Factors Influencing Cities' Publishing Efficiency

Recently, a vast number of scientific publications have been produced in cities in emerging countries. It has long been observed that the publication output of Beijing has exceeded that of any other city in the world, including such leading centres of science as Boston, New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo. Researchers have suggested that, instead of focusing on cities' total publication output, the quality of the output in terms of the number of highly cited papers should be examined. However, in the period from 2014 to 2016, Beijing produced as many highly cited papers as Boston, London, or New York. In this paper, I propose another method to measure cities' publishing performance; I focus on cities' publishing efficiency (i.e., the ratio of highly cited articles to all articles produced in that city). First, I rank 554 cities based on their publishing efficiency, then I reveal some general factors influencing cities' publishing efficiency. The general factors examined in this paper are as follows: the linguistic environment, cities' economic development level, the location of excellent organisations, cities' international collaboration patterns, and the productivity of scientific disciplines

Scientometric Study: Trends and Patterns in Global Partnership Research

This paper aims to understand the emerging pattern of significance and correlation of the partnership research topics covering all countries. Our study used the scientometric method to reveal the trends and patterns in partnership research. The database was sourced from the scientific literature databases of the Web of Science (WoS). The study recorded 53,800 scientific papers on the partnership in general between 2000 to 2017. GDP and HDI were used to analyze the raison-d’être of the research on partnerships at the macro level. We examined the top 20 countries with the highest GDP, Research Productivity Indicator (RPI), and HDI. A country with a lower Human Development Index (HDI) and higher RPI tends to think that partnerships are essential in supporting national socio-economic development. This study showed that the resource-based view (RBV) theory was discussed more than the stakeholder theory among the two main partnership theories. Observing the motivation to develop partnerships, innovation-seeking was discussed the most in scientific productions. Innovation is used to enhance financial performance and leverage competitive advantage

Assessing the influence of R&D institutions by mapping international scientific networks: the case of INESC Porto

Although scientometric and bibliometric studies embrace a much wider perspective of the linkages/networks of R&D institutions than standard economic studies, to the best of our knowledge, these studies have not yet made use of scientometric tools to analyse the influence and impact of R&D institutions. Moreover, the international perspective has so far been neglected both in standard and bibliometric studies. Based on networks of 1239 foreign co-authorships and 13035 foreign citation linkages, we demonstrate that INESC Porto international influence has considerably expanded since 2003, a year that coincided with the implementation of an internal policy of granting monetary prizes to publications in scientific international journals. In terms of co-authorship, the network of INESC Porto more than duplicated (13 countries in the initial period to 27 in 2004-07). In terms of citations, INESC Porto’s network encompassed almost 40 countries during the whole period (1996-2007). Its more prolific units (optoelectronics, energy and multimedia) presented a rather distinct pattern both in terms of size and evolution of the corresponding network boundaries. The network size of foreign co-authorships was not much different between the three units by the beginning of the 2000s (around 10 countries) but it evolved quite distinctly. The most remarkable pattern was registered by the multimedia (UTM) unit, whose network size rose exponentially to 21 countries in 2004-07. This contrasted with the decline (down to 8 countries) of the energy (USE) unit. The citation network of the optoelectronic unit (UOSE) was by far the largest, until 2003, involving 34 distinct countries, which contrasted with the size of USE (12 countries) and UTM (1 country). But again, after 2003, the size of the citation network of USE and UTM converged spectacularly to that of UOSE’s, reaching in the last period 21 and 16, respectively. The influence of INESC Porto reaches all five continents, especially when we consider citation networks. Indeed, excluding the citations from authors affiliated in Portuguese institutions, those that most cite INESC Porto’s (and UOSE’s) works are affiliated in institutions located in China, the UK and the US. The scientific works produced by USE influences mostly authors affiliated in institutions located in India, China and Spain, whereas for UTM the corresponding countries are the US, Germany and Italy. We infer from the evidence analysed that not only did the boundaries of INESC Porto’s scientific network substantially enlarge in the period of analysis (1996-2007) but its ‘quality’ also evidenced a positive evolution, with authors affiliated in institutions located in the scientific frontier countries citing works of INESC Porto (and its units).Bibliometrics, Knowledge networks; R&D Institutions

A 20-year Bibliometric analysis of Hepatitis B Virus Research and African researchers’ visibility

