Abstract
International knowledge flows might be eroding national borders of innovation systems and contributing for the emergence of an international system of innovation. This paper investigates how far the scientific international collaboration has developed and how stable the structure of those collaborations is, evaluating the properties of those networks and their long term behaviour. The data collected and analyzed show that international collaboration has been growing with a peculiar pattern—faster than an exponential growth-, shaping a scale-free network that has preserved its structure while it grows. This paper analyses the properties of this network and the implications of those properties for an emerging global innovation system in terms of growth, hierarchy, opportunity, challenges, and robustness and for the generation and transfer of technology
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
WebOfScience has 252 different S&E disciplines. To process those data by more aggregated areas we applied Braun et al. (1995a, b) suggestion - as close as possible: 170 S&E disciplines were aggregated into 27 fields. In this aggregation 82 S&E disciplines were not used, since they are related to human and social sciences and have no correspondence in the aggregation strategy of Braun et al. (1995a, b).
We do as Wagner and Leydesdorff (2005) that uses all types of documents in their analysis.
Barabási describes this moment (2016, chapter 0, personal introduction): "Could the WWW be still broken into many disconnected components? Or is it already one big network, as everyone perceived it back then? These were intriguing questions, no matter the outcome. To answer it we needed the Web’s degree distribution, which was now provided by Hawoong's robot. The data granted us our first real surprise: We did not see the Poisson distribution that random network theory predicted. A power law greeted us instead".
A very didactic explanation of the relationship between of phenomena following a power law and the scale-free nature of networks can be found in Barabási (2016, Sect. 4.2).
The prominent position of the USA and China in 2015 is related both with their size but also with the level of formation of their scientific institutions. If we look to the data for 2000, China was only in the eighth position—a previous stage of their then growing scientific infrastructure.
In this analysis the country of the paper is attributed to the address of the first author.
The relationship between income and the formation of national systems of innovation is discussed in a previous paper (Ribeiro et al. 2006).
Exceptions: Qatar and very small European countries—Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino.
In the collaboration network the links represent the scientific co-authorship between two institutions for each article indexed in the ISI database. Then, if two institutions have published in collaboration, for example, one hundred articles, it will be generated also one hundred links between the nodes that represent those two institutions. Therefore, the quantity of links among the institutions in the network represents the intensity of the collaboration among those institutions.
Wagner et al .(2015, p. 6) analyze data from 1990 to 2011, and find a growth in the "number of coauthor relationships (links)" that is "disproportionately large compared to the growth in the number of addresses".
A comparison with patent citation of ISI-indexed paper as a knowledge flow for firms and co-authorship of scientific papers: in 2009, the leading firm in patents with citation of ISI-indexed paper was Microsoft, with 333 patents - or links (Ribeiro et al. 2014, Table 2, p. 72). Microsoft has more than 650 connections (links) through international co-authorship. The leading firm in connections through international co-authorship in our preliminary calculations is Novartis, with more than 5000 links.
It could be intriguing to observe that our power law exponents are smaller than 2. This power law exponents corresponds to Baribási’s degrees of distribution exponents—see Barabási (2016, Image 4.2). Barabási (2016, Sect. 4.7) asks why we do not see networks with degree exponents smaller than 2. Our degrees exponents in Table 5 are smaller than 2 because our network in multi-link (our nodes, institutions, may have more links than one, but Barabási’s nodes have only one link).
The total of network links in Table 6 is greater than the sum of collaboration RI-Firm and Firm-Firm in Table 2 because for the distribution of connectivity analysis in Table 6 the nodes (papers) that show at least one Firm as author are selected and, then, all their connections are analyzed—regardless if the connection originates from one of their Firm or RI author. This criteria is broader than the selection of connections of the type RI-Firm or Firm-Firm (Table 2) because in the former criteria also will be considered connections that originate from the other RI authors of the paper that shows Firm among theirs author and achieve RI authors of others countries papers—being a RI-RI connection. In the distribution of connectivity analysis of Table 6 we are just selecting from the Table 5 the subset of nodes that involves firms and comparing their global behavior (exponents) to see if there is a more homogenous distribution (lower exponent), i.e., lower hierarchy, or a more heterogeneous distribution (higher exponent), i.e., higher hierarchy when the firms nodes behavior is compared to the whole network behavior.
References
Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557–559.
Barabási, A.-L. (2016) Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (available at http://networksciencebook.com/).
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 285, 509–512.
Barabási, A.-L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311, 590–614.
Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Grupp, H. (1995a). The Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Areas, 1989–1993 (Part I: All fields combined, Mathematics, Engineering, Chemistry and Physics). Scientometrics, 33(3), 263–293.
Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Grupp, H. (1995b). The Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Areas, 1989–1993 (Part II: Life Sciences). Scientometrics, 34(2), 207–237.
Britto, G., Camargo, O. S., Kruss, G., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2013). Global interactions between firms and universities: global innovation networks as first steps towards a Global Innovation System. Innovation and Development, 3(1), 71–88.
Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. (2008). Multinational enterprises and the global economy (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Freeman, R. (2010). Globalization of scientific and engineering talent: international mobility of students, workers, and ideas and the world economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(5), 393–406.
