International collaboration in science: Participation by the Asian giants

Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors' roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas

“…Many indices have been proposed for measuring the strength of co-authorship relations (e.g., NARIN et al, 1991;ARUNACHALAM et al, 1994). This study uses the coauthoring frequency itself as the weight of ties in graphs simply, on the basis of the assumption that the strength of co-authorship relations between a pair of researchers grows in proportion to the number of times they have published co-authored papers.…”

International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries

“…This provided reliable quantization basis for development of scientific collaboration and policy making of each country. Bibliometric has been the key way to quantitive research on the problems of international collaboration [BRAUN & AL., 1992;OKUBO & AL., 1992;ARUNACHALAM & AL., 1994;GLÄNZEL, 2001]. ZHANG & GUO [1997] analyzed 1,218 Chinese journals on publication for the inspection and found that only 1.58% of the total was from international collaborations.…”

“…GUO & AL. [2000], using Science Citation Index (SCI) for China 1991-1998 international collaboration, showed that the Chinese publications from international collaboration has been increasing annually, of which physics was the most active international collaboration weighing for 30.2% of the total international collaboration publications mainly from the developed countries in West. LIU & CHANG [2001] analyzed international collaboration in the distribution of the subjects based on the SCI data from China and other 33 countries and regions of 1994-1998. ARUNACHALAM & DOSS [2000 analyzed international collaborations of 11 Asian countries.…”

Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—Evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration

“…It is generally accepted that internationally collaborative papers appear in better journals and are cited more often than local research (Arunachalam, Srinivasan, & Raman, 1994;Barjak & Robinson, 2007;Hu et al, 2012), yet it remains unclear whether this phenomenon is due to the self-selection of researchers or the nature of collaboration types themselves. The deficiency of prior literature on this topic has different policy implications.…”