Abstract

We investigated the effect of international collaboration (in the form of international co-authorship) on the impact of publications of young universities (<50 years old), and compared to that of renowned old universities (>100 years old). The following impact indicators are used in this study, they are: (1) the 5-year citations per paper (CPP) data, (2) the international co-authorship rate, (3) the CPP differential between publications with and without international co-authorships, and (4) the difference between the percentage of international co-authored publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications and the percentage of overall publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications (Δ%Top10%). The increment of 5-year (2010–2014) field weighted citation impact (FWCI) of internationally co-authored papers over the 5-year overall FWCI of the institutions in SciVal® is used as another indicator to eliminate the effect of discipline difference in citation rate. The results show that, for most top institutions, the difference between the citations per paper (CPP) for their publications with and without international co-authorship is positive, with increase of up to 5.0 citations per paper over the period 1996–2003. Yet, for some Asian institutions, by attracting a lot of researchers with international background and making these collaborating “external” authors as internal researchers, these institutions have created a special kind of international collaboration that are not expressed in co-authorship, and the CPP gaps between publications with and without international co-authorship are relatively small (around 0–1 citations per paper increment) for these institutions. The top old institutions have higher CPP than young institutions, and higher annual research expenditures; while young universities have a higher relative CPP increment for the current 5-year period over the previous 5-year period. The Δ%Top10% for international co-authored publications is generally higher than that for all journal publications of the same institution. With the increase of international co-authorship ratio, the mean geographical collaboration distance (MGCD, an indication of increased international co-authorship) of one institution based on the Leiden Ranking data also increases, and young institutions have relatively higher CPP increment over MGCD increment. International co-authorship has a positive contribution to the FWCI of the institution, yet there are untapped potential to enhance the collaboration among young institutions.

Highlights

  • The following impact indicators are used in this study, they are: (1) the 5-year citations per paper (CPP) data, (2) the international co-authorship rate, (3) the CPP differential between publications with and without international co-authorships, and (4) the difference between the percentage of international co-authored publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications and the percentage of overall publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications (D%Top10%)

  • For some Asian institutions, by attracting a lot of researchers with international background and making these collaborating ‘‘external’’ authors as internal researchers, these institutions have created a special kind of international collaboration that are not expressed in co-authorship, and the CPP gaps between publications with and without international co-authorship are relatively small for these institutions

  • For some renown world top universities like Caltech, Stanford University and University of Cambridge, their overall CPP for their publications is already very high, the percentage of their internationally collaborated publications falling in the global top 10 % highly cited publications is still higher than the percentage of their overall publications falling in the global top 10 %

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is widely presumed that research collaboration; especially international collaboration, has benefits for both the researchers and the organisations involved, and enhances the quality of research (Katz and Hicks 1997; Van Raan 1998; Leydesdorff and Wagner 2008; Persson 2010; Van den Besselaar et al 2012), resulting in higher numbers of scholarly output (publications) and higher impacts (citations) (Glanzel et al 1999; Glanzel and Schubert 2001; Glanzel 2001; Hara et al 2003; Persson et al 2004). To eliminate the discipline difference effect, the increment of 5-year (2010–2014) field weighted citation impact (FWCI) of internationally co-authored papers over the 5-year overall FWCI of the institutions in SciValÒ of Elsevier is used as another indicator, and the collaboration among some selected old institutions and young institutions are investigated

Method and data
Results and discussion
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call