Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Management
S. L. Sangam
Uma Arali
This paper studies the relative growth rate of research publications versus the collaboration and authorship pattern of Genetics subject of the
world and India. Study shows the higher the growth of literature and
higher the scientific collaboration. The data has been collected from the
articles listed in Web of Science 1993-2012.Discussess the types of collaboration and describe the measures of collaboration. Study Shows the
variation with Collaboration Coefficient (CC), Collaboration Index (CI)
and Degree of Collaboration (DC).Finally conclude that there is a relation between growth and scientific collaboration in the field of Genetics.
Keywords: Scientific productivity, Research collaboration, Genetics literature,
Scientometrics, Bibliometrics
1.Introduction
S. L. Sangam*
Uma Arali
Department of Library &
Information Science,
Karnatak University
Dharwad-580 003
India
*slsangam@gmail.com
physical form which can be received, assessed, and acknowledged by the scientific community. Usually Collaboration will be held with Intra-Department Collaboration; within
an organisation. Intra - Institutional Collaboration i.e. Collaboration between two or more
organizations. International Collaboration; the collaboration between two or more organizations; or institutions located in more than one country. Guide Research Scholar Collaboration; this is a very common mode of collaboration in an academic setting. The professor in a university department provides the ideas and guidance, and sometimes also the
required funds from a research grant, and the research assistant or student does most of
the bench work. The resulting project report, conference paper, or journal article usually
carries the names of both the professor and the student. It is not uncommon for a professor
to be guiding several students in different research projects at the same time. Collaboration among Colleagues; it is a very common practice in corporate research centres for a
number of colleagues to be working on one or more projects, each contributing expertise
in a different aspect of the project. In interdisciplinary fields such as environment, energy,
or space research, scientists and engineers from a wide variety of specialties often collaborate. In recent days it is common for specialists working together in an interdisciplinary
project. Some of the notable studies are in the field were worth mentioning viz. Beaver
and Rosen (1978, [5]) have explored the origins and history of collaboration from 17th to
20th century. Manimekala and Amsaveni [17] discussed Collaborative Research Publications of Genetics in India. Adams et al. [1] suggested specific measures to foster scientific
collaboration at both local and national level (2005). The formula given by Subramanyam
(1982, [25]) for determining the Degree of Collaboration (DC) in a subject. Ajiferuke at
el. (1988, [2]) find out Collaborative Co-efficient (CC) which is widely used. Lawani (1986,
[16]) showed that as the number of authors per paper increases, the proportion high quality papers also increases and the Collaborative Index (CI).. Maheshwarappa et al. (1984,
[17]) were studied the authorship pattern in science and technology in India. Bordons et al.
(1996, [7]) analyzed the influence of collaborations on scientific performance for three sectors. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (2007, 2013, [14], [15]) developed simple power functions
a new function of co-author-pairs frequencies. (Kretschmer and Kretschmer 2013, [15]).
However, longitudinal studies over time have shown successive variation of collaboration
patterns is possible from Birds of a feather flock together to Opposites attract and
vice versa. In other words Birds of the feather flock together diminishes as Opposites
attract emerges and vice versa.
Sangam and Keshava (2005, [21]) have presented the collaborative research in six sub
disciplines of social science. Sangam and Meera( 2009, [22]) have examined the collaboration in research that is affected by various socioeconomic and other environmental factors
prevailing in the society. Keshava et al.(2010, [13]), have carried out study to know the
characteristics of literature and degree of collaboration. Biradar and Rajashekhar (2010, [6])
presented a study based on references appended to the articles published in open access
e-journal AgBioForum. Sagar et al.(2010, [20]) have performed a scientometric analysis of
all Tsunami related publications as per the Scopus (TM) database during 1997-2008 including authorship pattern as one of the parameter for the study. Bartneck and Hu (2010 [3])
10
deal with authorship pattern from different organization. Hui-Zhen Fu et al.(2011, [9]),
have provided an overview of the characteristics of research in China. Sangam (2012, [23])
investigated the pattern of authorship, and type of collaborated research in the field of
demography. Jaric et al. (2012, [1]) has applied a bibliometric approach to identify recent
patterns and trends in the methods, subjects, and authorships in the literature published
in fisheries science. Gunasekaran and Balasubramani (2012, [8]) have analyzed the artificial
intelligence research Zheng et al. (2012, [26]) has studied Chinas international S&T collaboration from the perspective of paper and patent analysis. Gupta, (2013, [10]) analyses
the research output of Bangladesh in S&T during 2001-10 on several parameters including
share of international collaborative publications.. Bajwa et al. (2013, [4]) analyse the research trends in Pakistan in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kato and Ando,
(2013, [12]) examine the robustness of the results presented by Abramo et al. and show a
positive relationship between the international mobility of researchers and their performance. Rafols et al. (2014, [19]), have explored the pharmaceutical R & D dynamics by
examining the publication activities of all R & D laboratories of the major European and
US pharmaceutical firms (Big Pharma) during the period 1995-2009. Zyoud and Swelleh,
(2014, [27]) have analysed the worldwide research output in the water pipe tobacco smoking field to examine the authorship and collaboration pattern.
