|
|
|
| Three-Dimensional Measurement of Scientific Collaboration Sustainability: Library and Information Science (LIS) and Physics & Astronomy (PHYS) as Examples |
| Liu Xiaoting1, Huang Ying2,3, Zhang Hui2,3, Li Ruinan4, Zhang Lin2,3 |
1.School of Humanities and Communication, Shandong Technology and Business University, Yantai 264005
2.School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
3.Center for Science, Technology & Education Assessment, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
4.School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei 230039 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract A clear understanding of the sustainability of scientific collaboration can help researchers optimize resource allocation, effectively preserve academic resources, and enhance research performance. We initially established a rationale for analyzing scientific collaboration sustainability based on three dimensions of collaboration: persistence, stability, and adhesion. Subsequently, relevant measurement indices were developed . A case study was conducted involving researchers in Library and Information Sciences (LIS) and Physics & Astronomy (PHYS), to examine the characteristics of collaborative sustainability and evaluate its impact on academic performance. Our findings revealed that despite the specific differences in the data distribution characteristics of the two fields, the overall trends were generally similar. Collaboration pairs with higher levels of collaboration persistence and adhesion tended to have a greater average number of publications and a stable collaboration environment. Interestingly, the collaboration pairs that exhibited the highest levels of persistence, stability, and adhesion did not necessarily achieve the highest average citation frequency nor were they among the highest percentage of highly cited articles. Collaboration pairs with moderate to high levels of these dimensions demonstrated the best overall performance.
|
|
Received: 31 May 2024
|
|
|
|
1 张丽华, 田丹, 曲建升. 科研合作模式与科研人员角色的变化规律分析——以病毒学领域职业生涯至少为30年的作者为例[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(7): 719-730.
2 潘教峰, 鲁晓, 王光辉. 科学研究模式变迁: 有组织的基础研究[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2021, 36(12): 1395-1403.
3 Marler L E, Stanley L J. Commentary: who are your friends? The influence of identification and family in-group and out-group friendships on nonfamily employee OCB and deviance[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2018, 42(2): 310-316.
4 肖丁丁, 任雪琳, 朱桂龙. 学术创业团队中持续合作意愿的构建机制——基于过程与结果双重视角[J]. 科学学研究, 2022, 40(12): 2228-2237, 2245.
5 Petersen A M. Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(34): E4671-E4680.
6 Bu Y, Ding Y, Liang X K, et al. Understanding persistent scientific collaboration[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(3): 438-448.
7 Hou L, Pan Y L, Zhu J J H. Impact of scientific, economic, geopolitical, and cultural factors on international research collaboration[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2021, 15(3): 101194.
8 向刚. 企业持续创新: 理论研究基础、定义、特性和基本类型[J]. 科学学研究, 2005, 23(1): 134-138.
9 Carley S F, Newman N C, Porter A L, et al. A measure of staying power: is the persistence of emergent concepts more significantly influenced by technical domain or scale?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(3): 2077-2087.
10 桑博德. 突变理论入门[M]. 凌复华, 译. 上海: 上海科技文献出版社, 1983.
11 翁璇, 赵平. 高校精准思政建设研究综述[J]. 泰山学院学报, 2023, 45(3): 138-144.
12 王伟. 基于学术大数据的科学家合作行为分析与挖掘[D]. 大连: 大连理工大学, 2018.
13 Wu L Y, Yi F, Bu Y, et al. Toward scientific collaboration: a cost-benefit perspective[J]. Research Policy, 2024, 53(2): 104943.
14 Jaiswal A, Liu M J, Ding Y. Understanding parachuting collaboration[C]// Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information. Cham: Springer, 2021: 183-189.
15 Hara N, Solomon P, Kim S L, et al. An emerging view of scientific collaboration: scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 54(10): 952-965.
16 Inkpen A C, Beamish P W. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures[J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1997, 22(1): 177-202.
17 刘斌. 基于Gram-Schmidt模型的供应链合作稳定性研究[J]. 求索, 2013(3): 26-28.
18 Zeng M, Chen X P. Achieving cooperation in multiparty alliances: a social dilemma approach to partnership management[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(4): 587-605.
19 Yan A M, Zeng M. International joint venture instability: a critique of previous research, a reconceptualization, and directions for future research[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1999, 30(2): 397-414.
20 Zhao Z Y, Bu Y, Li J. Does the mobility of scientists disrupt their collaboration stability?[J]. Journal of Information Science, 2022, 48(2): 199-209.
21 Parkhe A. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global strategic alliances[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1991, 22(4): 579-601.
22 Stokols D, Hall K L, Taylor B K, et al. The science of team science overview of the field and introduction to the supplement[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008, 35(2): S77-S89.
23 Khalifa M, Limayem M, Liu V. Online customer stickiness: a longitudinal study[J]. Journal of Global Information Management, 2002, 10(3): 1-14.
24 骆迪, 薛君. 网上消费者黏性行为的模型构筑——基于IS-ECT理论的消费者黏性研究[J]. 电子商务, 2012(2): 36-38, 41.
25 Lin N, Ensel W M, Vaughn J C. Social resources and strength of ties: structural factors in occupational status attainment[J]. American Sociological Review, 1981, 46(4): 393-405.
26 Bu Y, Murray D S, Ding Y, et al. Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(2): 463-479.
27 吴柯烨, 闵超, 孙建军, 等. 面向特定科研任务的著者姓名消歧方法[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(7): 734-744.
28 余厚强, 白宽, 邹本涛, 等. 人工智能领域科研团队识别与领军团队提取[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(20): 4-13.
29 Pope A. How much collaboration is too much?[EB/OL]. (2016-10-04). http://www.cmswire.com/digital-workplace/how-much-collaboration-is-too-much/.
30 Uzzi B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect[J]. American Sociological Review, 1996, 61(4): 674-698.
31 芮正云, 罗瑾琏. 捆绑还是协同: 创新联盟黏性对企业间合作绩效的影响——表达型与工具型关系契约的作用差异视角[J]. 系统管理学报, 2019, 28(1): 1-9.
32 Huckman R S, Staats B R. Fluid tasks and fluid teams: the impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance[J]. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2011, 13(3): 310-328.
33 杨金玉, 罗勇根, 陈世强. 团队稳定性是否提高了企业二元创新?——基于研发人员合作关系的实证研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2023, 44(4): 82-101.
34 Mathieu J E, Heffner T S, Goodwin G F, et al. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85(2): 273-283.
35 Guzzo R A, Dickson M W. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 1996, 47: 307-338.
36 Kerr N L, Tindale R S. Group performance and decision making[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2004, 55: 623-655.
37 Katz R. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1982, 27(1): 81-104.
38 Molina-Morales F X, Martínez-Fernández M T. Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: how an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2009, 30(9): 1013-1023. |
|
|
|
