International co-authorship and research team performance in Colombia

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 415-431

  Ordóñez Matamoros, Hector Gonzalo ^a   Cozzens, Susan E ^b   Garcia, Margarita ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Colombia; International research collaboration; Local knowledge; Research productivity; Research teams; Science and technology indicators; Scientific capabilities; Team performance

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; BIBLIOGRAPHY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POLICY APPROACH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; THEORETICAL STUDY; TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE;

COLOMBIA;

EID: 77955041005     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00449.x     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Acs Z, de la Mothe J, Paquet G. Local systems of innovation. Search of an enabling strategy. The implications of knowledge-based growth for micro-economic policies 1996, 339-358. Howitt P, Ed., Calgary, University of Calgary Press
2. Adams J D, Black G C, Clemmons J R, Stephan P. Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981-1999. Research Policy 2005, 34(3):259-285.
3. Bauer H H. Barriers against interdisciplinarity-Implications for studies of science, technology, and society (Sts). Science Technology & Human Values 1990, 15(1):105-119.
4. Beaver D D. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics 2001, 52(3):365-377.
5. Beaver D D. Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics 2004, 60(3):399-408.
6. Beaver D D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration. 2. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799-1830. Scientometrics 1979, 1(2):133-149.
7. Becher T. Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education 1981, 6(2):109-122.
8. Becher T. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 1994, 19(2):151-161.
9. Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C. Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics 2005, 63(1):87-120.
10. Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C, Simar L. Advanced indicators of productivity of universities. An application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data. Scientometrics 2006, 66(2):389-410.
11. Bordons M, Gomez I, Fernandez M T, Zulueta M A, Mendez A. Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics 1996, 37(2):279-295.
12. Bordons M, Zulueta M A. Comparison of research team activity in two biomedical fields. Scientometrics 1997, 40(3):423-436.
13. Bordons M, Zulueta M A, Barrigon S. Scientific activity of the most productive Spanish research teams in pharmacology and pharmacy during the period 1986-1993 as covered by the Science Citation Index (SCI). Medicina Clinica 1998, 111(13):489-495.
14. Burt R S. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 2004, 110(2):349-399.
15. Caliendo M, Kopeining S. Some practical guidance for implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 2008, 22(1):31-72.
16. Carayol N, Matt M. Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy 2004, 33(8):1081-1102.
17. Casper S, Karamanos A. Commercializing science in Europe: The Cambridge biotechnology cluster. European Planning Studies 2003, 11(7):805-822.
18. Cohen J E. Publication rate as a function of laboratory size in a biomedical-research institution. Scientometrics 1980, 2(1):35-52.
19. Cohen J E. Publication rate as a function of laboratory size in 3 biomedical-research institutions. Scientometrics 1981, 3(6):467-487.
20. Cohen J E. Size, age and productivity of scientific and technical research groups. Scientometrics 1991, 20(3):395-416.
21. Cozzens S E. International comparison of approaches to supporting international science and technology (S&T) research and development (R&D) 2008, Ottawa, Industry Canada
22. Crane D. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities 1972, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press
23. Cummings J N, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 2005, 35(5):703-722.
24. Danilovic M, Mats W. A tentative framework for analyzing integration in collaborative manufacturing network settings: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 2005, 22(1-2):141-158.
25. Dietz J. Scientists and engineers in academic research centers-An examination of career patterns and productivity. 2004, PhD Thesis, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
26. Ettorre E. Recognizing diversity and group processes in international, collaborative research work: A case study. Social Policy & Administration 2000, 34(4):392-407.
27. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 2000, 29(2):109-123.
28. Farrell M P. Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics and creative work 2001, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
29. Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 2001, 47(1):117-132.
30. Florida R. The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology: Issues in Science & Technology Summer. 1999, http://www.issues.org/15.4/florida.htm, Available at
31. Fox M F, Faver C A. Independence and cooperation in research-The motivations and costs of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education 1984, 55(3):347-359.
32. Frame J D, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science 1979, 9(4):481-497.
33. Frederiksen L F. Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility. Scientometrics 2004, 61(2):253-270.
34. Frenken K, Hölzl W, de Vor F. The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 2005, 22(1-2):9-30.
35. Georghiou L. Global cooperation in research. Research 1998, 27(6):611-626.
36. Georghiou L. Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Research Policy 2001, 30(6):891-903.
37. Godin B, Gingras Y. Impact of collaborative research on academic science. Science and Public Policy 2000, 27(1):9.
38. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology 1973, 78(6):1380.
39. Granovetter M. The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2005, 19(1):33-50.
40. Guan J C, Wang J X. Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge production efficiency. Scientometrics 2004, 59(1):131-155.
41. Hagedoorn J. Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy 2002, 31(4):477-492.
42. Harrison D A, Price K H, Gavin J H, Florey A T. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal 2002, 45(5):1029-1045.
43. Hoegl M, Proserpio L. Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy 2004, 33(8):1153-1165.
44. Kleinman D. Pervasive influence: Intellectual property, industrial history, and university science. Science and Public Policy 1998, 25(2):95-102.
45. Kretschmer H. Cooperation structure, group-size and productivity in research groups. Scientometrics 1985, 7(1-2):39-53.
46. Kyvik S. Are big university departments better than small ones. Higher Education 1995, 30:295-304.
47. Landry R, Amara N. The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy 1998, 27(9):901-913.