4.Methodology
The data on Genetics of world and India over a period of 20 years (1993-2012) has been
collected from PubMed database for the purpose of analysing the growth rate, doubling
time, pattern of authorship and collaboration.
11
is either negligible or nil. Since, India is a developing country much emphasis is given
for research activities in the field of Genetics. Indian government is also supporting the
research projects by providing sufficient funds to carry out the research activities in the
field of Genetics. This might encourage young academicians and scientists to take up research projects and add good number of publications which have been depicted through
the higher relative growth rate of the publications in Genetics literature when compared
with that of the world. International funding agencies are also coming forward to fund for
the research in basic sciences like Genetics and its branches.
During 1999, the doubling time is almost same for both Indian and the Worlds Genetics literature. The doubling time for number of publications is mainly depending on the
total number of publications during a specific time period from both World and India in
Table 1
World vs. India Relative Growth Rate & Doubling Time of Genetics publications as reflected in
PubMed database (1993-2012)
Year
World
Pub.
Cumulative
RGR
D(t)
47334
India
Cumulative
RGR
D(t)
179
179
Pub.
1993
47334
1994
51408
98742
0.73528
0.942496
213
392
0.78388
0.884067
1995
56244
154986
0.45082
1.537184
259
651
0.50725
1.366196
1996
58939
213925
0.32229
2.150233
321
972
0.40085
1.728843
1997
62913
276838
0.25781
2.688057
329
1301
0.29153
2.377098
1998
70035
346873
0.22553
3.072813
352
1653
0.23946
2.894024
1999
76257
423130
0.19872
3.487306
363
2016
0.19852
3.490762
2000
83711
506841
0.18052
3.838955
499
2515
0.22116
3.133521
2001
87200
594041
0.15875
4.365327
611
3126
0.21748
3.186471
2002
88872
682913
0.13942
4.970623
772
3898
0.22071
3.139881
2003
94640
777553
0.12978
5.339627
944
4842
0.21686
3.195551
2004
100154
877707
0.12116
5.719662
999
5841
0.18757
3.694542
2005
104231
981938
0.11222
6.175626
1189
7030
0.18529
3.740184
2006
108823
1090761
0.1051
6.593549
1404
8434
0.18208
3.805936
2007
113615
1204376
0.09909
6.993926
1578
10012
0.17151
4.040486
2008
118540
1322916
0.09388
7.382016
1802
11814
0.1655
4.187286
2009
125142
1448058
0.09039
7.667205
2094
13908
0.16318
4.246896
2010
132054
1580112
0.08727
7.940656
2279
16187
0.15175
4.566872
2011
139994
1720106
0.08489
8.163488
2539
18726
0.1457
4.756218
2012
147004
1867110
0.08201
8.450615
3158
21884
0.15584
4.446783
12
Table 2
Single Author
Two Author
Three Author
1993-2002
191 (5%)
925 (24%)
936 (24%)
1811(47%)
2003-2012
433 (2.5%)
2501 (15%)
3184 (19%)
10846 (64%)
Total
624 (3%)
3426 (16.5%)
4120 (20%)
12657 (60.7%)
contrast to the publications made during the previous year. From the Table- 1 it is evident
that the relative growth rate and the doubling time are inversely proportional in both India
and the World.
5.2 Authorship and Collaboration in the field of Genetics in India
The present situation due to interdisciplinary research compels on the researchers to go
for collaboration in research, thus resulting in the shift from solo research to team research.
Communication and collaboration between researchers are of great importance in the development of subject areas and in the dissemination of research results. Thus, Collaboration is an intense form of interaction that allows for effective communication as well as the
sharing of competence and other resources. The Quantification of Publications by number
of Authors in the field Genetics we can see as below.
The Table - 2 indicates the growth rate during two block periods in all the categories of
co-authorship publications. The single-author publications have decreased from 5% during 1993-2002 to 2.5% during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 3% for the entire period. The two-author publications have also decreased from 24% during 1993-2002
to 15% during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 16.5% for the entire period.
The three-author publications have again decreased from 24% during 1993-2002 to 19%
during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 20% for the entire period. Whereas
the four and more than four-author publications has increased from 47% during 1993-2002
to 64% during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 60.7% for the entire period.
