Measurement and Explanation of the Intensity of Co-publication in Scientific Research: An Analysis at the Laboratory Level

Abstract

In order to study networks of collaboration between researchers, we propose a simple measure of the intensity of collaboration, which can be easily interpreted in terms of relative probability and aggregated at the laboratory level. We first use this measure to characterize the relations of collaboration, as defined in terms of co-publication between the scientists of the French "Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique" (CNRS) in the field of condensed-matter physic, during the six-year period 1992-1997. We then use it to investigate the importance of various factors of collaboration: mainly the geographical distance between laboratories, but also their specialization and size, their productivity and the quality of their publications, and their international openness. We find that the average intensity of co-publication of researchers within laboratories is about 40 times higher than the average intensity between laboratories if they are located in the same towns, and that it is 100 times higher than the intensity between laboratories which are not located in the same towns. Yet, geographical distance does not have a significant impact, or a very weak one, on the existence and intensity of co-publication between laboratories located in different towns. What matters is immediate proximity. We also find that the productivity of laboratories, their size and specialization profiles are significant determinants of collaboration.

Colocation and Scientific Collaboration: Evidence from a Field Experiment

“…As noted earlier, the empirical evidence on collaboration shows that collaborators tend to be located more geographically proximate (Katz 1994, Mairesse andTurner 2005). We create an indicator for indicating that both members of the pair were on same campus.…”

“…Consistent with this literature, the existing empirical evidence on scientific collaboration point to the importance of geography and social ties in facilitating collaborations. Several studies have focused on the role of geography, with collaborators tending to be located more geographically proximate (Katz 1994, Mairesse andTurner 2005). Others have shown that scientific teams have become more geographically dispersed in the past 20 years and increasingly span multiple universities (Adams, Clemmons, Black andStephan 2005, Jones, Wuchty andUzzi 2008), with evidence suggesting that decreased collaboration costs, particularly the spread of the Internet, has diminished the role of geography (Agrawal and Goldfarb 2008).…”

Network Formation and Geography: Modelling Approaches, Underlying Conceptions, Recent and Promising Extensions

“…Hence, they allow studying the role of geography on the intensity of interactions, where this role could be introduced as a tie or node property (Mairesse andTurner 2005, Frachisse 2010). Once distance is accounted for, Poisson models can be interpreted as gravity models.…”

“…The use of Binary Choice Models illustrates the application of usual econometric tools to study network formation (Geuna 1998, Powell et al 2005, Mairesse and Turner 2005, Autant-Bernard et al 2007, Paier and Scherngell 2008). These models aim at explaining the factors that affect realization of a single tie; hence they analyse formation of a network by focusing on its smallest unit.…”

The Distribution of Partnerships Benefits: Evidence from Co-Authorships in Economics Journals

“…They include increasing specialization (McDowell and Melvin, 1993), the search for efficiency (Katz and Martin, 1997), proximity (Mairesse and Turner, 2005) but also "preferential attachment", i.e.…”