International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index: Is internationalization leading the Network?

Abstract

International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI ). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions.In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.

Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: a bibliometric analysis

“…It is clear that the high impact research outputs are largely a result of the collaboration of two or more authors, suggesting that research collaboration might lead to greater influence in IS field. This result also applies to many other research fields (Aksnes 2003; Katz and Martin 1997;Luukkonen et al 1992Luukkonen et al , 1993van Leeuwen 2009;Ortega 2014;Leydesdorff et al 2014). Collaboration does however not necessarily lead to high impact articles, as some single authored IS documents are also included in this list of highly cited publications.…”

Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields

“…We focus especially on the fields of Dentistry, Mathematics and Information Science because they belong to different knowledge areas: Biological Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Humanities, respectively. In addition, the fields present important indicators and studies carried out in mainstream science, which allow possible comparisons and contextualization of Brazilian science with international scientific behavior, among them Melin (2000), Glänzel (2003), Boschma (2005), Leydesdorff et al (2013), Mena-Chalco et al (2014), and Sidone et al (2016).…”

The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations

“…This shift away from U.S. dominance within global publication and citation shares has attracted scholarly attention. The discussion has focused on the drop in the share percentage of the USA in scientific databases (Shelton & Foland, 2009;Leydesdorff & Wagner, 2009) and the exponential growth of Chinese contributions (Moed, 2002;Zhou & Leydesdorff, 2006). Using Web of Science (WoS, a Thomson-Reuters product) data, Leydesdorff (2012) argued that the growth of China may have been overestimated by the Royal Society (cf.…”