AbstractPurpose: According to World Health Organization, Africa occupies the second highest position in the prevalence of Hepatitis B virus (HBV) with 6.1% of its adult population infected. However, little is known about HBV research on Africa and the extent of involvement of African scholars. This study is a bibliometric analysis of HBV literature on Africa published between 1999 and 2018.Methodology: A total of 866 articles were retrieved from PubMed. Article and journal details were extracted from each article, while citations were extracted from Harzing Publish and Perish and Google scholar.Findings: There was an increase in HBV literature during the period and over 65% were by Africans. About 60% of the journals were located in USA and UK, and only 12.8% in Africa. Only 15.7% of articles by African authors were published in African journals. Linear regression result shows the probability of articles increasing yearly (β = 4.672, p = 0.000) as positive. Chi square results also show a moderate association between number of authors and author’s affiliation (X2 (5, N = 866) = 46.558, p = .000) and a weak association between citations received and author’s affiliation (X2 (6, N = 866) = 13.154, p = .041).Originality/Value: The study showed that African researchers are visible in HBV research on Africa, however, most African authors preferred to publish in foreign journals which are mostly not accessible to Africans

Assessing the influence of R&D institutions by mapping international scientific networks: the case of INESC Porto

Although scientometric and bibliometric studies embrace a much wider perspective of the linkages/networks of R&D institutions than standard economic studies, to the best of our knowledge, these studies have not yet made use of scientometric tools to analyse the influence and impact of R&D institutions. Moreover, the international perspective has so far been neglected both in standard and bibliometric studies. Based on networks of 1239 foreign co-authorships and 13035 foreign citation linkages, we demonstrate that INESC Porto international influence has considerably expanded since 2003, a year that coincided with the implementation of an internal policy of granting monetary prizes to publications in scientific international journals. In terms of co-authorship, the network of INESC Porto more than duplicated (13 countries in the initial period to 27 in 2004-07). In terms of citations, INESC Porto’s network encompassed almost 40 countries during the whole period (1996-2007). Its more prolific units (optoelectronics, energy and multimedia) presented a rather distinct pattern both in terms of size and evolution of the corresponding network boundaries. The network size of foreign co-authorships was not much different between the three units by the beginning of the 2000s (around 10 countries) but it evolved quite distinctly. The most remarkable pattern was registered by the multimedia (UTM) unit, whose network size rose exponentially to 21 countries in 2004-07. This contrasted with the decline (down to 8 countries) of the energy (USE) unit. The citation network of the optoelectronic unit (UOSE) was by far the largest, until 2003, involving 34 distinct countries, which contrasted with the size of USE (12 countries) and UTM (1 country). But again, after 2003, the size of the citation network of USE and UTM converged spectacularly to that of UOSE’s, reaching in the last period 21 and 16, respectively. The influence of INESC Porto reaches all five continents, especially when we consider citation networks. Indeed, excluding the citations from authors affiliated in Portuguese institutions, those that most cite INESC Porto’s (and UOSE’s) works are affiliated in institutions located in China, the UK and the US. The scientific works produced by USE influences mostly authors affiliated in institutions located in India, China and Spain, whereas for UTM the corresponding countries are the US, Germany and Italy. We infer from the evidence analysed that not only did the boundaries of INESC Porto’s scientific network substantially enlarge in the period of analysis (1996-2007) but its ‘quality’ also evidenced a positive evolution, with authors affiliated in institutions located in the scientific frontier countries citing works of INESC Porto (and its units). Length: 64 pagesBibliometrics, Knowledge networks; R&D Institutions

Visualizing Research Collaboration in Statistical Science: A Scientometric Perspective

Using Sankhyā – The Indian Journal of Statistics as a case, present study aims to identify scholarly collaboration pattern of statistical science based on research articles appeared during 2008 to 2017. This is an attempt to visualize and quantify statistical science research collaboration in multiple dimensions by exploring the co-authorship data. It investigates chronological variations of collaboration pattern, nodes and links established among the affiliated institutions and countries of all contributing authors. The study also examines the impact of research collaboration on citation scores. Findings reveal steady influx of statistical publications with clear tendency towards collaborative ventures, of which double-authored publications dominate. Small team of 2 to 3 authors is responsible for production of majority of collaborative research, whereas mega-authored communications are quite low. Country- wise mapping of research contributions revels that, top five countries have contributed about 66% of the total authors and about 55% of the total affiliated institutions. Indicates few numbers of countries has substantial participation to statistical science research, while large majority has nominal contributions. Of which, USA contributes the most (31%) followed by India, Canada, France and Japan. Result therefore indicates presence of ‘sort of ‘clique’ with dominant foreign coauthors. Further analysis reveals that, unilateral collaboration dominates at the country level whereas at the institution level bilateral collaboration dominates - implies authors from two different institutions of same country are key contributors of this specialty. Indian Statistical Institute (native institute of the source journal) found to be the most productive institution. Study therefore signifies skewed distribution of co-authorship with limited evidence of cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, Google Scholar citation analysis showed that collaboration has significant positive influence on the article impact