5.3 Collaboration Coefficient (CC)
To measure the extent and strength of collaboration among the scientists in research,
a measure called Collaboration Coefficient (CC), using formula suggested by Ajiferuke
(1988, [2]), has been used. This can be mathematically expressed as:
CC = 1 E [1/n]
E [1/n] = 1
13
NM
Nm + Ns
14
17
13
13
14
18
18
27
30
27
36
45
43
31
41
51
44
41
44
57
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
376
305
276
287
277
220
213
188
160
199
157
132
100
85
82
87
84
73
71
54
491
420
385
366
336
304
280
214
184
204
176
120
126
81
90
89
89
59
45
61
510
432
390
355
335
294
217
200
194
158
136
122
92
69
56
55
40
51
35
16
476
370
298
310
237
211
202
172
142
137
104
81
61
50
35
38
44
36
22
18
Authorship pattern
352
282
247
229
169
177
162
137
103
68
70
46
36
24
22
15
26
12
11
256
184
162
146
124
100
94
75
60
41
35
35
21
18
27
13
89
62
64
60
51
33
31
22
15
14
10
12
145
122
105
71
70
51
48
42
27
31
19
19
12
14
104
71
42
36
41
26
23
18
12
13
10
131
96
66
59
39
33
25
21
21
17
>10
2969
2368
2076
1977
1704
1509
1329
1144
974
914
749
608
496
363
351
325
320
259
213
179
No. Of
Papers
0.74
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.61
0.60
CC
3.35
3.35
3.36
3.34
3.3
3.34
3.32
3.3
3.26
3.15
3.2
3.17
3.12
3.16
3.08
3.04
3.04
3.04
2.86
2.8
CI (grouped
after 4)
Table 3
4.52
4.44
4.45
4.38
4.23
4.31
4.29
4.26
4.11
3.85
3.89
3.89
3.76
3.81
3.75
3.54
3.63
3.49
3.28
3.15
CI (grouped
after 10)
15
Table 4
Authorship pattern with Degree of Collaboration measures (DC).
Authorship Pattern
Number of
publication
% of Total
Publications
DC
20827
100
20203
0.97
624
3.00
3426
16.45
0.84
4120
19.78
0.80
3757
18.04
0.82
3044
14.62
0.85
2195
10.54
0.89
1409
6.77
0.93
859
4.12
0.96
535
2.57
0.97
858
4.12
0.96
table 4 is used. The table 4 shows total number of single authored publications up to 10 and
above authored articles along with the percentage irrespective of the year. The computed
data are presented in the column 4 of the Table 4. It has been noted from the table - 4 that,
0.97 is the value of the highest degree of collaboration during 1993-2012. The value of DC
is lowest among three author publications which are 0.80 and highest of 0.97 among nine
authored publications again indicating trend towards multi-authorship papers.
Calculation: DC = Nm / (Nm + Ns)
Based on the data in the table -4, DC for two authored publications; Nm = 3426 & Ns
=624 DC = 3426 / (3426 + 624) = 0.845
16
ods in all the categories of authorship ( two to ten authors) publications are increased 97%
for the entire period. Even we can observe the value of DC is lowest among three author
publications which are 0.80 and highest of 0.97 among nine authored publications again
indicating trend towards multi-authorship papers. What emerges is that the correlation
degree (DC, CC and CI) between productivity and collaboration intensity varies substantially among different areas viz. Behavioural Genetics, classical Genetics, Developmental Genetics, Human Genetics, Medical Genetics, Microbial Genetics, Molecular Genetics,
and Population Genetics etc. The proportion of collaborative publication has a consistent
growth with time.
7.Conclusion
With the above discussion and interpretation we can draw the inferences that :
1. The relative growth rate and the doubling time are inversely proportional in both
India and the World.
2. Even we can observe the value of DC is lowest among three author publications
which are 0.80 and highest of 0.97 among nine authored publications again indicating trend towards multi-authorship papers.
3. What emerges is that the correlation degree (DC, CC and CI) between productivity
and collaboration intensity varies substantially in pattern of authorship.
4. Study observed that less importance has been given to Social sciences and Humanities research in the field of Scientometrics.
5. Results can be used as an indicators for policy making in Science and Technology.
References
[1] Adams,S.J.D.,Black,G.C.,Clemmons,J.R.,Paula,E.,&Stephan,P.E.(2005)Scientific teams and
institutional Collaboration: Evidence from Universities, 1981-1999.Research Policy, 34(3),
259-285.
[2] Ajiferuke,I, Burell, Q &Tague, J. (1988).Collaborative coefficient : A single
collaboration in research.Scientometrics.14. 421-433.
measure of the
[3] Bartneck, C. & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85 (1), 4152.
