Skip to main content
Log in

Allometric models to measure and analyze the evolution of international research collaboration

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A fundamental problem in the field of the social studies of science is how to measure the patterns of international scientific collaboration to analyse the structure and evolution of scientific fields. This study here confronts the problem by developing an allometric model of morphological changes in order to measure and analyse the relative growth of international research collaboration in comparison with domestic collaboration only for fields of science. Statistical analysis, based on data of internationally co-authored papers from National Science Foundation (1997–2012 period), shows an acceleration (a disproportionate relative growth) of collaboration patterns in medical sciences, social sciences, geosciences, agricultural sciences, and psychology (predominantly applied fields). By contrast, some predominantly basic fields, including physics and mathematics, have lower levels of relative growth in international scientific collaboration. These characteristics of patterns of international research collaboration  seem to be vital contributing factors for the evolution of the social dynamics and social construction of science. The main aim of this article is therefore to clarify the on-going evolution of scientific fields that might be driven by the plexus (interwoven combination of parts in a system) of research disciplines, which generates emerging research fields with high growth rates of international scientific collaboration.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This study by Coccia and Wang (2016) also shows the interesting property of convergence between basic and applied sciences during the on-going evolution of patterns of international scientific collaboration. The preliminary study of this vital finding has started in 2011 at Georgia Institute of Technology (cf., Coccia, 2012 “Evaluation of scientific collaborations of research institutions across countries to design fruitful research policy and support active knowledge trajectories”, Final Report of Research Project (0040055-2011) of the Memorandum CNR—National Research Council of Italy and National Endowment for the Humanities (USA), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA (19th April 2012). Results of this research project were also presented at Congress AIV (University of Milan-Italy, 18th–19th  April, 2013).

References

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–356. doi:10.1038/490335a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battard, N. (2012). Convergence and multidisciplinarity in nanotechnology: Laboratories as technological hub. Technovation, 32(3–4), 234–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M., & Kim, K. S. (1992). Form follows function: Reformulating urban population density functions. Urban studies, 29(7), 1043–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver de, B. D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Pt. I, The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America (PNAS), 101(Suppl. 1), 5192–5199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., Youtie, J., Slade, C. P., & Rimes, H. (2015). Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines. Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2016). The strength in numbers: How to create science collaboration dream teams. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Cheng, J., & Masser, I. (2004). Understanding spatial and temporal processes of urban growth: Cellular automata modelling. Environment and Planning B, 31(2), 167–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2001). Satisfaction, work involvement and R&D performance. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 1(2/3/4), 268–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2004). New models for measuring the R&D performance and identifying the productivity of public research institutes. R&D Management, 34(3), 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2005a). A Scientometric model for the assessment of scientific research performance within public institutes. Scientometrics, 65(3), 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2005b). Countrymetrics: valutazione della performance economica e tecnologica dei paesi e posizionamento dell’Italia. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, CXIII(3/2005), 377–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2007). A new taxonomy of country performance and risk based on economic and technological indicators. Journal of Applied Economics, 10(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2008a). Science, funding and economic growth: Analysis and science policy implications. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2008b). Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009a). A new approach for measuring and analyzing patterns of regional economic growth: Empirical analysis in Italy. Italian Journal of Regional Science-Scienze Regionali, 8(2), 71–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009b). Bureaucratization in public research institutions. Minerva, A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 47(1), 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009c). Research Performance and bureaucratization within public research labs. Scientometrics, 79(1), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009d). Measuring the impact of sustainable technological innovation. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 5(3), 276–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2012a). Evolutionary growth of knowledge in path-breaking targeted therapies for lung cancer: Radical innovations and structure of the new technological paradigm. International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research, 3(3–4), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2012b). Driving forces of technological change in medicine: Radical innovations induced by side effects and their impact on society and healthcare. Technology in Society, 34(4), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2012c). Cartilage tissue engineering with chondrogenic cells versus artificial joint replacement: The insurgence of new technological paradigms. Health and Technology, 2(4), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2012d). Converging genetics, genomics and nanotechnologies for groundbreaking pathways in biomedicine and nanomedicine. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 13(4), 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2012e). Evolutionary trajectories of the nanotechnology research across worldwide economic players. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 1029–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2013). The effect of country wealth on incidence of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 141(2), 225–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2014a). Converging scientific fields and new technological paradigms as main drivers of the division of scientific labour in drug discovery process: The effects on strategic management of the R&D corporate change. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(7), 733–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2014b). Driving forces of technological change: The relation between population growth and technological innovation-Analysis of the optimal interaction across countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(2), 52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2014c). Emerging technological trajectories of tissue engineering and the critical directions in cartilage regenerative medicine. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 14(3), 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., Falavigna, G., & Manello, A. (2015). The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: A scientometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102(1), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., Finardi, U., & Margon, D. (2012). Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 777–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2007). How research policy changes can affect the organization and productivity of public research institutes: An analysis within the Italian national system of innovation. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 9(3), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2013). Human resource management and organizational behavior of public research institutions. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(4), 256–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2015). Path-breaking directions of nanotechnology-based chemotherapy and molecular cancer therapy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2016). Evolution and convergence of the Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 113(8), 2057–2061. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510820113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1972a). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1972b). Transnational networks in basic science. In Robert O. Keohane & Joseph S. Nye (Eds.), Transnational relations and world politics (pp. 235–251). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D., & Beaver, B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (1991). Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing and Management, 27(2/3), 117–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. B., Ganguli, I., & Murciano-Goroff, R. (2014). Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration. NBER Working Paper No. 19819, Issued in January.