Visualizing Research Collaboration in Statistical Science: A Scientometric Perspective

Using Sankhyā – The Indian Journal of Statistics as a case, present study aims to identify scholarly collaboration pattern of statistical science based on research articles appeared during 2008 to 2017. This is an attempt to visualize and quantify statistical science research collaboration in multiple dimensions by exploring the co-authorship data. It investigates chronological variations of collaboration pattern, nodes and links established among the affiliated institutions and countries of all contributing authors. The study also examines the impact of research collaboration on citation scores. Findings reveal steady influx of statistical publications with clear tendency towards collaborative ventures, of which double-authored publications dominate. Small team of 2 to 3 authors is responsible for production of majority of collaborative research, whereas mega-authored communications are quite low. Country- wise mapping of research contributions revels that, top five countries have contributed about 66% of the total authors and about 55% of the total affiliated institutions. Indicates few numbers of countries has substantial participation to statistical science research, while large majority has nominal contributions. Of which, USA contributes the most (31%) followed by India, Canada, France and Japan. Result therefore indicates presence of ‘sort of ‘clique’ with dominant foreign coauthors. Further analysis reveals that, unilateral collaboration dominates at the country level whereas at the institution level bilateral collaboration dominates - implies authors from two different institutions of same country are key contributors of this specialty. Indian Statistical Institute (native institute of the source journal) found to be the most productive institution. Study therefore signifies skewed distribution of co-authorship with limited evidence of cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, Google Scholar citation analysis showed that collaboration has significant positive influence on the article impact

Visualizing Research Collaboration in Statistical Science: A Scientometric Perspective

Using Sankhyā – The Indian Journal of Statistics as a case, present study aims to identify scholarly collaboration pattern of statistical science based on research articles appeared during 2008 to 2017. This is an attempt to visualize and quantify statistical science research collaboration in multiple dimensions by exploring the co-authorship data. It investigates chronological variations of collaboration pattern, nodes and links established among the affiliated institutions and countries of all contributing authors. The study also examines the impact of research collaboration on citation scores. Findings reveal steady influx of statistical publications with clear tendency towards collaborative ventures, of which double-authored publications dominate. Small team of 2 to 3 authors is responsible for production of majority of collaborative research, whereas mega-authored communications are quite low. Country- wise mapping of research contributions revels that, top five countries have contributed about 66% of the total authors and about 55% of the total affiliated institutions. Indicates few numbers of countries has substantial participation to statistical science research, while large majority has nominal contributions. Of which, USA contributes the most (31%) followed by India, Canada, France and Japan. Result therefore indicates presence of ‘sort of ‘clique’ with dominant foreign coauthors. Further analysis reveals that, unilateral collaboration dominates at the country level whereas at the institution level bilateral collaboration dominates - implies authors from two different institutions of same country are key contributors of this specialty. Indian Statistical Institute (native institute of the source journal) found to be the most productive institution. Study therefore signifies skewed distribution of co-authorship with limited evidence of cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, Google Scholar citation analysis showed that collaboration has significant positive influence on the article impact

New Working Practices: A Scientometric Review

Study on New Working Practices (NWPs), which is the subject of this review paper, has created a large body of literature. Studies in this research area are progressing quickly, and it is important to stay abreast of new trends and essential factors in the growth of mutual awareness. This study evaluates the global scientific output of New Working Practices (NWPs) research and explores their hotspots and frontiers from 1980 to 2018 (pre-COVID-19), using bibliometric methods. 850 relevant articles were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and analysed. Scientometric method and Citespace VI were used to analyse the bibliometric data. Reference citation and cocitation networks were plotted, while keywords were used to analyse the research hotspots and trends. There is a significant increase in the number of annual publications with time. The United Kingdom (UK) ranked highest in the countries with most publications, and the leading author is Friedhelm Nachreiner based on publication counts. The most cited author/organisation is the UK Department of Health. Performance, work, and flexible working are the research hotspots, while flexible working arrangement represents the prominent research domain. The study offers valuable references for researchers, industry practitioners and policymakers