IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i8d10.1007_s11192-024-05087-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using citation-based indicators to compare bilateral research collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Hans Pohl

    (Chalmers University of Technology
    Lindholmen Science Park AB)

Abstract

A standard approach to compare research collaborations between pairs of countries is to look at the citations accrued by all publications with authors from both countries. This approach is often misleading, as aspects only marginally related to the collaboration between the country pairs may bias the result considerably. Among them, the main aspect is the number of co-authors. Publications with many co-authors have on average higher citation impact. If the mix of co-publications between two countries has a high share of such publications, the citation impact will likely be high. Moreover, publications with many co-authors tend to include many countries and are thus only to a limited extent characterising the actual collaboration between the selected pair of countries. The purpose of this study is to develop methods for comparisons of country pairs useful for policy makers, who use SciVal or similar tools. Five methods to compare international collaboration are developed and tested. It is noted that the standard approach for comparisons deviates the most. Fractional methods to calculate the citation impact are recommended, as they allow for the use of citations to all co-publications with a higher weight on the citations to publications in which the country pair dominates. As fractionalisation is laborious to carry out based on SciVal data, a more convenient option is also suggested, which is to use co-publications with maximum 10 co-authors. Elsevier should introduce better methods for comparisons of international collaborations and, until this has been made, help its users understand the limitations of the standard approach featured in SciVal. A by-product of the study is that international co-publications deliver a higher citation impact also when publications with the same number of co-authors are compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Hans Pohl, 2024. "Using citation-based indicators to compare bilateral research collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4751-4770, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05087-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05087-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05087-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/s11192-024-05087-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. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    2. Caroline S. Wagner & Travis A. Whetsell & Loet Leydesdorff, 2017. "Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1633-1652, March.
    3. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2004. "Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 395-404, November.
    4. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & H. -J. Czerwon, 1999. "A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(2), pages 185-202, June.
    5. Hans Pohl, 2020. "Collaboration with countries with rapidly growing research: supporting proactive development of international research collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 287-307, January.
    6. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 872-894.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2001. "Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(2), pages 199-214, February.
    8. Confraria, Hugo & Mira Godinho, Manuel & Wang, Lili, 2017. "Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 265-279.
    9. Aksnes, Dag W. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Gunnarsson, Magnus, 2012. "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-43.
    10. Potter, Ross W.K. & Szomszor, Martin & Adams, Jonathan, 2020. "Interpreting CNCIs on a country-scale: The effect of domestic and international collaboration type," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    11. 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.
    12. Michael Kahn, 2018. "Co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration: a cautionary tale," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 117-123.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Claudia N. Gonzalez Brambila & Renata Herrerias, 2024. "Assessing the impact of collaborative authorship in Business Economics in Latin America," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4623-4660, July.
    2. Giulio Marini, 2021. "Joining the European Union as an advantage in science performativity. A quasi-experimental study," DoQSS Working Papers 21-09, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    3. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    4. Jeffrey Demaine, 2022. "Fractionalization of research impact reveals global trends in university collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2235-2247, May.
    5. Chaocheng He & Jiang Wu & Qingpeng Zhang, 2021. "Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4005-4037, May.
    6. Vieira, Elizabeth S. & Cerdeira, Jorge & Teixeira, Aurora A.C., 2022. "Which distance dimensions matter in international research collaboration? A cross-country analysis by scientific domain," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    7. Ross W. K. Potter & Martin Szomszor & Jonathan Adams, 2022. "Comparing standard, collaboration and fractional CNCI at the institutional level: Consequences for performance evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7435-7448, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Hou, Lei & Pan, Yueling & Zhu, Jonathan J.H., 2021. "Impact of scientific, economic, geopolitical, and cultural factors on international research collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    10. 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.
    11. Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & J. Ahimbisibwe & Rita Van Moll & Nico Koedam, 2003. "Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 329-343, March.
    12. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    13. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    14. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    17. Valeria Aman, 2016. "How collaboration impacts citation flows within the German science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2195-2216, December.
    18. Jyoti Dua & Vivek Kumar Singh & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2023. "Measuring and characterizing international collaboration patterns in Indian scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5081-5116, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Fairclough, Ruth & Thelwall, Mike, 2015. "National research impact indicators from Mendeley readers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 845-859.

    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:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05087-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.