IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v125y2020i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03609-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity trends and citation impact of different institutional collaboration patterns at the research units’ level

Author

Listed:
  • Lipeng Fan

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

  • Yuefen Wang

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology
    Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Safety Science and Technology)

  • Shengchun Ding

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

  • Binbin Qi

    (Nanjing University)

Abstract

In order to gain a deeper understanding of how research performance and collaboration patterns of institutions affect productivity trends and citations, this paper classifies institutions into two types: main and normal institutions, and then divides the dataset into six types: M and N as intra-institution collaboration types, and M&M, M&N, N&M, N&N as inter-institution types (M: main institutions, N: normal institutions). After analysing the productivity trends and citation impact at the research units’ level, the main results are shown as following: through a large-scale and long-span data, M papers account for the highest percentage, and play an important leading role in the beginning, and the average citation value of M&M papers is significantly higher than other types; although the number of papers with multi-authors is increasing over time, the impact of the number of authors on citations may vary from discipline to discipline, and there is a slightly negative relationship between them in artificial intelligence field in our data; despite the number of institutions and countries has a positive impact on citations in whole dataset, it differs when considering different institutional collaboration patterns and the first author’s country; no matter what institutional collaboration pattern is, the papers with USA as first author’s country always have a significant greater impact than China as first author’s country. After analysing two negative binomial regression models, some results support the above conclusions. Moreover, we find that the number of M institutions has a significant greatest impact on citations, while M institution as first author’s affiliation only has a slightly influence; China as first author’s country has a negative impact, while USA as first author’s country has a moderately positive impact, and slightly lower than that of the number of countries, moderately higher than that of the number of institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lipeng Fan & Yuefen Wang & Shengchun Ding & Binbin Qi, 2020. "Productivity trends and citation impact of different institutional collaboration patterns at the research units’ level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1179-1196, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03609-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03609-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03609-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03609-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bárbara S. Lancho Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero Bote & Zaida Chinchilla Rodríguez & Félix de Moya Anegón, 2012. "Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 481-489, March.
    2. Wei Wang & Shuo Yu & Teshome Megersa Bekele & Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia, 2017. "Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars’ academic ages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 329-343, July.
    3. Duk Hee Lee & Il Won Seo & Ho Chull Choe & Hee Dae Kim, 2012. "Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 925-942, June.
    4. Ali Gazni & Fereshteh Didegah, 2011. "Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 251-265, May.
    5. Weichao Wang & Yishan Wu & Yuntao Pan, 2014. "An investigation of collaborations between top Chinese universities: a new quantitative approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1535-1545, February.
    6. Tai-Quan Peng & Jonathan J.H. Zhu, 2012. "Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1789-1803, September.
    7. Massimo Franceschet, 2011. "Collaboration in computer science: A network science approach," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1992-2012, October.
    8. Pu Han & Jin Shi & Xiaoyan Li & Dongbo Wang & Si Shen & Xinning Su, 2014. "International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 53-72, January.
    9. Alfonso Ibáñez & Concha Bielza & Pedro Larrañaga, 2013. "Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 689-716, May.
    10. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 1849-1857, August.
    11. Tuan V. Nguyen & Thao P. Ho-Le & Ut V. Le, 2017. "International collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam: an analysis of patterns and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 1035-1051, February.
    12. Reingewertz, Yaniv & Lutmar, Carmela, 2018. "Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 74-86.
    13. Donald Deb. Beaver, 2001. "Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(3), pages 365-377, November.
    14. Ali Gazni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Fereshteh Didegah, 2012. "Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 323-335, February.
    15. Ali Gazni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Fereshteh Didegah, 2012. "Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 323-335, February.
    16. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    17. G. Van Hooydonk, 1997. "Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 48(10), pages 944-945, October.
    18. Hanna-Mari Puuska & Reetta Muhonen & Yrjö Leino, 2014. "International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 823-839, February.
    19. Didegah, Fereshteh & Thelwall, Mike, 2013. "Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 861-873.
    20. Massimo Franceschet, 2011. "Collaboration in computer science: A network science approach," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1992-2012, October.
    21. Lili Yuan & Yanni Hao & Minglu Li & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "Who are the international research collaboration partners for China? A novel data perspective based on NSFC grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 401-422, July.
    22. Tai‐Quan Peng & Jonathan J.H. Zhu, 2012. "Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(9), pages 1789-1803, September.
    23. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2009. "Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 177-193, October.
    24. Hsuan-I Liu & Bi-Chun Chang & Kuan-Chia Chen, 2012. "Collaboration patterns of Taiwanese scientific publications in various research areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 145-155, July.
    25. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    26. Ping Ni & Xinying An, 2018. "Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 863-877, August.
    27. Bárbara S. Lancho Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero Bote & Zaida Chinchilla Rodríguez & Félix de Moya Anegón, 2012. "Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 481-489, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oluwafemi Awolesi & Corinne A. Salter & Margaret Reams, 2024. "A Systematic Review on the Path to Inclusive and Sustainable Energy Transitions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Igor Savchenko & Denis Kosyakov, 2022. "Lost in affiliation: apatride publications in international databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3471-3487, June.
    3. Yuefen Wang & Lipeng Fan & Lei Wu, 2024. "A validation test of the Uzzi et al. novelty measure of innovation and applications to collaboration patterns between institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4379-4394, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pu Han & Jin Shi & Xiaoyan Li & Dongbo Wang & Si Shen & Xinning Su, 2014. "International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 53-72, January.
    2. Alfonso Ibáñez & Concha Bielza & Pedro Larrañaga, 2013. "Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 689-716, May.
    3. Ping Ni & Xinying An, 2018. "Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 863-877, August.
    4. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    5. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    6. Hongquan Shen & Juan Xie & Jiang Li & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The correlation between scientific collaboration and citation count at the paper level: a meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3443-3470, April.
    7. Martorell Cunil, Onofre & Otero González, Luis & Durán Santomil, Pablo & Mulet Forteza, Carlos, 2023. "How to accomplish a highly cited paper in the tourism, leisure and hospitality field," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Fu, Xiaolan, 2019. "International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 149-168.
    9. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    10. Elizabeth S. Vieira, 2023. "The influence of research collaboration on citation impact: the countries in the European Innovation Scoreboard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3555-3579, June.
    11. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2017. "Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 379-400, April.
    12. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chang, Yu-Wei, 2018. "Multi-institutional authorship in genetics and high-energy physics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 505(C), pages 549-558.
    13. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2019. "Scientific knowledge in South Africa: information trends, patterns and collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1365-1386, June.
    14. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    15. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Javier Aparicio & Luz Moreno, 2015. "The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: evidence from Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1385-1400, February.
    16. Fan, Lingxu & Guo, Lei & Wang, Xinhua & Xu, Liancheng & Liu, Fangai, 2022. "Does the author’s collaboration mode lead to papers’ different citation impacts? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    17. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Tung Manh Ho & Thu-Trang Vuong & Ha Viet Nguyen & Nancy K. Napier & Hiep-Hung Pham, 2017. "Nemo Solus Satis Sapit : Trends of Research Collaborations in the Vietnamese Social Sciences, Observing 2008–2017 Scopus Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-15, October.
    18. Jongwuk Ahn & Dong-hyun Oh & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2014. "The scientific impact and partner selection in collaborative research at Korean universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 173-188, July.
    19. Yu-Wei Chang, 2021. "Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3373-3391, April.
    20. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2014. "No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 276-283.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03609-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.