International collaboration in freshwater ecology

Abstract

I 1. International collaboration in freshwater ecology was examined using authorship affiliations of articles published in thirty-three spedalized journals. Most are published in Europe. 2. Researchers from four to thirty-seven different countries were represented in the 100 articles examined for each journal. Only 29% of articles were single-authored; multicountry authors' addresses (indicating international collaboration) were found for 9% (range 0-23% per journal) of articles examined. 3. Five of the eighty-nine countries listed in the addresses of the 33(K) articles together contributed >50% of total articles: United States (24.9%), Canada (8.6%), Germany (7.6%), Commonwealth of Independent States (7.0%) and Poland (5.9%). Of the fifteen countries that each produced >2,5% of total articles, the percentage representing international collaboration was highest for France (34.9%) and Canada (24.0%). The seventy-four countries that each contributed <2.5% of total articles generally had higher rates of international collaboration. 4. Researchers in the United States and Canada collaborate internationally almost twice as often in freshwater ecology than in all sdence. Much of France's extensive international collaboration is with countries that produce few articles in freshwater ecology, and their international collaboration is often exclusively with France. 5. Three journals publishing both marine and freshwater ecology articles contain more articles on the former topic, but more countries are represented in the publication of freshwater than marine research. 6. The percentage of articles that represent international collaboration is higher in freshwater ecology than in medidne, biology, chemistry and engineering, and approximates that in physics.

Explaining international collaboration in global environmental change research

“…Then bibliometric studies on more narrow environmental fields are reviewed, including all published articles that we could identify (WAGNER, 2005;ENGELS et al, 2005;DASTIDAR, 2004;WISHART & DAVIS, 1998;RESH & YAMAMOTO, 1994). There are some limitations with regard to the statistical sources, as the most recent data published by NSB on worldwide fieldspecific internationalisation cover the period 1995-1997(NSB, 2000.…”

“…Nevertheless, Wagner's attempt underlines the need for a better qualitative understanding of EES fields to explain internationalisation patterns. RESH & YAMAMOTO (1994) carefully select specialised journals and report collaboration frequencies per journal. Their conclusion that internationalisation in Freshwater Ecology approximates that of Physics does not seem well-founded because it disregards a time lag of almost a decade between investigated periods.…”

An assessment of research in evolution and ecology supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

“…Cooley and Golley (1984) showed that Canada ranked third among all nations in 1982, slightly behind the USSR and slightly in front of Great Britain, in the number of ecological authors. A survey of 3300 articles published in 33 freshwater journals since 1985 (Resh and Yamamoto 1994) showed Canada to be the second-most productive nation in that area, producing a third as many papers as the first-ranked U.S.A. (i.e., three times as many per capita).…”

Publications of BRIC‐ and Outreach Countries in International Journals on Limnology

“…The situation does not seem encouraging. Although international collaboration in limnology is higher than in many other fields of science (RESH and YAMAMOTO, 1994), present collaborations and technology transfers from the first to the third world are still inadequate and do not lead to capacity building in third world countries (WISHART and DAVIES, 1998). On the other hand, some of the developing countries were economically most successful in the last decade and it may no longer be Publications of BRIC-and Outreach Countries 299…”