PreprintPDF Available
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
ResearchGate Logo

This preprint is featured on the COVID-19 research community page

View COVID-19 community

Abstract

The COVID-19 global pandemic led scientists to turn their research agendas towards coronavirus related research. This paper seeks to understand whether a catastrophic and urgent event, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerates or reverses trends in international collaboration, especially in and between China and the United States. This early review shows that COVID-19 teams are smaller than those on coronavirus related research in the preceding period, and include fewer nations. The results reveal that the United States and China were, and continue to be, at the center of the global network in coronavirus related research, and continue their roles as the largest contributors to, and home to the main funders of, coronavirus related research during the global pandemic. An examination of the international collaborative activities of scientists based in these two
Consolidation in a Crisis: Patterns of International
Collaboration in COVID-19 Research


 !"#$%&'()* *+,-*+,.)
/0
12
3$%
$4%5 &'()* *"!*"!.)
120
67
89:;&%$
&<$%=%:;27
$<>&'()*!*"-+*+ #.)
,++0
%5?
5;89:;
&%$&<$%&'()*
 *! -*,-,#.)@#!!0

  &(*!#    A           
  @          AA  B  
  @    A           
&(*!#  A            
 A@$%
  @@  &(*!#    
  A A 
@              $  %    
@                     @B  
         

        A    C    
        @

      @    B    
@  A@
@AA3
&(*!#A3
@    A          
3D
  C> AB *;:
A
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
I provide novel empirical evidence grounded in an original theoretical framework to explain why colocation matters for the rate, direction, and quality of scientific collaboration. To address endogeneity concerns due to selection into colocation and matching, I exploit the constraints imposed on the spatial allocation of labs on the Jussieu campus of Paris by the removal of asbestos from its buildings. Consistent with search costs constituting a major friction to collaboration, colocation increases the likelihood of joint research by 3.5 times, an effect that is mostly driven by lab pairs that face higher search costs ex ante. Furthermore, separation does not negatively affect collaboration between previously colocated labs. However, while colocated labs grow increasingly similar in topics and literature cited, separated ones embark on less correlated research trajectories. Research outcomes, instead, seem to be mostly influenced by how distance affects execution costs: after colocation, labs are more likely to pursue both lower-quality projects (a selection effect) and high-quality projects (an effort effect). Opposite effects on quality are observed after separation. Whereas search costs affect which scientists are likely to collaborate together, execution costs shape the quality of their output.
Article
Full-text available
International collaboration in science continues to grow at a remarkable rate, but little agreement exists about dynamics of growth and organization at the discipline level. Some suggest that disciplines differ in their collaborative tendencies, reflecting their epistemic culture. This study examines collaborative patterns in six previously studied specialties to add new data and conduct analyses over time. Our findings show that the global network of collaboration continues to add new nations and new participants; each specialty has added many new nations to its lists of collaborating partners since 1990. We also find that the scope of international collaboration is positively related to impact. Network characteristics for the six specialties are notable in that instead of reflecting underlying culture, they tend towards convergence. This observation suggests that the global level may represent next-order dynamics that feed back to the national and local levels (as subsystems) in a complex, networked hierarchy.
Article
Full-text available
Using data from co-authorships at the international level in all fields of science in 1990 and 2000, and within six case studies at the sub-field level in 2000, different explanations for the growth of international collaboration in science and technology are explored. We find that few of the explanations within the literature can be supported by a detailed review of the data. To enable further exploration of the role of recognition and rewards as ordering mechanisms within the system, we apply new tools emerging from network science. These enquiries shows that the growth of international co-authorships can be attributed to self-organizing phenomenon based on preferential attachment (searching for recognition and reward) within networks of co-authors. The co-authorship links can be considered as a complex network with sub-dynamics involving features of both competition and cooperation. The analysis suggests that the growth of international collaboration is more likely to emerge from dynamics at the sub-field level operating in all fields of science, albeit under institutional constraints. Implications for the management of global scientific collaborations are explored.
Article
Full-text available
The fall of the Iron Curtain led to an influx of new mathematical ideas into western science. We show that research teams grew disproportionately in size in subfields of mathematics in which the Soviets were strongest. This is consistent with the knowledge burden hypothesis that an outward shift in the knowledge frontier increases the returns to collaboration. We also report additional evidence consistent with this interpretation: (i) The effect is present in countries outside the United States and is not correlated with the local population of Soviet scholars, (ii) Researchers in Soviet-rich subfields disproportionately increased their level of specialization.
Article
Full-text available
Global collaboration continues to grow as a share of all scientific cooperation, measured as coauthorships of peer-reviewed, published papers. The percent of all scientific papers that are internationally coauthored has more than doubled in 20 years, and they account for all the growth in output among the scientifically advanced countries. Emerging countries, particularly China, have increased their participation in global science, in part by doubling their spending on R&D; they are increasingly likely to appear as partners on internationally coau-thored scientific papers. Given the growth of connections at the international level, it is helpful to examine the phenomenon as a communications network and to consider the network as a new organization on the world stage that adds to and complements national systems. When examined as interconnections across the globe over two decades, a global network has grown denser but not more clustered, meaning there are many more connections but they are not grouping into exclusive 'cliques'. This suggests that power relationships are not reproducing those of the political system. The network has features an open system, attracting productive scientists to participate in international projects. National governments could gain efficiencies and influence by developing policies and strategies designed to maximize network benefits—a model different from those designed for national systems.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Gephi is an open source software for graph and network analysis. It uses a 3D render engine to display large networks in real-time and to speed up the exploration. A flexible and multi-task architecture brings new possibilities to work with complex data sets and produce valuable visual results. We present several key features of Gephi in the context of interactive exploration and interpretation of networks. It provides easy and broad access to network data and allows for spatializing, filtering, navigating, manipulating and clustering. Finally, by presenting dynamic features of Gephi, we highlight key aspects of dynamic network visualization.
Article
Full-text available
We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.
Article
An attempt is made to find statistical evidences of the relation between international co-authorship and citation impact. It was found that international co-authorship, in average, results inpublications with higher citation rates than purely domestic papers. No correlation has beenfound, however, between the strength of co-authorship links and the relative citation eminence ofthe resulting publications. International co-authorship links in chemistry, as represented by thewell-known Salton's measure, displayed a characteristic pattern reflecting geopolitical, historical,linguistic, etc. relations among countries. A new indicator, representing also the asymmetry ofco-authorship links was used to reveal main "attractive" and "repulsive" centres of co-operation.
Article
In the analysis of bibliometric networks, researchers often use mapping and clustering techniques in a combined fashion. Typically, however, mapping and clustering techniques that are used together rely on very different ideas and assumptions. We propose a unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. We show that the VOS mapping technique and a weighted and parameterized variant of modularity-based clustering can both be derived from the same underlying principle. We illustrate our proposed approach by producing a combined mapping and clustering of the most frequently cited publications that appeared in the field of information science in the period 1999–2008.