists of roughly 106 scientific articles, gathering all European articles written in 2000 and 2007, spanning 9 disciplines. We evaluate under which geographical extent coauthorships have higher probability of resulting in high impact articles (“high impact” is here approximated by “being in the top 10% most cited articles of its discipline”). We also describe spatial distribution of coauthorship, delineating geographical areas where the production is proportionally higher. The distribution is evaluated both in term of km (as the crow flies), and in terms of administrative partitions (authors’ cities, regions, countries).


European Union European Physical Journal Special Topic International Collaboration Geographical Unit International Link 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M.E.J. Newman, Proc. National Acad. Sci. 98, 404 (2001)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.E.J. Newman, Proc. National Acad. Sci. 101, 5200 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.W. Matthiessen, A.W. Schwarz, S. Find, Urban Studies 47, 1879 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    V.D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, E. Lefebvre, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exper. 10, 8 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Jensen, A. Apolloni, J.-B. Rouquier, Donnés urbainées, Vol. 6 (Economica, 2011), p. 279Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Bornmann, A. Plume, J. Infor. 5, 695 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Hoekman, K. Frenken, F. van Oort, KITeS Working Papers 214, 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Frenken, S. Hardeman, J. Hoekman, J. Inform. 3, 222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Frenken, Economic Syst. Res. 14, 345 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Katz, Scientometrics 31, 31 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.-P. Onnela, S. Arbesman, M.C. Gonzalez, A.L. Barabsi, N.A. Christakis, PLoS ONE 6, e16939 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Frenken, Frank van Oor, Roderick Ponds, Papers Reg. Sci. 89, 271 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Opthof, L. Leydesdorff, CoRR (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Bonitz, E. Bruckner, A. Scharnhorst, Scientometrics 44, 361 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences and Springer 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut des Systèmes Complexes Rhône-Alpes (IXXI) and Laboratoire de Physique, UMR 5672École Normale Supérieure de LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, LIP, UMRUniversité de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations