科研分工与科研绩效间的关系研究——基于地理邻近性的调节作用

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2026.08.004

情报学报

2026, Vol. 45

Issue (8): 1126-1141 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2026.08.004

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

科研分工与科研绩效间的关系研究——基于地理邻近性的调节作用

卢超¹, 周宸宇¹, 肖承睿¹, 赵毅², 张晨薇³

1.河海大学商学院，南京 211100
2.安徽大学管理学院，合肥 230601
3.香港大学教育学院，香港 999077

Relationship Between Division of Scientific Labor and Research Performance—the Moderating Role of Geographical Proximities

Lu Chao¹, Zhou Chenyu¹, Xiao Chengrui¹, Zhao Yi², Zhang Chenwei³

1.Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100
2.School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei 230601
3.Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (5)

全文: PDF (2510 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要在团队合作成为科学知识生产主流模式的背景下，科研绩效与科研分工的关系尚缺乏系统研究。本文以PLoS（Public Library of Science）148493篇论文作为研究样本，基于作者贡献声明，采用赫芬达尔-赫希曼指数（Herfindahl-Hirschman index，HHI）构建科研分工度指标，采用五年内被引量来代理科研绩效，检验二者关系，并探究多种邻近性指标的调节机制。研究发现，科研绩效与科研分工度呈现正相关关系，地理邻近性正向调节“分工—绩效”关系，认知邻近性与组织邻近性未呈现明显调节作用，社会邻近性与制度邻近性对绩效影响不显著，小团队中“分工—绩效”的正相关及地理邻近性的正向调节更为突出。上述结果表明，深化科研分工能提高科研绩效；地理分隔会增加协调成本，削弱分工对绩效的促进作用。因此，小团队应在深化分工的同时，尽量减少远程合作，以提高科研绩效。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	卢超
	周宸宇
	肖承睿
	赵毅
	张晨薇

关键词 ：科研分工, 作者贡献声明, 地理距离, 邻近性, 科研绩效, 国际合作

收稿日期: 2025-10-20

基金资助:国家社会科学基金一般项目“有组织跨学科合作中的分工模式与互动机制演化研究”（25BTQ057）。

作者简介: 卢超，1991年生，博士，副教授，博士生导师，研究方向为科学学、科学合作；周宸宇，1995年生，硕士研究生，研究方向为科研分工；肖承睿，1986年生，博士，副教授，硕士生导师，研究方向为计量经济学、企业金融；赵毅，通信作者，1993年生，博士，讲师，研究方向为科学学、创新评价与科学计量，E-mail：yizhao93@ahu.edu.cn；张晨薇，1989年生，博士，助理教授，研究方向为科学学、团队多样性；

引用本文:

卢超, 周宸宇, 肖承睿, 赵毅, 张晨薇. 科研分工与科研绩效间的关系研究——基于地理邻近性的调节作用[J]. 情报学报, 2026, 45(8): 1126-1141.
Lu Chao, Zhou Chenyu, Xiao Chengrui, Zhao Yi, Zhang Chenwei. Relationship Between Division of Scientific Labor and Research Performance—the Moderating Role of Geographical Proximities. 情报学报, 2026, 45(8): 1126-1141.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2026.08.004 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2026/V45/I8/1126

