Advertisement

Measuring the Impact of the International Relationships of the Andalusian Universities Using Dimensions Database

  • P. García-Sánchez
  • M. J. Cobo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11315)

Abstract

Researchers usually have been inclined to publish papers with close collaborators: same University, region or even country. However, thanks to the advancements in communication technologies, members of international research networks can cooperate almost seamlessly. These networks usually tend to publish works with more impact than the local counterparts. In this paper, we try to demonstrate if this assumption is also valid in the region of Andalusia (Spain). The Dimensions.ai database is used to obtain the articles where at least one author is from an Andalusian University. The publication list is divided into 4 geographical areas: local (only one affiliation), regional (only Andalusian affiliations), national (only Spanish affiliations) and International (any affiliation). Results show that the average number of citations per paper increases as the author collaboration networks increases geographically.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis International collaboration Andalusian universities Dimensions.ai 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This contribution has been made possible thanks to Dimensions.ai database. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge FEDER funds under grants TIN2016-75850-R and TIN2017-85727-C4-2-P and Program of Promotion and Development of Research Activity of the University of Cádiz (Programa de Fomento e Impulso de la actividad Investigadora de la Universidad de Cádiz).

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, J.: The fourth age of research. Nature 497(7451), 557–560 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wagner, C.S., Leydesdorff, L.: Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res. Policy 34(10), 1608–1618 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moed, H.F., Aisati, M., Plume, A.: Studying scientific migration in Scopus. Scientometrics 94(3), 929–942 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Persson, O., Glänzel, W., Danell, R.: Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics 60(3), 421–432 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugimoto, C.R., Robinson-Garcia, N., Murray, D.S., Yegros-Yegros, A., Costas, R., Larivière, V.: Scientists have most impact when they’re free to move. Nature 550(7674), 29–31 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62(7), 1382–1402 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fortunato, S., et al.: Science of science. Science 359(6379) (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Martínez, M.Á., Moral-Munoz, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Cobo, M.J.: Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Appl. Intell. 48(5), 1275–1287 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of CádizCádizSpain

Personalised recommendations