Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Firms are increasingly dependent on networks and network visibility for innovation. Bibliometric impact can be regarded as a measure of a firm's visibility in knowledge-producing networks and may explain why companies publish their results. However, this visibility varies across disciplines. This paper examines publications produced by Danish companies in 1996, 1998 and 2000 to show how citation and collaboration patterns relate in different disciplines. The main findings are that for disciplines characterized by international collaboration and many authors per paper, international collaboration results in a greater number of citations. National collaboration does not, however, seem to make any difference to citation impact in industrial research. In disciplines where multinational collaboration and multi-authorship is uncommon, no clear picture of impact patterns can be obtained. By extension, this research may provide knowledge on how citations of papers in scientific journals can be used as a potential window to scientific networks for firms.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. J. TEECE, Competition, cooperation, and innovation. Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18 (1) (1992) 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. F. DELLA VALLE, A. GAMBARDELLA, Biological revolution and strategies for innovation in pharmaceutical companies. R & D Management, 23 (4) (1993) 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. W. POWELL, K. W. KOPUT, L. SMITH-DOERR, Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1) (1996) 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. P. A. ROUSSEL, K. N. SAAD, T. J. ERICKSON, Third Generation R&D. Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Ma., 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. LIYANAGE, P. F. GREENFIELD, Towards a fourth generation R&D management Model. Research Networks in Knowledge Management. International Journal of Technology Management, (2002) 18.

  6. I. BOUTY, Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1) (2000) 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. K. KREINER, M. SCHULTZ, Informal collaboration in research-and-development-the formation of networks across organizations. Organization Studies, 14 (2) (1993) 189–209.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. VON HIPPEL, Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16 (6) (1987) 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. H. A. SHEPARD, Nine dilemmas in industrial research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 (3) (1956) 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. J. S. KATZ, B. R. MARTIN, What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1) (1997) 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. S. KYVIK, I. M. LARSEN, International contact and research performance. Scientometrics, 29 (1) (1994) 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. F. NARIN, E. WHITLOW, Measurement of Scientific Cooperation and Coauthorship in CEC-Related Areas of Science. Report 12900. Luxembourg. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.

  13. B. GODIN, Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25 (4) (1996) 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. L. F. FREDERIKSEN, K. HUSTED, Academic publishing activities by Danish companies: a preliminary assessment. VEST Journal for Science and Technology Studies, 15 (2-3) (2002) 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. O. HAGSTROM, Scientific Community,Basic Books Inc., New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  16. N. ROSENBERG, Why do firms do basic research with their own money. Research Policy, 19 (2) (1990) 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D. M. HICKS, P. A. ISARD, B. R. MARTIN, A morphology of Japanese and European corporate research networks. Research Policy, 25 (3) (1996) 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Y. OKUBO, C. SJOBERG, The changing pattern of industrial scientific research collaboration in Sweden. Research Policy, 29 (1) (2000) 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. G. MELIN, O. PERSSON, Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36 (3) (1996) 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. M. A. HARSANYI, Multiple authors, multiple problems-Bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration: A literature review. Library & Information Science Research, 15 (4) (1993) 325–354.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. D. FRAME, M. P. CARPENTER, International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9 (4) (1979) 481–497.

    Google Scholar 

  23. T. LUUKKONEN, O. PERSSON, G. SIVERTSEN, Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science Technology & Human Values, 17 (1) (1992) 101–126.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. BORDONS, I. GÓMEZ, Collaboration Networks in Science. In: The Web of Knowledge. A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, B. CRONIN, H. B. ATKINS (Eds), Medford, N.J., Information Today, 2000, pp. 197–213.

  25. E. GAUTHIER, Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific and Technological Research: A User™s Guide to the Methodology. Science and Technology Redesign Project. Anonymous. Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies (CIRST). 1998.

  26. D. W. AKSNES, A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56 (2) (2003) 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. H. HERBERTZ, Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case study in molecular biology, Scientometrics, 33 (1) (1995) 117–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. A. F. J. VAN RAAN, The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results-Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42 (3) (1998) 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. A. VERBEEK, K. DEBACKERE, M. LUWEL, E. ZIMMERMANN, Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology-I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4 (2) (2002) 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. T. J. PHELAN, A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 45 (1) (1999) 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. S. FULLER, Science, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Y. KUBO, Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems: Methods and Examples. STI Working papers 1997/1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School (, Denmark)

    Lars Frode Frederiksen

Authors
  1. Lars Frode Frederiksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frode Frederiksen, L. Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility. Scientometrics 61, 253–270 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041651.26664.14

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041651.26664.14

Keywords

Search

Navigation