  • Gayon, J. (2000). History of the concept of allometry. American Zoologist, 40(5), 748–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., & Wajcman, J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, J. S. (1932). Problems of relative growth. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33(4), 539–562.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. W. (2006). Measuring international research collaboration of peripheral countries: Taking the context into consideration. Scientometrics, 66(2), 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy (Chaps. 5 and 7). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 762–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lleonart, J., Salat, J., & Torres, G. J. (2000). Removing allometric effects of body size in morphological analysis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 205(1), 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Skar, J., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69(3), 575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2014). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. http://www.nsf.gov/. Accessed November 2014.

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America (PNAS), 10(Suppl. 1), 5200–5205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niklas, K. J. (1994). Plant allometry: The scaling of form and process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, J. E., Gong, W. K., & Wong, C. H. (2004). Allometry and partitioning of the mangrove, Rhizophora apiculata. Forest Ecology and Management, 188(1), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. (2009). Cross-cultural comparative studies and issues in international research collaboration. The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 328–345). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puuska, H.-M., Muhonen, R., & Leino, Y. (2014). International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines. Scientometrics, 98(2), 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, E. C. R., & Huxley, J. S. (1945). Some problems in the study of allometric growth. In W. E. LeGros Clark & P. B. Medawar (Eds.), Essay on growth and form (pp. 121–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahal, D. (1979). The temporal and spatial aspects of diffusion of technology. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions, 9(12), 829–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahal, D. (1981). Patterns of technological innovation. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (1998). The growth of multidisciplinarity in the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science, 22(1), 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (2004). Cognitive science: Interdisciplinarity now and then. In S. J. Derry & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Problems and promises of interdisciplinary collaboration: Perspectives from cognitive science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science. (1965). The evolution of science. Science, New Series, 148(3671), 737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific American. (2016). Special report: The discovery of gravitational waves (February 11, 2016). Scientific American, a Division of Nature America.

