Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Collaboration in Russian Universities: Cooperation vs Individual Productivity
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.012
Abstract
The paper studies the dynamics of scientific collaborations in leading Russian universities during 2010–2018. The author analyzes both individual and inter-organizational collaboration. Understanding how scientific cooperation is organized, its disciplinary specifics and qualitative differences provides important information for organizing scientific activities in universities. Based on bibliometric data we analyze changes in the number of authors and affiliated organizations according to publications from various scientific fields and quality segments. The sampling of the universities shows the growth of scientific collaboration both among individual scientists and among organizations. The number of works co-authored with Russian organizations is higher than with foreign ones, but the share of such works is rapidly decreasing. In the segment of high quality publications, universities collaborate more often than in the lower quality segment. At the same time, in the high quality segment universities more often collaborate with foreign institutions, whereas in the lower quality segment – with Russian organizations. The highest share of scientific collaboration is observed in physical sciences, the lowest – in social sciences. The analysis is limited by the data, which do not represent all collaborations between scientists.
Keywords
scientific collaboration,
university cooperation,
disciplinary specifics,
co-authorship,
Russian universities,
bibliometrics
Supporting agencies: The article was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program and funded by the Russian Academic Excellence Project 5-100.
About the Author
N. N. Matveeva
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia N. Matveeva – Research Assistant, The Center for Institutional Studies
11 Pokrovsky Boulevard, Moscow, 109028
References
1. Zuccala A. Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 2006, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 152–168. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20256 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
2. Turko T. et al. Influence of the program «5-top 100» on the publication activity of Russian universities. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 769–782. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2060-9 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
3. Matveeva N., Sterligov I., Yudkevich M. The Russian University Excellence Initiative: Is It Really Excellence that Is Promoted? Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP, 2019, vol. 49, pp. 3–35. URL: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3391182 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
4. Guskov A. E., Kosyakov D. V., Selivanova I. V. Boosting research productivity in top Russian universities: the circumstances of breakthrough. Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 1053–1080. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2890-8 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
5. Glänzel W., Schubert A. Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Springer, Dordrecht, 2004, pp. 257–276. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
6. Wuchty S., Jones B. F., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 2007, vol. 316, no. 5827, pp. 1036–1039. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
7. Sonnenwald D. H. Scientific collaboration. Annual review of information science and technology, 2007, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 643–681. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
8. Gibbons M. (ed.). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, 1994. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2076669 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
9. Clark B. Y., Llorens J. J. Investments in scientific research: Examining the funding threshold effects on scientific collaboration and variation by academic discipline. Policy Studies Journal, 2012, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 698–729. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541–0072.2012.00470.x (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
10. Kronegger L., Ferligoj A., Doreian P. On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 2011, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 989-1015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9484-3 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
11. Cummings J. N., Kiesler S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 2007, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1620–1634. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
12. Endersby J. W. Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 1996, vol. 77, pp. 375–392. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
13. Bikard M., Murray F., Gans J. S. Exploring tradeoffs in the organization of scientific work: Collaboration and scientific reward. Management science, 2015, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1473–1495. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2052 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
14. Rawlings C. M., McFarland D. A. Influence flows in the academy: Using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Social Science Research, 2011, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1001–1017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2052 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
15. Bales M. E. et al. Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals. Journal of biomedical informatics, 2014, vol. 52, pp. 311–318. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.07.015 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
16. Ni P., An X. Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective. Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 863–877. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2784-9 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
17. Abramo G., D’Angelo C. A. How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 2014, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 1129–1144. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
18. Adams J. D. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of political economy, 1990, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 673–702. URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/261702 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
19. Leahey E. From sole investigator to team scientist: Trends in the practice and study of research collaboration. Annual review of sociology, 2016, vol. 42, pp. 81–100. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074219 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
20. Artamonova Yu., Demchuk A. Razvitie akademicheskoi mobil’nosti v vuzakh Rossii i FGOS [The development of academic mobility in Russian HEIs and new FSEs]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2012, no. 12, pp. 3–14. (In Russ.).
21. Ivanov V. V., Markusova V. A., Mindeli L. E. Government investments and the publishing activity of higher educational institutions: Bibliometric analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2016, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 314–321. URL: https://doi.org/10.1134/s1019331616040031 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
22. Mazov N. A., Gureev V. N. Bibliometric analysis of the flow of publications by Novosibirsk State University in collaboration with the RAS Siberian Branch. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2017, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 445–453. URL: https://doi.org/10.1134/s1019331617050057 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
23. Pislyakov V., Shukshina E. Measuring excellence in Russia: Highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 2321–2330. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23093 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
24. Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 213–228. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
25. Miranda R., Garcia-Carpintero E. Comparison of the share of documents and citations from different quartile journals in 25 research areas. Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 479–501. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03210-z (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
26. Sanfilippo P., Hewitt A. W., Mackey D. A. Plurality in multi-disciplinary research: multiple institutional affiliations are associated with increased citations. Peer J., 2018, vol. 6, pp. 56–64. URL: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5664 (accessed 25.04.2020). (In Eng.).
Review
For citations:
Matveeva N.N. Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Collaboration in Russian Universities: Cooperation vs Individual Productivity. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2020;24(2):26-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.012
Views:
718
Email this article 