Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012333538 = product of:
  0.024667077 = sum of:
    0.024667077 = product of:
      0.09866831 = sum of:
        0.09866831 = weight(_text_:authors in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09866831 = score(doc=1850,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaboration tends to result in more highly cited research and, partly as a result of this, many research funding schemes are specifically international in scope. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this citation advantage is the result of higher quality research or due to other factors, such as a larger audience for the publications. To test whether the apparent advantage of internationally collaborative research may be due to additional interest in articles from the countries of the authors, this article assesses the extent to which the national affiliations of the authors of articles affect the national affiliations of their Mendeley readers. Based on English-language Web of Science articles in 10 fields from science, medicine, social science, and the humanities, the results of statistical models comparing author and reader affiliations suggest that, in most fields, Mendeley users are disproportionately readers of articles authored from within their own country. In addition, there are several cases in which Mendeley users from certain countries tend to ignore articles from specific other countries, although it is not clear whether this reflects national biases or different national specialisms within a field. In conclusion, research funders should not incentivize international collaboration on the basis that it is, in general, higher quality because its higher impact may be primarily due to its larger audience. Moreover, authors should guard against national biases in their reading to select only the best and most relevant publications to inform their research.

0.010083807 = product of:
  0.020167613 = sum of:
    0.020167613 = product of:
      0.040335227 = sum of:
        0.040335227 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040335227 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17375337 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.007120771 = product of:
  0.014241542 = sum of:
    0.014241542 = product of:
      0.056966167 = sum of:
        0.056966167 = weight(_text_:authors in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056966167 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22619869 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04961788 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.