International scientific collaboration has increased both in volume and importance. In this article, the authors study the interpretation of macro-level data on international coauthorship collaboration. They address such questions as how one might explain countryto-country differences in the rates of international coauthorship, networks of international scientific collaboration among countries, and patterns of international collaboration in scientific fields. Attention is drawn to cognitive, social, historical, geopolitical, and economic factors as potential determinants of the observed patterns. They present a methodology that gives one a measure, independent of size, of countries'propensities to collaborate internationally.The first collaborative scientific paper was published in 16f5,' and the number of collaborative papers has increased ever since, first slowly, then dramatically after the middle of the eighteenth century. Beaver and Rosen noted collaborative linkages across national borders as early as the nineteenth century.' These linkages increased toward the end of the century, and international collaboration has grown in importance throughout the present century.

No abstract

This study investigates patterns in the language and type of social sciences and humanities (SSH) publications in non-English speaking European countries to demonstrate that such patterns are related not only to discipline but also to each country's cultural and historic heritage. We investigate publication patterns that occur across SSH publications of the whole of the SSH and of economics and business, law, and philosophy and theology publications in the Czech Republic,

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the coverage of the scientific literature in Scopus and Web of Science from the perspective of research evaluation. Design/methodology/approach: The academic communities of Norway have agreed on certain criteria for what should be included as original research publications in research evaluation and funding contexts. These criteria have been applied since 2004 in a comprehensive bibliographic database called the Norwegian Science Index (NSI). The relative coverages of Scopus and Web of Science are compared with regard to publication type, field of research and language. Findings: Our results show that Scopus covers 72 percent of the total Norwegian scientific and scholarly publication output in 2015 and 2016, while the corresponding figure for Web of Science Core Collection is 69 percent. The coverages are most comprehensive in medicine and health (89 and 87 percent) and in the natural sciences and technology (85 and 84 percent). The social sciences (48 percent in Scopus and 40 percent in Web of Science Core Collection) and particularly the humanities (27 and 23 percent) are much less covered in the two international data sources.Research limitation: Comparing with data from only one country is a limitation of the study, but the criteria used to define a country's scientific output as well as the identification of patterns of field-dependent partial representations in Scopus and Web of Science should be recognizable and useful also for other countries.Originality/value: The novelty of this study is the criteria-based approach to studying coverage problems in the two data sources.

Numerous studies have shown that female scientists tend to publish significantly fewer publications than do their male colleagues. In this study, we have analyzed whether similar differences also can be found in terms of citation rates. Based on a large-scale study of 8,500 Norwegian researchers and more than 37,000 publications covering all areas of knowledge, we conclude that the publications of female researchers are less cited than are those of men, although the differences are not large. The gender differences in citation rates can be attributed to differences in productivity. There is a cumulative advantage effect of increasing publication output on citation rates. Since the women in our study publish significantly fewer publications than do men, they benefit less from this effect. The study also provides results on how publication and citation rates vary according to scientific position, age, and discipline.