中文    English

Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (4): 48-58.doi: 10.13998/j.cnki.issn1002-1248.23-0230

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Definition and Measurement of Core Collaborators in Scientific Research Collaboration: A Measurement Methodology Based on the H-Index

LUO Wen, HU Zhigang   

  1. Institution of Science of Science and S.&T. Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024
  • Received:2023-03-11 Online:2023-04-05 Published:2023-07-12

Abstract: [Purpose/Significance] Different collaborators play different roles and assume corresponding responsibilities in scientific research collaboration. Distinguishing the different roles in research collaborators is important for the evaluation of research talent and human resources allocation. Previous studies have defined the roles of collaborators from multiple perspectives, both qualitative and quantitative, but lack a simple and efficient way to identify core collaborators. In this paper, we use the number of collaborations to identify core collaborators in scientists' collaborative relationships based on the H-index measure, which is a very easy to calculate and intuitively understandable method. [Method/Process] Using the OpenAlex database as a data source, an empirical analysis of approximately 5.05 million journal papers in the field of computing in China and G7 countries over 20 years (2000-2021) was conducted. First, the core collaborators of highly productive scientists were studied and their collaboration characteristics were analyzed from the perspective of size and share. Second, based on the H-index fitting formula proposed by previous authors, a formula for estimating the number of core collaborators based on the number of publications and the average number of collaborators per article was proposed. Finally, the formula was used to compare the differences between the theoretical and actual values of the number of core collaborators across countries. [Results/Conclusions] The study found that in terms of size and proportion of core collaborators, China had the highest average total number of collaborators among highly productive scientists, followed by the USA, Germany and the UK, while Italy had the lowest. The number of core collaborators was generally 3-7 across countries, with China and Italy having a higher rate of cooperation and the UK, France and Canada having a lower rate of cooperation. In terms of the number of core collaborators as a percentage, no country has more than 10%, with Italy having the highest percentage of core collaborators at 7.42%, followed by Japan, France and Canada, while the US has the lowest percentage of core collaborators. In terms of the total number of collaborators, there is no significant difference between China, the US and Germany, while there is a significant difference among all five other countries. In terms of the number of core collaborators, China is not significantly different from Italy and is significantly different from all other six countries. The number of core collaborators can be estimated by using the formula of the product of the number of publications and the power of the average number of collaborators per article, which has a good fit of 0.8 or more. Among China and the G7, the US, Germany and the UK have a lower proportion of core collaborators, with more frequent mobility and exchange of talent, while Italy, Japan and China have a higher proportion of core collaborators, indicating a lack of talent mobility and a relative consolidation of research collaboration.

Key words: scientific collaboration, core collaborators, scientific collaboration model, H-index

CLC Number: 

