Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines research collaborations in the field of business and management in Malaysia, a fast-developing economy in Southeast Asia. The country aims to become a developed nation by the year 2020, guided by its well-charted Wawasan 2020 or Vision 2020 program. Research and development are important agenda items within this program. Rarely, however, have studies investigated the research collaborations of researchers based in Malaysia from the network perspective. After a manual author disambiguation process, we examined the network of 285 business and management researchers at the individual, institutional, and international levels. Author collaborations per paper almost doubled between 2001 and 2010 compared to the period 1980–1990. The popularity of researchers and the strength and diversity of their ties with other researchers had significant effects on their research performance. Furthermore, geographical proximity still mattered in intra-national collaborations. Malaysian institutions more often collaborated intra-institutionally or with foreign partners than with other institutions within Malaysia. The country’s five research universities are among the top-most productive of all institutions in Malaysia. Malaysia’s top international partners are all developed countries, including the US, Australia, Japan, the UK, and Canada. Surprisingly, Malaysia has had relatively little collaboration with ASEAN nations, of which it is a prominent member and which has an important agenda of educational cooperation within its member states. Internationally co-authored articles have been cited almost three times more than locally co-authored articles. Based on these results, we suggest an effective co-authorship strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011a). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2011b). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 671–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 88(3), 915–928. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0426-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrizah, A., & Wee, M. C. (2011). Malaysia’s computer science research productivity based on publications in the Web of Science, 2000–2010. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 16(1), 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 311(3–4), 590–614.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration, (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari, M., Einhorn, T. A., Swiontkowski, M. F., & Heckman, J. D. (2003). Who did what?: (Mis) perceptions about authors’ contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 85(8), 1605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

  • Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. doi:10.1126/science.1165821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65(3), 391–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. [Proceedings Paper]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Caro, L., Cataldi, M., & Schifanella, C. (2012). The d-index: Discovering dependences among scientific collaborators from their bibliographic data records. Scientometrics, 93(3), 583–607. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0762-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatt, C. K., Abu Ujum, E., & Ratnavelu, K. (2010). The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance. Scientometrics, 85(3), 849–860. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0254-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995). Scientometrics, 45(2), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harirchi, G., Melin, G., & Etemad, S. (2007). An exploratory study of the feature of Iranian co-authorships in biology, chemistry and physics. Scientometrics, 72(1), 11–24. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1693-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. L. (2000). Co-authorship in the academic library literature: A survey of attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 339–345. doi:10.1016/s0099-1333(00)00140-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havemann, F., Heinz, M., & Kretschmer, H. (2006). Collaboration and distances between German immunological institutes—a trend analysis. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, 1(1), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888–899. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C., & Racherla, P. (2008). Visual representation of knowledge networks: A social network analysis of hospitality research domain. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 302–312. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, C. (2011). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, I. S., Na, S. H., Lee, S., Jung, H., Kim, P., Sung, W. K., et al. (2009). On co-authorship for author disambiguation. Information Processing and Management, 45(1), 84–97. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2008.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Natarajan, M., & Babu, B. R. (2011). Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: A scientometric analysis, 1990–2009. Scientometrics, 89(2), 501–522. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0477-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216–239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzhabekova, A. (2011). Impact of co-authorship strategies on research productivity: A social-network analysis of publications in Russian cardiology. University of Minnesota.

  • Leung, K. (2007). The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 510–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences, 16, 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016131. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016132. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001c). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 89(20), 208701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.208701.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004a). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, & Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex networks (pp. 337–370). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004b). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5200–5205. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2007). The mathematics of networks. In The new palgrave encyclopedia of economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report.

  • Pepe, A., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2010). Collaboration in sensor network research: An in-depth longitudinal analysis of assortative mixing patterns. Scientometrics, 84(3), 687–701. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0147-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Melin, G., Danell, R., & Kaloudis, A. (1997). Research collaboration at Nordic universities. Scientometrics, 39(2), 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration*. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. S. (1963). Big science, little science. New York: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  • Quatman, C., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). The Social construction of knowledge in the field of sport management: A social network perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 22(6), 651–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, B., & Rousseau, R. (2000). LOTKA: A program to fit a power law distribution to observed frequency data. Cybermetrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics (4), 4.

  • Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Grant, J. (2009). A scientometric analysis of the proceedings of the McMaster World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital and Innovation for the 1996–2008 period. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., Genuth, J., & Chompalov, I. (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Smith, M. A., Shneiderman, B., Milic-Frayling, N., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Barash, V., Dunne, C., et al. (2009). Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL (pp. 255–264). In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on communities and technologies, ACM.

  • Tang, L., & Walsh, J. P. (2010). Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics, 84(3), 763–784. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0196-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi, B. (2013). Academic productivity correlated with well-being at work. Scientometrics, 1–15.

  • Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A., & Rasmussen, K. (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2), 687–699. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0511-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinluan, L. R. (2012). Research productivity in education and psychology in the Philippines and comparison with ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 91(1), 277–294. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0496-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis, methods and applications (1st ed., Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Structural analysis in the social sciences 2: Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Yan, E. J., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107–2118. doi:10.1002/asi.21128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, E. J., Ding, Y., & Zhu, Q. H. (2010). Mapping library and information science in China: A coauthorship network analysis. Scientometrics, 83(1), 115–131. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0027-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, L. C., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R. A., & Liu, Z. Y. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1599–1613. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Sameer Kumar

  2. Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Jariah Mohd. Jan

Authors
  1. Sameer Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jariah Mohd. Jan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sameer Kumar.

Appendix: Full names of Institutions’ Acronyms

Appendix: Full names of Institutions’ Acronyms

Acronym

Unofficial translation in English

Official Name in Malay

IIUM

International Islamic University of Malaysia

Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia

MMU

Multimedia University

Universiti Multimedia

MSU

Management and Science University

–

UiTM

MARA University of Technology

Universiti Teknologi MARA

UKM

National University of Malaysia

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

UM

University of Malaya

Universiti Malaya

UMS

University of Malaysia, Sabah

Universiti Malaysia Sabah

UNiM

University of Nottingham

Universiti Nottingham Kampus Malaysia

UNIMAS

University of Malaysia, Sarawak

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

UPM

Putra University, Malaysia

Universiti Putra Malaysia

USM

Science University, Malaysia

Universiti Sains Malaysia

UTAR

Tunku Abdul Rahman University

Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

UTM

University of Technology, Malaysia

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

UUM

Northern University, Malaysia

Universiti Utara Malaysia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, S., Jan, J.M. Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics 97, 491–517 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation