No abstract

Using data from co-authorships at the international level in all fields of science in 1990 and 2000, and within six case studies at the sub-field level in 2000, different explanations for the growth of international collaboration in science and technology are explored. We find that few of the explanations within the literature can be supported by a detailed review of the data. To enable further exploration of the role of recognition and rewards as ordering mechanisms within the system, we apply new tools emerging from network science. These enquiries shows that the growth of international co-authorships can be attributed to self-organizing phenomenon based on preferential attachment (searching for recognition and reward) within networks of co-authors. The co-authorship links can be considered as a complex network with sub-dynamics involving features of both competition and cooperation. The analysis suggests that the growth of international collaboration is more likely to emerge from dynamics at the sub-field level operating in all fields of science, albeit under institutional constraints. Implications for the management of global scientific collaborations are explored.Version 24 June 04 to domestic collaborations. Narin et al. (1991) has shown that internationally coauthored articles are more highly cited than other articles. Despite this body of evidence, the question of why this class of research is growing so quickly or why it has a relatively high impact needs more discussion. A theoretically satisfying explanation of the phenomenon has yet to be offered. (Katz & Hicks 1987;Wagner-Döbler 2001) This article continues these inquiries along two lines. Drawing upon data (published elsewhere) for 1990 and 2000, different explanations offered within the literature for the increase in international collaboration are discussed. We find that existing explanations are incapable of fully explaining the emerging structure of ICS. In seeking other explanations, we turn to recent literature from the network sciences. Physicists needing large datasets for the study of network dynamics have used scientific co-authorships as a subject. In the process, they have revealed fascinating dynamics about collaborative networks, including the mechanism of preferential attachment as a structuring factor.Using the tools developed by Barabási & Albert (1999) and Newman (2001) we investigate whether these mechanisms also apply at the international level. Our findings reveal the emerging structure of linkages within the international system at the sub-field level, and perhaps move science studies closer towards a theoretically satisfying explanation for the rise of international collaboration. A brief review of the literature examining the rise of international collaborationOver the past 25 years, a number of reasons have been suggested to explain the growth of ICS. One group considers the environment within which science operates: the environmental factors can be divided into internal and external factors. A second group considers the con...

Scientometrics is the study of the quantitative aspects of the process of science as a communication system. It is centrally, but not only, concerned with the analysis of citations in the academic literature.In recent years it has come to play a major role in the measurement and evaluation of research performance. In this review we consider: the historical development of scientometrics, sources of citation data, citation metrics and the "laws" of scientometrics, normalisation, journal impact factors and other journal metrics, visualising and mapping science, evaluation and policy, and future developments.

Using the Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations, one can measure the extent to which innovation has become systemic instead of assuming the existence of national (or regional) systems of innovations on a priori grounds. Systemness of innovation patterns, however, can be expected to remain in transition because of integrating and differentiating forces. Integration among the functions of wealth creation, knowledge production, and normative control takes place at the interfaces in organizations, while exchanges on the market, scholarly communication in knowledge production, and political discourse tend to differentiate globally. The neo-institutional and the neo-evolutionary versions of the Triple Helix model enable us to capture this tension reflexively. Empirical studies inform us whether more than three helices are needed for the explanation. The Triple Helix indicator can be extended algorithmically, for example, with local-global as a fourth dimension or, more generally, to an N-tuple of helices.