Bibliometric and webometric methods for assessing research collaboration

Emerald - 2012
SharunizamShari1, GabyHaddow2, PaulGenoni2
1Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Merbok, Malaysia
2School of Media, Culture and Creative Arts, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe the methods and findings of a pilot study which applied bibliometrics and webometrics to examine collaboration in Malaysian biotechnology.Design/methodology/approachThe research applied bibliometric and webometric methods to publications and web sites affiliated with Malaysian institutions. The bibliometric analysis focused on biotechnology‐related journal articles indexed in Web of Knowledge. The webometric analysis examined the web sites of top biotechnology institutions generated in the bibliometric analysis. Collaboration behaviour was assessed in three ways: intra‐institutional versus inter‐institutional; national versus international collaboration; and by type of institution collaboration according to the triple helix model.FindingsFindings of the pilot study, which applied bibliometric and webometric analyses to a limited sample, indicate that the methodologies will collect the desired data for a more extensive study.Research limitations/implicationsThe quantitative research results describe the collaboration evident in publications and web sites, but not why it has happened in such a way.Practical implicationsThe methodologies provide a framework for similar research exploring the impacts of collaboration in an e‐research environment. The methodology is innovative and practical in terms of the combined use of bibliometric and webometric analyses.Originality/valueThis is one of few studies that has examined collaboration using both bibliometric and webometric methods, and elements of the methodology appear to be unique to the study. The methodologies will contribute to an emerging body of literature that explores the nature of research productivity and research collaboration.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A. and Di Costa, F. (2009), “Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation?”, Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 155‐71.

Adams, J.D., Black, G.C., Clemmons, J.R. and Stephen, P.E. (2005), “Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: evidence from US universities, 1981‐1999”, Research Policy, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 259‐85.

Alcaide, G.G., Zurian, J.C.V. and Benavent, R.A. (2012), “Analysis of the internationalization process of Spanish research in science and technology (1980‐2007)”, Revista Espanola De Documentacion Cientifica, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 94‐118.

Anuradha, K.T. and Urs, S.R. (2007), “Bibliometric indicators of Indian research collaboration patterns: a correspondence analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 179‐89.

BiotechCorp (2011), BioMalaysia 2011 Conference & Exhibition and the 2011 Pacific Rim Summit Opens with Strategic Announcements to Spur Malaysia's Biotechnology Industry, available at: www.biotechcorp.com.my/media/biomalaysia‐announces‐new‐collaborations/ (accessed 25 November).

Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M.T., Zulueta, M.A. and Mendez, A. (1996), “Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research”, Scientometrics, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 279‐95.

Butcher, J. and Jeffrey, P. (2005), “The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry‐academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment”, Technovation, Vol. 25, pp. 1273‐80.

Economy Planning Unit (2006), Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006‐2010, Prime Minister's Department, Putrajaya.

Etzkowitz, H. (2002), “The triple helix of university‐industry‐government implications for policy and evaluation”, Working Paper 2002‐11, Science Policy Institute, Stockholm.

Finlay, S.C., Ni, C.Q. and Sugimoto, C.R. (2012), “New methods for an old debate: utilizing reader response to investigate the relationship between collaboration and quality in academic journal articles”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 131‐7.

Glanzel, W. and Schlemmer, B. (2007), “National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983‐2003): an exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the triple helix”, Scientometrics, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 267‐75.

Gonzalez‐Albo, B., Moreno, L., Morillo, F. and Bordons, M. (2012), “Bibliometric indicators for the analysis of the research performance of a multidisciplinary institution: the CSIC”, Revista Espanola De Documentacion Cientifica, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 9‐37.

Hagen, N.T. (2010), “Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably‐not equally, geometrically or arithmetically”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 785‐93.

Holmberg, K. (2009), Webometric Network Analysis: Mapping Cooperation and Geopolitical Connections between Local Government Administration on the Web, Åbo Akademi University Press, Turku.

Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2008), “Measuring co‐authorship and networking‐adjusted scientific impact”, PLoS One, Vol. 3 No. 7, p. e2778, available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2464713/pdf/pone.0002778.pdf (accessed 1 February 2012).

Irawati, D. (2007), “Understanding the triple helix model from the perspective of the developing country: a demand or a challenge for Indonesian case study?”, MPRA Paper No. 5829, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni‐muenchen.de/5829 (accessed 13 February 2010).

Klitjou, A., Nygaard, S. and Meyer, M. (2007), “Tracking techno‐science networks: a case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway”, Scientometrics, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 491‐518.

Leydesdorf, L. (2005), “The triple helix model and the study of knowledge‐based innovation systems”, International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 12‐27.

Leydesdorff, L. and Curran, M. (2000), “Mapping university‐industry‐government relations on the internet: the construction of indicators for a knowledge‐based economy”, Cybermetrics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1‐17.

Leydesdorff, L. and Sun, Y. (2009), “National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: university‐industry‐government versus international coauthorship relations”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 778‐88.

Long, J.S. and McGinnis, R. (1982), “On adjusting productivity measures for multiple authorship”, Scientometrics, Vol. 4, pp. 379‐87.

Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Skar, J. and Brommels, M. (2006), “Collaboration uncovered: exploring the adequacy of measuring university‐industry collaboration through co‐authorship and funding”, Scientometrics, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 575‐89.

Narin, F. (1976), “Evaluative bibliometrics: the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity”, Working Paper Project No. 704R, Computer Horizons, Inc., Parsippany, NJ, 31 March.

Park, H.W. (2003), “Hyperlink network analysis: a new method for the study of social structure on the web”, Connections, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 49‐61.

Priego, J.L.O. (2003), “A vector space model as a methodological approach to the triple helix dimensionality: a comparative study of biology and biomedicine centres of two European National Research Councils from a webometric view”, Scientometrics, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 429‐43.

Seglen, P.O. and Aksnes, D.W. (2000), “Scientific productivity and group size: a bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research”, Scientometric, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 125‐43.

Thelwall, M. (2004), Link Analysis: An Information Science Approach, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Viale, R. and Ghiglione, B. (1998), The Triple Helix Model: A Tool for the Study of European Regional Socio‐economic Systems, The IPTS Report, Vol. 20, IPTS, Seville.

Pyle, D. (1999), Data Preparation for Data Mining, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Thông tin tác giả