48. Landry R, Traore N, Godin B. An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education 1996, 32(3):283-301.
49. Lee S, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 2005, 35(5):673-702.
50. Leuven E, Sianesi B. PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing 2003, Chestnut Hill, MA, Boston College Department of Economics
51. Levine J M, Moreland R L. Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8(2):164-172.
52. Lewis G. Dichotomous dependent variables 2003, Lecture Notes 01. PAUS 9121. Advance Research Methods II, Atlanta, GA, Georgia State University
53. Liang L M, Zhu L. Major factors affecting China's inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity. Scientometrics 2002, 55(2):287-316.
54. Lima M, Liberman S, Russell J M. Scientific group cohesiveness at the National University of Mexico. Scientometrics 2005, 64(1):55-66.
55. Long J S, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata 2001, College Station, TX, Stata Corporation
56. Long S. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables 1997, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications
57. Malo S, Geuna A. Science-technology linkages in an emerging research platform: The case of combinatorial chemistry and biology. Scientometrics 2000, 47(2):303-321.
58. Martin-Sempere M J, Rey-Rocha J, Garzon-Garcia B. The effect of team consolidation on research collaboration and performance of scientists. Case study of Spanish university researchers in Geology. Scientometrics 2002, 55(3):377-394.
59. McKelvey M, Alm H, Riccaboni M. Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector? Research Policy 2003, 32(3):483-501.
60. Melin G. Postdoc abroad: Inherited scientific contacts or establishment of new networks? Research Evaluation 2004, 13(2):95-102.
61. Moed H F. Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics 2000, 47(2):323-346.
62. Noltingk B E. A note on effective laboratory size. R&D Management 1985, 15(1):65-69.
63. Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnologia. Colombia 2008 2009, OCyT, Bogota, D.C. Colombia, Observatorio Colombiano de Ciencia y Tecnologia
64. Okubo Y, Dore J C, Ojasoo T, Miguel J F. A multivariate analysis of publication trends in the 1980s with special reference to south-east Asia. Scientometrics 1998, 41(3):273-289.
65. Ordonez G. International research collaboration, research team performance, and scientific and technological capabilities in Colombia-A bottom-up perspective. 2008, PhD dissertation in Public Policy. Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
66. Porac J F, Wade J B, Fischer H M, Brown J, Kanfer A, Bowker G. Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy 2004, 33:661-678.
67. Qin J, Lancaster F W, Allen B. Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1997, 48(10):893-916.
68. Qurashi M M. Publication rate as a function of the laboratory group-size. Scientometrics 1984, 6(1):19-26.
69. Qurashi M M. Publication-rate and size of two prolific research groups in Departments of Inorganic-Chemistry at Dacca University (1944-1965) and Zoology at Karachi University (1966-84). Scientometrics 1991, 20(1):79-92.
70. Qurashi M M. Dependence of publication-rate on size of some university groups and departments in UK and Greece in comparison with Nci, USA. Scientometrics 1993, 27(1):19-38.
71. Rey-Rocha J, Martin-Sempere M J, Garzon B. Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists. Scientometrics 2002, 55(1):137-156.
72. Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología actualizados al año 2007 2009, http://www.ricyt.edu.ar, RICYT, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Red Iberoamericana de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Retrieved from
73. Rigby J, Edler J. Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality. Research Policy 2005, 34(6):784-794.
74. Rinia E J, Van Leeuwen T N, Van Raan A F J. Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics. Scientometrics 2002, 53(2):241-248.
75. Rosenbaum P R, Rubin D B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70(1):41-55.
76. Sagasti F. Knowledge and innovation for development: The Sisyphus challenge of the 21st century 2004, Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar
77. Saxenian A. Regional advantage, culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 1994, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
78. Schummer J. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 2004, 59(3):425-465.
79. Global city-regions 2001, Scott A J. Ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press
80. Seglen P O, Aksnes D W. Scientific productivity and group size: A bibliometric analysis of Norwegian microbiological research. Scientometrics 2000, 49(1):125-143.
81. Shrum W. Reagency of the Internet, or, how I became a guest for science. Social Studies of Science 2005, 35(5):723-754.
82. Smeby J C, Trondal J. Globalisation or Europeanisation? International contact among university staff. Higher Education 2005, 49(4):449-466.
83. Smeby J C, Try S. Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education 2005, 46(6):593-619.
84. Stankiewicz R. The size and age of Swedish academic research groups and their scientific performance. Scientific productivity: The effectiveness of research groups in six countries 1979, 191-222. Andrews F M. Ed., Paris, Cambridge University Press and UNESCO
85. Stolpe M. Determinants of knowledge diffusion as evidenced in patent data: The case of liquid crystal display technology. Research Policy 2002, 31(7):1181-1198.
86. Turner L, Mairesse J. Individual productivity differences in public research: How important are non-individual determinants? An economic study of French physicists' publications and citations (1986-1997). 2005, Unpublished Manuscript. 35 pp
87. Uzzi B, Spiro J. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology 2005, 111(2):447-504.
88. Wagner C S. Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics 2005, 62(1):3-26.
89. Wagner C S, Brahmakulam I, Jackson B A, Wong A, Yoda T. Science and technology collaboration: Building capacities in developing countries? 2001, Santa Monica, CA, RAND
90. Waguespack D M, Birnir J K. Foreignness and the diffusion of ideas. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 2005, 22(1-2):31-50.
91. Wang J X, Guan J C. The analysis and evaluation of knowledge efficiency in research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2005, 56(11):1217-1226.
92. Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences 2000, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press
93. Wray K B. The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science 2002, 69(1):150-168.
94. Zhao Z. Using matching to estimate treatment effects: Data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2004, 80(1):91-107.
95. Zitt M, Ramanana-Rahary S, Bassecoulard E, Laville F. Potential science-technology spillovers in regions: An insight on geographic co-location of knowledge activities in the EU. Scientometrics 2003, 57(2):295-320.