1 Larivière V, Gingras Y, Sugimoto C R, et al. Team size matters: collaboration and scientific impact since 1900[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(7): 1323-1332.
2 Yang L Q, Holtz D, Jaffe S, et al. The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2022, 6(1): 43-54.
3 He C C, Wu J, Zhang Q P. Proximity-aware research leadership recommendation in research collaboration via deep neural networks[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(1): 70-89.
4 Lu C, Zhang C W, Xiao C R, et al. Contributorship in scientific collaborations: the perspective of contribution-based byline orders[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2022, 59(3): 102944.
5 Lu C, Zhang Y Y, Ahn Y Y, et al. Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020, 71(10): 1162-1178.
6 Larivière V, Desrochers N, Macaluso B, et al. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production[J]. Social Studies of Science, 2016, 46(3): 417-435.
7 Macaluso B, Larivière V, Sugimoto T, et al. Is science built on the shoulders of women? A study of gender differences in contributorship[J]. Academic Medicine, 2016, 91(8): 1136-1142.
8 Haeussler C, Sauermann H. Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: the role of team size and interdisciplinarity[J]. Research Policy, 2020, 49(6): 103987.
9 De Rassenfosse G, Higham K, Penner O. Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent[J]. BMC Biology, 2022, 20(1): Article No.211.
10 Shibayama S, Baba Y, Walsh J P. Organizational design of university laboratories: task allocation and lab performance in Japanese bioscience laboratories[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(3): 610-622.
11 Gorelick R. Combining richness and abundance into a single diversity index using matrix analogues of Shannon’s and Simpson’s indices[J]. Ecography, 2006, 29(4): 525-530.
12 Narayanan S, Balasubramanian S, Swaminathan J M. A matter of balance: specialization, task variety, and individual learning in a software maintenance environment[J]. Management Science, 2009, 55(11): 1861-1876.
13 Staats B R, Gino F. Specialization and variety in repetitive tasks: evidence from a Japanese bank[J]. Management Science, 2012, 58(6): 1141-1159.
14 Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures[J]. Science Advances, 2017, 3(11): e1700404.
15 Allen L, Kiermer V, Porter S, et al. CRediT system for describing authors’ roles on papers could do even better[J]. Nature, 2025, 648(8092): 33-34.
16 Yang S L, Xiao A X, Nie Y, et al. Measuring coauthors’ credit in medicine field—based on author contribution statement and citation context analysis[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2022, 59(3): 102924.
17 卢超, 李梦婷, 陈秀娟, 等. 合贡献者网络的结构特征及其合作群体识别应用研究[J]. 情报学报, 2024, 43(7): 773-788.
18 Cai X Y, Han T. Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(2): 1077-1094.
19 卢超, 李梦婷, 周宸宇. 基于合贡献者网络的学者学术影响力评估研究[J]. 情报学报, 2025, 44(11): 1444-1457.
20 Corrêa Jr E A, Silva F N, da F Costa L, et al. Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(2): 498-510.
21 Craig B M, Cosh S M, Luck C C. Research productivity, quality, and impact metrics of Australian psychology academics[J]. Australian Journal of Psychology, 2021, 73(2): 144-156.
22 Waltman L, Van Eck N J, Van Leeuwen T N, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37-47.
23 Fox C W, Paine C E T, Sauterey B. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2016, 6(21): 7717-7726.
24 Cui R M, Ding H, Zhu F. Gender inequality in research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2022, 24(2): 707-726.
25 Freeman R B, Huang W. Collaboration: strength in diversity[J]. Nature, 2014, 513(7518): 305.
26 Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? the different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(8): e0135095.
27 Lin Y L, Frey C B, Wu L F. Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas[J]. Nature, 2023, 623(7989): 987-991.
28 柳美君, 步一, 杨斯杰. 科研团队成员国别差异性的测度、演变及其与团队产出影响力的关系[J]. 情报学报, 2024, 43(7): 818-838.
29 He C C, Wu J, Zhang Q P. Research leadership flow determinants and the role of proximity in research collaborations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020, 71(11): 1341-1356.
30 Liu J W, Guo X F, Xu S, et al. Understanding super-partnerships in scientific collaboration: evidence from the field of economics[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2024, 75(6): 717-733.
31 Liu X, Bu Y, Li M, et al. Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2024, 75(1): 59-78.
32 Yoo H S, Jung Y L, Lee J Y, et al. The interaction of inter-organizational diversity and team size, and the scientific impact of papers[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2024, 61(6): 103851.
33 Sin S J. International coauthorship and citation impact: a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980-2008[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(9): 1770-1783.
34 Wuchty S, Jones B F, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge[J]. Science, 2007, 316(5827): 1036-1039.
35 Cummings J N, Kiesler S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations[J]. Research Policy, 2007, 36(10): 1620-1634.
36 Boschma R. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment[J]. Regional Studies, 2005, 39(1): 61-74.
37 Kiesler S, Cummings J N. What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? a legacy of research[M]// Distributed Work. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002: 57-82.
38 Broekel T, Boschma R. Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2012, 12(2): 409-433.
39 Fernández A, Ferrándiz E, León M D. Proximity dimensions and scientific collaboration among academic institutions in Europe: the closer, the better?[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(3): 1073-1092.
40 Petruzzelli A M. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: a joint-patent analysis[J]. Technovation, 2011, 31(7): 309-319.
41 Gui Q C, Liu C L, Du D B. International knowledge flows and the role of proximity[J]. Growth and Change, 2018, 49(3): 532-547.
42 Ponds R, Van Oort F, Frenken K. The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration[J]. Papers in Regional Science, 2007, 86(3): 423-444.
43 Hoekman J, Frenken K, Tijssen R J W. Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(5): 662-673.
44 Bruneel J, D’Este P, Salter A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(7): 858-868.
45 Burnham J F. Scopus database: a review[J]. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 2006, 3(1): Article No.1.
46 Lin Z H, Yin Y A, Liu L, et al. SciSciNet: a large-scale open data lake for the science of science research[J]. Scientific Data, 2023, 10: Article No.315.
47 Wu M J, Sivertsen G, Zhang L, et al. Scaling research aim identification: language models for classifying scientific and societal-oriented studies[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2025, 76(11): 1470-1487.
48 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
49 Herfindahl O C. Concentration in the steel industry[D]. New York: Columbia University, 1950: 25-30.
50 Velez-Estevez A, García-Sánchez P, Moral-Munoz J A, et al. Why do papers from international collaborations get more citations? A bibliometric analysis of Library and Information Science papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(12): 7517-7555.
51 G?k A, Karaulova M. How “international” is international research collaboration?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2024, 75(2): 97-114.
52 Rodríguez D, Sicilia M A, García E, et al. Empirical findings on team size and productivity in software development[J]. Journal of Systems and Software, 2012, 85(3): 562-570.
53 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.
54 Ductor L. Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity?[J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2015, 77(3): 385-407. 责任编辑魏瑞斌）