Collaborative research: Accomplishments & potential

Although a substantial part of scientific research is collaborative and increasing globalization will probably lead to its increase, very few studies actually investigate the advantages, disadvantages, experiences and lessons learned from collaboration. In environmental epidemiology interdisciplinary collaboration is essential and the contrasting geographical patterns in exposure and disease make multi-location projects essential. This paper is based on a presentation given at the Annual Conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, Paris 2006, and is attempting to initiate a discussion on a framework for studying collaborative research. A review of the relevant literature showed that indeed collaborative research is rising, in some countries with impressive rates. However, there are substantial differences between countries in their outlook, need and respect for collaboration. In many situations collaborative publications receive more citations than those based on national authorship. The European Union is the most important host of collaborative research, mainly driven by the European Commission through the Framework Programmes. A critical assessment of the tools and trends of collaborative networks under FP6, showed that there was a need for a critical revision, which led to changes in FP7. In conclusion, it is useful to study the characteristics of collaborative research and set targets for the future. The added value for science and for the researchers involved may be assessed. The motivation for collaboration could be increased in the more developed countries. Particular ways to increase the efficiency and interaction in interdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration may be developed. We can work towards "the principles of collaborative research" in Environmental Epidemiology

Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment: Festschrift in Honour of Henk F. Moed

We intend to edit a Festschrift for Henk Moed combining a “best of” collection of his papers and new contributions (original research papers) by authors having worked and collaborated with him. The outcome of this original combination aims to provide an overview of the advancement of the field in the intersection of bibliometrics, informetrics, science studies and research assessment

The 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics

[No abstract available

Author Self-Citation in the General Medicine Literature

Background: Author self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of an article and the impact factor of the journal in which it appears. Little is known, however, about the extent of self-citation in the general clinical medicine literature. The objective of this study was to determine the extent and temporal pattern of author self-citation and the article characteristics associated with author self-citation. Methodology/Principal Findings: We performed a retrospective cohort study of articles published in three high impact general medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) between October 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000. We retrieved the number and percentage of author self-citations received by the article since publication, as of June 2008, from the Scopus citation database. Several article characteristics were extracted by two blinded, independent reviewers for each article in the cohort and analyzed in multivariable linear regression analyses. Since publication, author self-citations accounted for 6.5 % (95 % confidence interval 6.3–6.7%) of all citations received by the 328 articles in our sample. Selfcitation peaked in 2002, declining annually thereafter. Studies with more authors, in cardiovascular medicine or infectious disease, and with smaller sample size were associated with more author self-citations and higher percentage of author selfcitation (all p#0.01). Conclusions/Significance: Approximately 1 in 15 citations of articles in high-profile general medicine journals are autho

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations. A case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000-2009.

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature

Runaway Events Dominate the Heavy Tail of Citation Distributions

Statistical distributions with heavy tails are ubiquitous in natural and social phenomena. Since the entries in heavy tail have disproportional significance, the knowledge of its exact shape is very important. Citations of scientific papers form one of the best-known heavy tail distributions. Even in this case there is a considerable debate whether citation distribution follows the log-normal or power-law fit. The goal of our study is to solve this debate by measuring citation distribution for a very large and homogeneous data. We measured citation distribution for 418,438 Physics papers published in 1980-1989 and cited by 2008. While the log-normal fit deviates too strong from the data, the discrete power-law function with the exponent $\gamma=3.15$ does better and fits 99.955% of the data. However, the extreme tail of the distribution deviates upward even from the power-law fit and exhibits a dramatic "runaway" behavior. The onset of the runaway regime is revealed macroscopically as the paper garners 1000-1500 citations, however the microscopic measurements of autocorrelation in citation rates are able to predict this behavior in advance.Comment: 6 pages, 5 Figure

Articles by Latin American Authors in Prestigious Journals Have Fewer Citations

Background: the journal Impact factor (IF) is generally accepted to be a good measurement of the relevance/quality of articles that a journal publishes. in spite of an, apparently, homogenous peer-review process for a given journal, we hypothesize that the country affiliation of authors from developing Latin American (LA) countries affects the IF of a journal detrimentally.Methodology/Principal Findings: Seven prestigious international journals, one multidisciplinary journal and six serving specific branches of science, were examined in terms of their IF in the Web of Science. Two subsets of each journal were then selected to evaluate the influence of author's affiliation on the IF. They comprised contributions (i) with authorship from four Latin American (LA) countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico) and (ii) with authorship from five developed countries (England, France, Germany, Japan and USA). Both subsets were further subdivided into two groups: articles with authorship from one country only and collaborative articles with authorship from other countries. Articles from the five developed countries had IF close to the overall IF of the journals and the influence of collaboration on this value was minor. in the case of LA articles the effect of collaboration (virtually all with developed countries) was significant. the IFs for non-collaborative articles averaged 66% of the overall IF of the journals whereas the articles in collaboration raised the IFs to values close to the overall IF.Conclusion/Significance: the study shows a significantly lower IF in the group of the subsets of non-collaborative LA articles and thus that country affiliation of authors from non-developed LA countries does affect the IF of a journal detrimentally. There are no data to indicate whether the lower IFs of LA articles were due to their inherent inferior quality/relevance or psycho-social trend towards under-citation of articles from these countries. However, further study is required since there are foreseeable consequences of this trend as it may stimulate strategies by editors to turn down articles that tend to be under-cited.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Latin Amer & Caribbean Ctr Hlth Sci Informat, BIREME PAHO WHO, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, DIS Dept Informat Med, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, DIS Dept Informat Med, São Paulo, BrazilFAPESP: 05/57665-8CNPq: 2006-0919Web of Scienc