|
|
|
| Identifying Key Nodes via a Geographical Research Dominance Network: A Case Study of the Pharmaceutical Field |
| He Chaocheng1,2, Wu Jiang1,2, Liu Fuzhen3, Wang Chunying4 |
1.School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
2.Center for Studies of Information Resources, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
3.School of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077
4.School of Information Management, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The globalization of science has realized global-scale flows and optimized the allocation of research resources with a spatially uneven distribution. It is noteworthy that scientific collaboration plays a key role in the globalization of science. In particular, long-distance research collaboration, even cross-border collaboration, greatly promotes the creation and dissemination of knowledge as well as skills. However, the existing literature has the following two main limitations. First, it ignores the spatial features of research entities in a collaboration network, even though spatial features are important for the efficiency and quality of research collaboration. Second, the existing literature does not consider the dominance in research collaboration, even though research dominance is critical for the initiation, promotion, and output of research collaboration. To address these issues, we conducted a comprehensive spatial analysis on global-scale research dominance in the field of pharmaceutical science, leveraging co-publication data between 2010 and 2018 from the Web of Science Core Citation Database. We further proposed “GeoLeaderRank,” incorporating topological and spatial features of the research dominance network, to rank institutions. Finally, we validated the proposed GeoLeaderRank by citation counts and hg-index and compared it with the baseline metrics of traditional indices. The spatial analysis indicates that global research dominance is increasingly spatially clustering; research leadership in Eastern countries is becoming more prominent, and the pattern of long-distance and cross-border research dominance remains unaltered. The comparison between GeoLeaderRank and other traditional indices shows that GeoLeaderRank outperforms other baseline metrics in identifying institutions with high academic influence. Although some Chinese institutions are comparable to the top institutions in Europe and the United States in terms of traditional indices, they are not comparable to those peers in terms of citations, hg-index, and GeoLeaderRank. This paper sheds light on the spatial patterns and spatial biases of research dominance in research collaboration, which offers us new insights into research collaboration.
|
|
Received: 30 May 2020
|
|
|
|
1 左丽华, 祝清松, 肖仙桃. 空间科学计量学的概念及应用研究进展[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2014, 37(2): 141-144, 140.
2 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.
3 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.
4 Paji? D. Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice?[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(3): 2131-2150.
5 Wang L L, Wang X W. Who sets up the bridge? Tracking scientific collaborations between China and the European Union[J]. Research Evaluation, 2017, 26(2): 124-131.
6 王双, 陈毓芬, 袁烨城, 等. 科学合作地域倾向性研究——以中国雾霾研究为例[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2017, 19(2): 248-255.
7 苏金燕. 我国人文社会科学合作的地域倾向研究——基于经济学期刊论文的计量分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2013(10): 43-52.
8 梁立明, 沙德春. 985高校校际科学合作的强地域倾向[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2008, 29(11): 112-116.
9 Ponds R, Van Oort F, Frenken K. The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration[J]. Papers in Regional Science, 2007, 86(3): 423-443.
10 Jiang L A, Zhu N B, Yang Z L, et al. The relationships between distance factors and international collaborative research outcomes: a bibliometric examination[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(3): 618-630.
11 González-Alcaide G, Park J, Huamaní C, et al. Dominance and leadership in research activities: collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(8): e0182513.
12 贺超城, 吴江, 魏子瑶, 等. 科研合作中机构间科研主导力及邻近性机理——以中国生物医学领域为例[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(2): 148-157.
13 Wang W C, Wu Y S, Pan Y T. An investigation of collaborations between top Chinese universities: a new quantitative approach[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2): 1535-1545.
14 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.
15 Plotnikova T, Rake B. Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: exploration of country-level determinants[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2): 1173-1202.
16 Frenken K, Hardeman S, Hoekman J. Spatial scientometrics: towards a cumulative research program[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2009, 3(3): 222-232.
17 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.
18 Nita A, Rozylowicz L, Manolache S, et al. Collaboration networks in applied conservation projects across Europe[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(10): e0164503.
19 Scherngell T, Hu Y J. Collaborative knowledge production in China: regional evidence from a gravity model approach[J]. Regional Studies, 2011, 45(6): 755-772.
20 Hoekman J, Frenken K, van Oort F. The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe[J]. The Annals of Regional Science, 2009, 43(3): 721-738.
21 Sidone O J G, Haddad E A, Mena-Chalco J P. Scholarly publication and collaboration in Brazil: the role of geography[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(1): 243-258.
22 Chakkol M, Selviaridis K, Finne M. The governance of collaboration in complex projects[J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2018, 38(4): 997-1019.
23 Sekara V, Deville P, Ahnert S E, et al. The chaperone effect in scientific publishing[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018, 115(50): 12603-12607.
24 Wu J. Geographical knowledge diffusion and spatial diversity citation rank[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(1): 181-201.
25 Boschma R. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment[J]. Regional Studies, 2005, 39(1): 61-74.
26 Zhang C, Guo J. China’s international research collaboration: evidence from a panel gravity model[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(2): 1129-1139.
27 Liu X M, Bollen J, Nelson M L, et al. Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2005, 41(6): 1462-1480.
28 Ma N, Guan J C, Zhao Y. Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2008, 44(2): 800-810.
29 Su C, Pan Y T, Zhen Y N, et al. PrestigeRank: a new evaluation method for papers and journals[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 1-13.
30 Brin S, Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine[J]. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 1998, 30(1-7): 107-117.
31 Anselin L, Kelejian H H. Testing for spatial error autocorrelation in the presence of endogenous regressors[J]. International Regional Science Review, 1997, 20(1-2): 153-182.
32 赵良仕, 孙才志, 郑德凤. 中国省际水资源利用效率与空间溢出效应测度[J]. 地理学报, 2014, 69(1): 121-133.
33 Kim J, Diesner J. Coauthorship networks: a directed network approach considering the order and number of coauthors[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(12): 2685-2696.
34 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.
35 王炼. 科学计量学应用于科研人员绩效评价的挑战[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2007, 28(4): 165-168.
36 Zeng A, Shen Z S, Zhou J L, et al. The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems[J]. Physics Reports, 2017, 714-715: 1-73.
37 Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 69(1): 131-152.
38 Alonso S, Cabrerizo F J, Herrera-Viedma E, et al. hg-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 391-400.
39 Haveliwala T H. Topic-sensitive PageRank: a context-sensitive ranking algorithm for Web search[J]. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2003, 15(4): 784-796.
40 Zhou H M, Zeng D, Zhang C L. Finding leaders from opinion networks[C]// Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics. IEEE, 2009: 266-268. |
|
|
|
