Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores

Bornmann, Lutz

doi:10.1002/asi.23728

Cited by 41 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with findings from a number of other studies conducted in other settings [18-20]. This finding highlights the importance of international collaboration, particularly when considering advantages such as increased visibility, and more opportunities for securing funding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Medical research productivity in the Arab countries: 2007-2016 bibliometric analysis

El-Rassi

Meho

Nahlawi

et al. 2018

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess recent trends in medical research productivity in Arab countries.MethodsWe collected bibliometric data for the world countries, Arab countries, and Arab institutions for 2007-2016, using Essential Science Indicators, Journal Citation Reports, and Web of Science database. We collected the number of published papers overall and per year, citations per paper, and number of papers published in top quartile and top 10% journals. For the 10 most productive institutions, we additionally collected the number of papers with correspondence authors affiliated with the institution.ResultsThe Arab world produced 189 papers per one million people, about a quarter of the value for other world countries. Four Arab countries (Qatar, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Kuwait) produced more than 695 papers per one million people, exceeding the world average. The average number of citations per paper was 9.2; it rose to more than 15 for papers with international collaboration. At the institutional level, the number of citations showed upward trends, with six institutions having an average citation per paper higher than that of all Arab countries. For the 10 most productive institutions in Arab countries, the percentage of papers involving international collaborations ranged from 42% to 79%; of these, 9% to 29% were led by authors from the same institution. For these 10 most productive institutions, the percentage of papers published in the top quartile journals and with a lead/corresponding author from the institution ranged from 7 to 32%; that percentage drops to 1% to 10% for papers published in top 10% journals.ConclusionsAlthough medical research output in Arab countries at both the country and the institution levels has increased over the past 10 years, it is still lagging behind the rest of the world. The percentage of papers involving international collaborations was relatively high, but the majority of these papers were led by authors from outside the local institution, particularly when published in the top 10% journals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Medical research productivity in the Arab countries: 2007-2016 bibliometric analysis

El-Rassi

Meho

Nahlawi

et al. 2018

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collaboration per se is almost universally accepted not only as a positive and even defining trend of modern academia, but as a proxy for higher citation counts, or 'excellence' (Bornmann 2017). In this sense, the rapid increase of collaborationboth national and international -forced by blunt bibliometric or ranking KPIs can be viewed as an unintended, but highly beneficial consequence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Russian University Excellence Initiative: Is It Really Excellence that Is Promoted?

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate the effect of the Russian University excellence program (Project 5-100) initiated by the Government in 2013 on research performance of top Russian universities which received, on a competitive basis, substantial financial support within this program. To do so we use an econometric analysis of longitudinal data applying a linear growth model with mixed effects, with different characteristics of research output as dependent variables. We demonstrate that there is a significant positive effect of Project 5-100 which appeared from the very first years of its implementationthat is, the universities receiving financial support demonstrate a substantial, steady increase in publications both measured in total numbers and per capita when compared to universities from the control group. An analysis of the structure of publication output allows us to demonstrate that not only quantitative but also qualitative growth has taken place, although the impact of Project 5-100 on quality is heterogeneous across universities and disciplines. Finally, we examine to what extent the change in the structure of research output may be attributed to changes in research collaboration patterns.

show abstract

“…The reason why collaborative papers tend to be more cited is not clear. In some fields, team authored work may not be higher quality (Bornmann, 2017). Whilst international collaboration is a strong indicator of higher citation impact (Didegah, & Thelwall, 2013;Van Raan, 1998), it does not tend to produce more novel research (Wagner, Whetsell, & Mukherjee, 2019), and in at least one field (biochemistry), international collaboration may not be beneficial unless the collaborator is from the USA .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields

Thelwall

Maflahi

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalised citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the ten countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two thirds more authors per article than the UK (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the UK (27%). Whilst increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

show abstract

Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores

Cited by 41 publications

References 47 publications

Medical research productivity in the Arab countries: 2007-2016 bibliometric analysis

Medical research productivity in the Arab countries: 2007-2016 bibliometric analysis

The Russian University Excellence Initiative: Is It Really Excellence that Is Promoted?

Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About