Freeman, R. (2017). Migration of ideas. Science, 356(6339), 696–697.
Freeman, R., Gangulli, I., & Murciano-Goroff, R. (2015). Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration. In A. Jaffe & B. Jones (Eds.), The changing frontier: Rethinking science and innovation policy (pp. 17–48). Chicago: NBER/University of Chicago Press.
Gilden D. L., Thornton T, & Mallon M. W. (1995) Science, Vol. 267, p. 1837–1839.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 65(3), 323–342.
Gontis, V., Kaulakys, B., Alaburda, M., & Ruseckas, J. (2004). Evolution of complex systems and 1/f noise: From physics to financial markets. Solid State Phenomena, 97–98, 65–70.
Jones, B. F. (2011). As science evolves, how can science policy? In J. Lerner & S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation policy and the economy (Vol. 11, pp. 103–131). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
Kaulakys, B., & Meökauskas, T. (1998). Modeling 1/f noise. Physical Review E, 58, 7013–7019.
Kruss, G., Lee, K., Suzigan, W., Albuquerque, E. (2015). Introduction. In: Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Kruss, G., Lee, K. (Eds) Developing National Systems of Innovation. University-Industry interactions in the Global South. Cheltenham/Ottawa: Edward Elgar/IDRC, pp. 1–28 (available at http://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781784711092.00007.xml)
Maxim, V., Xendur, Levent, Fadili, Jalal, Suckling, John, Gould, Rebecca, Howard, Rob, et al. (2005). Fractional Gaussian noise, functional MRI and Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage, 25, 141–158.
National Science Board. (1996). Science and engineering indicators 1996. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
NATURE (2016) International research collaborations on the rise. Nature Index (http://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/international-research-collaborations-on-the-rise—accessed 19 november 2016).
Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1995). Introduction. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York, Oxford: Oxford University.
OECD. (2015). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD and SCImago Research Group (CSIC) (2016) Compendium of Bibliometric Science Indicators. OECD, Paris. Accessed from http://oe.cd/scientometrics.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1998). National systems of innovation under strain: The internationalization of corporate R&D. Brighton: SPRU.
Ribeiro, L. C., Kruss, G., Britto, G., Ruiz, R. M., Bernardes, A. T., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2014). A methodology for unveiling global innovation networks: Patent citations as clues to cross border knowledge flows. Scientometrics, 101, 61–83.
Ribeiro, L. C., Ruiz, R. M., Bernardes, A. T., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2006). Science in the developing world: Running twice as fast? Computer Science & Engineering: An International Journal, 8, 86–92.
Science. (2017). Crossing borders along an endless frontier. Science, 356(6339), 694–697.
Soete, L., Verspagen, B., & Weel, B. (2010). Systems of innovation. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. II). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.
Wagner, C., Park, H. W., Leydesdorff, L. (2015) The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLOS one, July 21, 2015
Wong, H. (2003). Low-frequency noise study in electron devices: Review and update. Microelectronics Reliability, 43, 585–599.
Yamamoto, Y., Nakamura, Y., Sato, H., Yamamoto, M., Kato, K., & Hughson, R. (1995). On the fractal nature of heart rate variability in humans: Effects of vagal blockade. American Physiological Society, R830, 0363–6119.
Acknowledgements
We thank the financial support from CNPq (Processes 459627/2014-7, 302857/2015-0 and 401054/2016-0). We thank Giulia Tonon and José Carlos Miranda for research assistance. Comments, criticisms and suggestions from two anonimous referees from Scientometrics helped to improve our earlier version of this paper. The usual disclaimer holds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Document type | Articles |
|---|---|
Article | 5.688.001 |
Meeting abstract | 1.113.336 |
Proceedings paper | 1.107.212 |
Editorial material | 439.781 |
Book review | 410.670 |
Article; proceedings paper | 400.577 |
Review | 311.397 |
Letter | 232.354 |
News item | 127.357 |
Correction | 61.917 |
Poetry | 31.037 |
Biographical-item | 30.376 |
Art exhibit review | 14.230 |
Film review | 9.707 |
Record review | 8.676 |
Review; book chapter | 7.614 |
Fiction, creative prose | 4.440 |
Article; book chapter | 4.158 |
Theater review | 2.995 |
Dance performance review | 2.886 |
Reprint | 2.756 |
Bibliography | 1.889 |
Music score review | 1.887 |
TV review, radio review | 1.788 |
Music performance review | 1.737 |
Software review | 1.386 |
Excerpt | 586 |
Editorial material; book chapt | 522 |
Script | 241 |
Database review | 183 |
Music score | 92 |
Hardware review | 63 |
Biographical-item; book chapter | 16 |
Meeting summary | 8 |
Correction; book chapter | 7 |
Letter; Book chapter | 5 |
Main cite | 5 |
Chronology | 5 |
Reprint; book chapter | 4 |
Review; book | 3 |
Abstract of published item | 3 |
Main cite; book chapter | 2 |
Article; book | 2 |
Book | 1 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ribeiro, L.C., Rapini, M.S., Silva, L.A. et al. Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics 114, 159–179 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x