[4] Bajwa, R. S., Yaldram, K. & Rafique, S. (2013). A Scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective. Scientometrics, 94, 333-338.
[5] Beaver, D.& Rosen, R.(1978).Studies in scientific collaboration part 1:The professional origins of scientific co authorship.Scientometrics.1, 72-
17
[6] Biradar, B. S. & Rajashekhar, G. R. (2010), December). Scientometric analysis of Biotechnology literature. In eds Sangam. Paper presented at Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics National seminar, Dharwad (134-145).
[7] Bordons,M., Gomez I.,Fernandez.,M.T.,Zulueta,M.A.,&Mendez,A.(1996).Local, domestic
andinternational scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2),279295.
[8] Gunasekaran, M. & Balasubramani, R. (2012). Scientometric Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Research output: An Indian Perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research, 70
(2), 317-322.
[9] Fu, H., Chuang, K., Wang, M., & Ho, Y. (2011). Characteristics of research in China assessed with ESI. Scientometrics, 88, 841-862.
[10] Gupta, B. M. (2013). Bangladesh: A Scientometric Analysis of National Publications Output in S&T, 2001-10. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 33 (1).
[11] Jaric, I., Cvijanovic, G., Knezevic-Jaric, J., & Lenhardt, M. (2012). Trends in Fisheries Science from 2000 to 2009: A Bibliometric Study. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 20 (2), 70-79.
10.1080/10641262.2012.659775.
[12] Kato, M. & Ando, A. (2013). The relationship between research performance and international collaboration in chemistry. Scientometrics, 97 (3), 535-553.
[13] Keshava, Prakash, Y. & Gowda, M. P. (2010, December). Global warming: A bibliometric
analysis. In eds Sangam. Paper presented at Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics National seminar, Dharwad (27-36).
[14] Kretschmer,H. & Kretschmer,T. (2007). Lotkas distribution of co-author pairs frequencies. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 308-337.
[15]
Kretschmer,H. & Kretschmer,T. (2013). Who is collaborating with whomin
science?Explanation of a fundamental principle.Social Networking,2,99-137, doi:10.4236/
sn2013.23011Publishedonline July 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/sn)
[16] Lawani,S.M.(1986) Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientometric research. Scientometrics.9 (1&2) 13-25.
[17] Manimekalai, A. & Amsaveni, N. (2012). Collaborative Research Publications of Genetics
in India. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 1 (2), 88-93. www.jails.in/.
[Retrieved on 21/6/2013].
[18] Maheshwarappa,B.S, Nagappa,B & Mathias (1984). S.A.Collaborative research in science
and technology in India: A Bibliometric study.Journal of Library and Information science.9 (2)154-159.
[19] Rafols, I., Hopkins, M. M., Hoekman, J., Siepel, J., Hare, A., Perianes-Rodriguez, A. &
Nightingale, P. (2014). Big Pharma, little science? : A bibliometric perspective on Big Pharmas R & D decline. Technological forecasting and social change, 81, 22-38. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.007.
18
[20] Sagar, A., Kademani, B. S., Garg, R. G. & Vijaykumar (2010). Scientometric mapping of
Tsunami publications: a citation based study. Malaysian journal of Library and Information
Science, 15 (1), 23-40.
[21] Sangam. S.L. & Keshava. (2005). Colloboration in Social Science Research in India. Journal
of Information Management and Scientometrics, 2 (1), 34-39.
[22] Sangam, S. L. & Meera. (2009). Research Collobration Pattern in Indian Contribution to
Chemical sciences. Collenet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 3 (1), 3945.
[23] Sangam, S. L. (2012). Scientific productivity and collaborative research patterns in the field
of demography. In eds Kumbar, et al. Paper presented at Statistical methods for communication science national Workshop, Dharwad (pp. 109-117). UGC/SAP/DRS-1: Dharwad.
[24] Sangam,S.L.,Devika Madalli &Uma B. Arali (2015).Scientometric profile of global genetics literatureas seen through PubMed.Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information
management 9(2) 175-192.
[25] Subramanyam, K (1982).Research collaboration and funding in biochemistry and chemical engineering .Int. forum Inf.Doc.7(4)26-29.
[26] Zheng, J.Zhao, Z.,Zhang, X.,Chen, D.,Huang, M., Lei, X.,Zhao,Y.(2012). International scientific and technological collaboration of China from 2004 to 2008:a perspective from paper and patent analysis.Scientometrics, 91(1),65-80.
[27] Zyoud, S. H., Al-Jabi, S. W. & Swelleh, W. M. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of scientific
publications on waterpipe (narghile, shisha, hookah) tobacco smoking during the period
2003-2012. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 12 (7), 1-6. www.tobaccoindueddiseases.com/content/12/1/7. [Retrieved on 2/6/2014].
19