Abstract
A new indicator (the disruption index) quantifying the extent to which a paper disrupts or consolidates established knowledge was recently introduced from the perspective of subsequent use of the current knowledge. This study explored whether different types of collaboration (i.e., at the author, institution, and country levels) equally affect the disruption of papers. We selected 505,168 papers from Neurosciences indexed in the Web of Science from 1954–2011 and employed logistic regression analysis. Our principal findings are that team size and international collaboration are negatively associated with the disruption of articles, while an additional increase in the number of domestic institutions of a team statistically favors disruption.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.014
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776645
Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455
Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36(2), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.005
Asubiaro, T. (2018). Research collaboration landscape of the university of Ibadan biomedical authors between 2006 and 2015. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 28(1), 17–31.
Asubiaro, T. (2019). How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: A bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1261–1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03157-1
Azoulay, P. (2019). Small-team science is beautiful. Nature, 566(7744), 330–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00350-3
Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0242-4
Beaver, D. B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008
Bikard, M., Vakili, K., & Teodoridis, F. (2019). When collaboration bridges institutions: The impact of university-industry collaboration on academic productivity. Organization Science, 30(2), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1235
Bloch, C., Ryan, T. K., & Andersen, J. P. (2019). Public-private collaboration and scientific impact: An analysis based on Danish publication data for 1995–2013. Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.003
Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., & Costas, R. (2013). Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field. Scientometrics, 96(2), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0890-7
Bornmann, L. (2017). Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000prime and normalized citation scores. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1036–1047. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23728
Bornmann, L., Devarakonda, S., Tekles, A., & Chacko, G. (2020). Disruptive papers published in scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019). Scientometrics, 123(2), 1149–1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8
Bornmann, L., & Tekles, A. (2019a). Disruption index depends on length of citation window. Profesional de La Información, 28(2), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.07
Bornmann, L., & Tekles, A. (2019b). Disruptive papers published in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 1, 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03113-z
Bote, V. P. G., Olmeda-Gómez, C., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22754
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069319
Burright, M. A., Hahn, T. B., & Antonisse, M. J. (2005). Understanding information use in a multidisciplinary field: A local citation analysis of neuroscience research. College and Research Libraries, 66(3), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.3.198
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705055535
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001
Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., Zadeh, B. R., & Balakrishnan, A. D. (2013). Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large group size: A longitudinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological Science, 24(6), 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463082
Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.009
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422
Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006
Ettarh, R. R. (2015). Institution-level collaboration in cardiovascular research in sub-Saharan Africa. Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy, 5(4), 311–315. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-3652.2015.07.04
Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.6.682
Fleishman, J. A. (1980). Collective action as helping behavior: Effects of responsibility diffusion on contributions to a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.629
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
Foster, R. N. (1986). Working the S-curve: Assessing technological threats. Research Management, 29(4), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00345334.1986.11756976
Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1984). Independence and cooperation in research: The motivations and costs of collaboration. The Journal of Higher Education, 55(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981888
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003
Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63(3), 791–817. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366
Garrity, P. A. (2005). Tinker to evers to chance: Semaphorin signaling takes teamwork. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1635–1636. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1205-1635
Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0343-8
Gazni, A., Larivière, V., & Didegah, F. (2016). The effect of collaborators on institutions’ scientific impact. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1209–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2101-4
Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–473.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010561321723
González-Álvarez, J., & Cervera-Crespo, T. (2017). Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.007
Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). Moving the science of team science forward. Collaboration and creativity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.007
He, Z. L. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2151–2164. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21150
Hsu, J., & Huang, D. (2011). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86(2), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0265-x
Iribarren-Maestro, I., Lascurain-Sánchez, M. L., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2009). Are multi-authorship and visibility related? Study of ten research areas at Carlos III University of Madrid. Scientometrics, 79(1), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0412-4
Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00531.x
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357
Kaplan, N. (1965). The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation, 16(3), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090160305
Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1435–1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2294
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069433
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
Kim, D. J., & Kogut, B. (1996). Technological platforms and diversification. Organization Science, 7(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.3.283
Kim, D., Cerigo, D. B., Jeong, H., & Youn, H. (2016). Technological novelty profile and invention’s future impact. EPJ Data Science, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0069-1
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Bote, V. P. G., Rodríguez, Z. C., & de Moya Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21682
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266
Ledford, H. (2015). Team science. Nature, 525(7569), 308–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/525308a
Lee, Y. N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44(3), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.007
Lin, J. Y., & Lee, C. C. (2010). Industrial structure and innovation: Comparison of innovative performance between South Korea and Taiwan using patent data derived from NBER. International Journal of Technology Management, 49(1–3), 174–195. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2010.029417
Menard, S. W. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Narin, F. (1978). Objectivity versus relevance in studies of scientific advance. Scientometrics, 1(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016838
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034384.35498.7d
Ponomarev, I. V., Lawton, B. K., Williams, D. E., & Schnell, J. D. (2014). Breakthrough paper indicator 2.0: Can geographical diversity and interdisciplinarity improve the accuracy of outstanding papers prediction? Scientometrics, 100(3), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1320-9
Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10%3c893::AID-ASI5%3e3.0.CO;2-X
Richard, A., & Davis, M. D. (1987). Creativity in neurosurgical publications. Neurosurgery, 20(4), 652–663.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). Uncertainty, secrecy, and the choice of similar others. Social Psychology, 41(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033561
Schilling, M. A., & Green, E. (2011). Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences. Research Policy, 40(10), 1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.06.009
Shpilko, I. (2015). An evaluation of the neuroscience journals in a large urban public university. Library Collections, Acquisition and Technical Services, 39(1–2), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2015.1121067
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2008). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121
Sooryamoorthy, R. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics, 81(1), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2126-z
Strumsky, D., & Lobo, J. (2015). Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention. Research Policy, 44(8), 1445–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.008
Šubelj, L., Fiala, D., Ciglarič, T., & Kronegger, L. (2019). Convexity in scientific collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 10–31.
Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158300600105
Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1849–1857. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23515
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555502
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599700000006
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474
Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458380
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1
Verhoeven, D., Bakker, J., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Research Policy, 45(3), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.010
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002
Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1633–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2230-9
Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Mukherjee, S. (2019). International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination. Research Policy, 48(5), 1260–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.002
Walsh, J. P., & Maloney, N. G. (2007). Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems in scientific work teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00346.x
Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006
Wu, L. F., Wang, D. S., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Xu, J., Xiao, N., & Xia, J. (2010). Thrombospondin 1 accelerates synaptogenesis in hippocampal neurons through neuroligin 1. Nature Neuroscience, 13(1), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2459
Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x
Acknowledgements
This work uses Web of Science data by Clarivate Analytics provided by the Indiana University Network Science Institute and the Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center at Indiana University. We also acknowledge the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 71874077 for financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lyu, D., Gong, K., Ruan, X. et al. Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences. Scientometrics 126, 287–303 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03757-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03757-2