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(3), 799–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Johnston, J., & Bastiani, A. A. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science, 30(1), 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillings, N., Feinstein, M. H., Garfield, J. L., Rissland, E. L., Rosenbaum, D. A., Weisler, S., & Baker-Ward, L. (1987). Cognitive science: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer, N. W. (1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some Sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55(1), 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer, N. W. (1970). The Internationality of Science and the Nationality of Scientists. International Social Science Journal, 22(1), 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, X., Kaur, J., Milojevic, S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2013). Social dynamics of science. Scientific Reports, 3(1069), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S., & Wolinsky, S. (2001). Scientific collaborations at a distance. Science, 292(5525), 2254–2255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57546. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US National Research Council. (2014). Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond—Committee on Key Challenge Areas for Convergence and Health Board on Life Sciences Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research result. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, J., & Thomas, S. C. (1992). Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology, 73(2), 648–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2006). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., & Bozeman, B. (2014). Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics, 101(2), 953–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Mario Coccia gratefully acknowledges the National Endowment for the Humanities and National Research Council of Italy–Direzione Generale Relazioni Internazionali Research Grant Nos. 0040055-2011 and 0072373-2014 for financially supporting the development of this research project and to Arizona State University for hosting the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Coccia.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Countries included in the sample

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, The Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America (Source: National Science Foundation 2014).

Appendix 2: Fields and their subfields under study

Engineering

Biological sciences

Medical sciences (continued)

Aerospace engineering

General biomedical research

Urology

Chemical engineering

Miscellaneous biomedical research

Nephrology

Civil engineering

Biophysics

Allergy

Electrical engineering

Botany

Fertility

Mechanical engineering

Anatomy and morphology

Geriatrics

Metals and metallurgy

Cell biology, cytology, and histology

Embryology

Materials engineering

Ecology

Tropical medicine

Industrial engineering

Entomology

Addictive diseases

Operations research and management

Immunology

Microscopy

Biomedical engineering

Microbiology

Other life sciences

Nuclear technology

Nutrition and dietetics

Speech/language pathology and audiology

General engineering

Parasitology

Nursing

Miscellaneous engineering and technology

Genetics and heredity

Rehabilitation

Astronomy

Pathology

Health policy and services

Chemistry

Pharmacology

Psychology

Analytical chemistry

Physiology

Clinical psychology

Organic chemistry

General zoology

Behavioral and comparative psychology

Physical chemistry

Miscellaneous zoology

Developmental and child psychology

Polymers

General biology

Experimental psychology

General chemistry

Miscellaneous biology

Human factors

Applied chemistry

Biochemistry and molecular biology

Social psychology

Inorganic and nuclear chemistry

Virology

General psychology

Physics

Medical sciences

Miscellaneous psychology

Acoustics

Endocrinology

Psychoanalysis

Chemical physics

Neurology and neurosurgery

Social sciences

Nuclear and particle physics

Dentistry

Economics

Optics

Environmental and occupational health

International relations

Solid state physics

Public health

Political science and public administration

Applied physics

Surgery

Demography

Fluids and plasmas

General and internal medicine

Sociology

General physics

Ophthalmology

Anthropology and archaeology

Miscellaneous physics

Pharmacy

Area studies

Geosciences

Veterinary medicine

Criminology

Meteorology and atmospheric sciences

Miscellaneous clinical medicine

Geography and regional sciences

Geology

Anesthesiology

Planning and urban studies

Earth and planetary sciences

Cardiovascular system

General social sciences

Oceanography and limnology

Cancer

Miscellaneous social sciences

Marine biology and hydrobiology

Gastroenterology

Science studies

Environmental sciences

Hematology

Gerontology and aging

Mathematics

Obstetrics and gynecology

Social studies of medicine

Applied mathematics

Otorhinolaryngology

 

Probability and statistics

Pediatrics

 

General mathematics

Psychiatry

 

Miscellaneous mathematics

Radiology and nuclear medicine

 

Computer sciences

Dermatology and venereal disease

 

Agricultural sciences

Orthopedics

 

Dairy and animal sciences

Arthritis and rheumatism

 

Agricultural and food sciences

Respiratory system

 
  1. Source: National Science Foundation (2014)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coccia, M., Bozeman, B. Allometric models to measure and analyze the evolution of international research collaboration. Scientometrics 108, 1065–1084 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2027-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2027-x

Keywords

Navigation