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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
Adams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–356. doi:10.1038/490335a.
Battard, N. (2012). Convergence and multidisciplinarity in nanotechnology: Laboratories as technological hub. Technovation, 32(3–4), 234–244.
Batty, M., & Kim, K. S. (1992). Form follows function: Reformulating urban population density functions. Urban studies, 29(7), 1043–1069.
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.
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.
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.
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.
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.
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.
Coccia, M. (2001). Satisfaction, work involvement and R&D performance. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 1(2/3/4), 268–282.
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.
Coccia, M. (2005a). A Scientometric model for the assessment of scientific research performance within public institutes. Scientometrics, 65(3), 307–321.
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.
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.
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.
Coccia, M. (2008b). Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 183–194.
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.
Coccia, M. (2009b). Bureaucratization in public research institutions. Minerva, A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 47(1), 31–50.
Coccia, M. (2009c). Research Performance and bureaucratization within public research labs. Scientometrics, 79(1), 93–107.
Coccia, M. (2009d). Measuring the impact of sustainable technological innovation. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 5(3), 276–288.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coccia, M. (2012e). Evolutionary trajectories of the nanotechnology research across worldwide economic players. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 1029–1050.
Coccia, M. (2013). The effect of country wealth on incidence of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 141(2), 225–229.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2013). Human resource management and organizational behavior of public research institutions. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(4), 256–268.
Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2015). Path-breaking directions of nanotechnology-based chemotherapy and molecular cancer therapy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 155–169.
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.
Crane, D. (1972a). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System. New York: Columbia University Press.
de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
de Solla Price, D., & Beaver, B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011–1018.
Egghe, L. (1991). Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing and Management, 27(2/3), 117–202.
Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938.
Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.
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.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.
Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702.
Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., & Wajcman, J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Huxley, J. S. (1932). Problems of relative growth. London: Methuen.
Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33(4), 539–562.
Kim, K. W. (2006). Measuring international research collaboration of peripheral countries: Taking the context into consideration. Scientometrics, 66(2), 231–240.
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.
Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 762–781.
Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
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.
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.
Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.
Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.
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.
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.
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.
Niklas, K. J. (1994). Plant allometry: The scaling of form and process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sahal, D. (1979). The temporal and spatial aspects of diffusion of technology. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions, 9(12), 829–839.
Sahal, D. (1981). Patterns of technological innovation. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Schunn, C., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (1998). The growth of multidisciplinarity in the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science, 22(1), 107–130.
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.
Science. (1965). The evolution of science. Science, New Series, 148(3671), 737.
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.
Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(3), 799–813.
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.
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.
Storer, N. W. (1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some Sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55(1), 75–84.
Storer, N. W. (1970). The Internationality of Science and the Nationality of Scientists. International Social Science Journal, 22(1), 89–104.
Sun, X., Kaur, J., Milojevic, S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2013). Social dynamics of science. Scientific Reports, 3(1069), 1–6.
Teasley, S., & Wolinsky, S. (2001). Scientific collaborations at a distance. Science, 292(5525), 2254–2255.
Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57546. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057546.
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.
van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research result. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.
Wagner, C. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Weiner, J., & Thomas, S. C. (1992). Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology, 73(2), 648–656.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2006). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2027-x