•  
  •  
 

Journal of Scientific Information Research

Keywords

scientific cooperation, institutional cooperation network, cooperation performance, academic influence

Abstract

[Purpose/ significance]In scientific collaboration, institutions are the primary driving units of scientific research. Compared to intra-institutional collaboration, inter-institutional collaboration often has the potential to produce high-impact papers. Therefore, studying fine-grained collaboration at the institutional level holds significant importance.[Method/process]To explore the relationship between different types of institutional cooperation and academic influence, this paper classifies institutions and defines various types of cooperation. Using network analysis methods, it investigates the relationship between network indicators of different types of institutional cooperation and academic influence. [Result/conclusion]Taking the computer science domain as an example, the analysis of the relationship between network indicators of different types of institutional cooperation and academic influence reveals that degree centrality and closeness centrality are positively correlated with academic influence, while betweenness centrality is negatively correlated with academic influence. Additionally, there are significant differences in the correlation between different centrality indicators and academic influence across various subfields, differing markedly from the overall regression results of the computer science field.

First Page

58

Last Page

71

Submission Date

24-Jun-2024

Revision Date

30-Jul-2024

Acceptance Date

12-Aug-2024

Published Date

01-Apr-2025

Reference

[1] MAZZOCCHI F. Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity[J]. EMBO Reports, 2019, 20 (06): e47682.
[2] CHANG H W, HUANG M H. Prominent institutions in international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 97 (02): 443-460.
[3] ALMENDRAL J A, OLIVEIRA J G, LÓPEZ L, et al. The network of scientific collaborations within the European framework programme[J]. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2007, 384 (02): 675-683.
[4] 中共中央委员会, 国务院. 中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展第十四个五年规划和2035年远景目标纲要 [EB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/13/content_5592681.htm.
[5] KRETSCHMER H. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 60 (03): 409-420.
[6] CASTAñER X, OLIVEIRA N. Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review[J]. Journal of Management, 2020, 46 (06): 965-1001.
[7] HAN P, SHI J, LI X Y, et al. International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98 (01): 53-72.
[8] NEWMAN M E. Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks[J]. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys, 2001, 64 (02): 025102.
[9] CHINCHILLA-RODRÍGUEZ Z, FERLIGOJ A, MIGUEL S, et al. Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 93 (03): 699-717.
[10] HU C P, HU J M, GAO Y, et al. A journal co-citation analysis of library and information science in China[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 86 (03): 657-670.
[11] WHITE H D, MCCAIN K W. Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972—1995[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1998, 49 (04): 327-355.
[12] LI Y, LI H, LIU N, et al. Important institutions of interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks in materials science[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117 (01): 85-103.
[13] 胡蜜, 吴文博. 国内体育科学科研机构合作网络特征研究[J]. 兴义民族师范学院学报, 2021 (04): 40-50.
[14] 郝治翰, 陈阳, 王蒲生. 科研合作网络中心性与学术影响力: 以Science (2000—2018) 为样本[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2020, 44 (04): 79-88.
[15] 周文浩, 李海林. 合作网络异质性特征与企业创新绩效的关系[J]. 系统管理学报, 2023, 32 (02): 367-378.
[16] 张晓月, 雷楠楠. 专利合作网络与企业不连续创新绩效: 基于医药制造业的实证分析[J]. 科技管理研究, 2023, 43 (01): 125-131.
[17] 杨裕楷, 赵毅, 章成志. 什么类型的机构合作会产生更高的学术影响力？: 以自然语言处理领域为例[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2024, 44 (05): 40-53.
[18] MANJUNATH A, LI H, SONG S, et al. Comprehensive analysis of 2. 4 million patent-to-research citations maps the biomedical innovation and translation landscape[J]. Nature Biotechnology, 2021, 39 (06): 678-683.
[19] XU H, BU Y, LIU M, et al. Team power dynamics and team impact: New perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73 (10): 1489-1505.
[20] 杨柳, 陈贡. Altmetrics视角下科研机构影响力评价指标的相关性研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59 (15): 106-114, 132.
[21] TORRES-SALINAS D, MORENO-TORRES J G, DELGADO-LÓPEZ-CÓZAR E, et al. A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: the IFQ 2 A index[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 88 (03): 771-786.
[22] BEAULIER S, ELDER R, HAN C, et al. An ordinal ranking of economic institutions[J]. Applied Economics, 2016, 48 (26): 2482-2490.
[23] WU D S, LI M L, ZHU X Q, et al. Ranking the research productivity of business and management institutions in Asia-Pacific region: empirical research in leading ABS journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 105: 1253-1272.
[24] KUAN C H, HUANG M H, CHEN D Z. Cross-field evaluation of publications of research institutes using their contributions to the fields' MVPs determined by h-index[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7 (02): 455-468.
[25] ORTEGA J L. Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, 8 (03): 728-737.
[26] NEWMAN M E. The structure of scientific collaboration networks[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001, 98 (02): 404-409.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.19809/j.cnki.kjqbyj.2025.02.006

Download

Share

COinS