Measuring and Visualizing Research Collaboration and Productivity

Abstract

Purpose This paper presents findings of a quasi-experimental assessment to gauge the research productivity and degree of interdisciplinarity of research center outputs. Of special interest, we share an enriched visualization of research co-authoring patterns. Design/methodology/approach We compile publications by 45 researchers in each of 1) the iUTAH project, which we consider here to be analogous to a “research center,” 2) CG1— a comparison group of participants in two other Utah environmental research centers, and 3) CG2—a comparison group of Utah university environmental researchers not associated with a research center. We draw bibliometric data from Web of Science and from Google Scholar. We gather publications for a period before iUTAH had been established (2010–2012) and a period after (2014–2016). We compare these research outputs in terms of publications and citations thereto. We also measure interdisciplinarity using Integration scoring and generate science overlay maps to locate the research publications across disciplines. Findings We find that participation in the iUTAH project appears to increase research outputs (publications in the After period) and increase research citation rates relative to the comparison group researchers (although CG1 research remains most cited, as it was in the Before period). Most notably, participation in iUTAH markedly increases co-authoring among researchers—in general; and for junior, as well as senior, faculty; for men and women: across organizations; and across disciplines. Research limitations The quasi-experimental design necessarily generates suggestive, not definitively causal, findings because of the imperfect controls. Practical implications This study demonstrates a viable approach for research assessment of a center or program for which random assignment of control groups is not possible. It illustrates use of bibliometric indicators to inform R&D program management. Originality/value New visualizations of researcher collaboration provide compelling comparisons of the extent and nature of social networking among target cohorts.

“I Am in a Privileged Situation”: Examining the Factors Promoting Inequity in Open Access Publishing

“…In general, research productivity of female professors has been found to be lower when compared to their male counterparts (Cui, Ding, & Zhu, 2022; Garner, Porter, Leidolf, & Baker, 2018; Sá, Cowley, Martinez, Kachynska, & Sabzalieva, 2020). This is the case with OA publishing as well, confirming existing studies which found that male professors are more likely to author OA articles because female faculty are usually less funded (Nguyen, Nguyen, Le, Ho, & Vuong, 2021; Olejniczak & Wilson, 2020; Zhu, 2017).…”

Introducing Research Loop to Achieve Open Innovation for Research Centers in Quintuple Helix

“…Researchers that adopt Open Innovation schemes and collaborations have increased the number of published research articles and produced patents [47]. Moreover, it has also been observed that besides an increased publication rate, citations at these articles are also higher compared to the citations accrued before the collaboration.…”

Interdisciplinarity: A complexity approach towards academic research

“…Despite the rather large number of definitions and interpretations of interdisciplinarity, specific measurement tools of interdisciplinary orientation-a paramount dimension within the research interdisciplinarity framework (Stokols, 2013)-are rather scarce. There are very few scales available and they either focus on fragmentary facets of interdisciplinarity (such as research collaboration and productivity) or on specific disciplines, like engineering or medicine (Garner et al, 2018;Kirby et al, 2019;Lattuca et al, 2012;Misra et al, 2015;Stokols et al, 2005). As Kirby et al (2019: 2) noticed, 'the largest disciplinary divide among scientists is that between the natural sciences (examining biological, physical, and chemical processes) and the social sciences (examining human dimensions of the world).…”