  • G350
[1] DE SOLLA PRICE D J. Little science, big science[M]. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
[2] 李纲, 刘先红. 基于合作网络中心性指标的科研团队学术带头人识别研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2016, 36(8): 127-132.
LI G, LIU X H.Research on the identification of academic leaders in research teams based on centrality indexes of cooperation network[J]. Science and technology management research, 2016, 36(8): 127-132.
[3] 李婧铢, 董贵成. 习近平关于战略科学家重要论述的精髓要义[J]. 科学社会主义, 2022(3): 48-52.
LI J Z, DONG G C.The essence of Xi Jinping's important discourse on strategic scientists[J]. Scientific socialism, 2022(3): 48-52.
[4] WU L F, WANG D S, EVANS J A.Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
[5] 乔纳森·科尔, 斯蒂芬·科尔. 科学界的社会分层[M]. 北京: 华夏出版社, 1989.
JONATHAN R C,STEPHEN C.Social stratification in scientific circles[M]. Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House, 1989.
[6] 许治, 陈丽玉, 王思卉. 高校科研团队合作程度影响因素研究[J]. 科研管理, 2015, 36(5): 149-161.
XU Z, CHEN L Y, WANG S H.A study of the influence factors of university scientific research team cooperation[J]. Science research management, 2015, 36(5): 149-161.
[7] TKACHENKO O, ARDICHVILI A.Critical factors impacting interdisciplinary university research teams of small size: A multiple-case study[J]. Team performance management: An international journal, 2020, 26(1/2): 53-69.
[8] 张鹏程, 彭菡. 科研合作网络特征与团队知识创造关系研究[J]. 科研管理, 2011, 32(7): 104-112.
ZHANG P C, PENG H.On the relationship between scientific cooperative networks' characteristics and teams' knowledge creation[J]. Science research management, 2011, 32(7): 104-112.
[9] 李远明, 谭世明. 基于科研合作的大学科研团队成长轨迹研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2012, 56(4): 36-40.
LI Y M, TAN S M.Growth trajectory of university research team based on cooperative research[J]. Library and information service, 2012, 56(4): 36-40.
[10] 魏瑞斌, 袁军鹏, 田大芳. 基于两类合作网络的科研创新团队成员遴选研究——以中国科学技术信息研究所为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(11): 101-104.
WEI R B, YUAN J P, TIAN D F.Research on selection of scientific research innovation team members based on two types of cooperation networks—Taking China institute of science and technology information as an example[J]. Information studies: Theory & application, 2013, 36(11): 101-104.
[11] 赵伟, 夏昊翔. 科研合作网络中团队成员对创新团队演化的影响:以机器学习领域为例[J]. 大连理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 43(1): 60-68.
ZHAO W, XIA H X.On the influence of group members to research group evolution in scientific collaboration networks: Case of the machine learning field[J]. Journal of Dalian university of technology (social sciences), 2022, 43(1): 60-68.
[12] HIRSCH J E.An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572.
[13] SCHUBERT A.A hirsch-type index of co-author partnership ability[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(1): 303-308.
[14] 杜建, 张玢, 唐小利. 基于作者引用与合作关系的学术影响力测度研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(8): 135-140.
DU J, ZHANG F, TANG X L.Literature review of academic impact measurement for authors based on both co-authorship and citation relationship[J]. Library and information service, 2013, 57(8): 135-140.
[15] 王卫, 潘京华, 张晓梅. 合作能力指数及其实证研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2014, 33(11): 108-112, 98.
WANG W, PAN J H, ZHANG X M.Partnership ability index and its application[J]. Journal of intelligence, 2014, 33(11): 108-112, 98.
[16] PRIEM J, PIWOWAR H, ORR R. OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions,concepts[J]. arXiv:2205.01833, 2022.
[17] EGGHE L, ROUSSEAU R.An informetric model for the hirsch-index[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 69(1): 121-129.
[18] SCHUBERT A, GLANZEL W.A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2007, 1(3): 179-184.
[19] 马宗文, 孙成永. 意大利科技人才培养的经验与教训[J]. 全球科技经济瞭望, 2022, 37(3): 59-64.
MA Z W, SUN C Y.Italy's experience and lessons on training and cultivating scientific and technological talents[J]. Global science, technology and economy outlook, 2022, 37(3): 59-64.
[20] 郭哲, 王晓阳. 美国的人才吸引战略及其启示[J]. 科技管理研究, 2019, 39(23): 60-66.
GUO Z, WANG X Y.America's talent-attracting strategy and its enlightenment[J]. Science and technology management research, 2019, 39(23): 60-66
[1] LI Lanfang, CHEN Yunwei, ZHANG Xue, DENG Yong. Research and Application of Spatial Scientometrics [J]. Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture, 2022, 34(7): 27-38.
[2] LI Tao. The Benefit Analysis of Subject Librarian System Based on the H-index [J]. , 2016, 28(9): 206-209.
[3] DONG Ya-jie, WANG Xi-lin. Analysis on the Scientific Research Outputs and Innovation Capability of China’s Provincial Forestry Scientific Research Institutions [J]. , 2016, 28(2): 121-124.
[4] XIE Lin. Ranking of Information Science and Library Science Journals by A Weighted h-Index [J]. , 2014, 26(10): 157-164.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!