Abstract
Given the high priority accorded to research collaboration on the assumption that it yields higher productivity and impact rates than do non-collaborative results, research collaboration modes are assessed for their benefits and costs before being executed. Researchers are accountable for selecting their collaboration modes, a decision made through strategic decision making influenced by their environments and the trade-offs among alternatives. In this context, by using bibliographic information and related internal data from the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM, a representative Korean government institute of mechanical research), this paper examines the suggested yet unproven determinants of research collaboration modes that the SCI data set cannot reveal through a Multinomial Probit Model. The results indicate that informal communication, cultural proximity, academic excellence, external fund inspiration, and technology development levels play significant roles in the determination of specific collaboration modes, such as sole research, internal collaboration, domestic collaboration, and international collaboration. This paper refines collaboration mode studies by describing the actual collaboration phenomenon as it occurs in research institutes and the motivations prompting research collaboration, allowing research mangers to encourage researchers to collaborate in an appropriate decision-making context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although the significance of the intercept on international collaboration does not satisfy at the given statistical significant levels (p < 0.1), it can be broadly interpreted to indicate that researchers tend to prefer international collaboration over sole research as long as the sign of the coefficient in the intercept is positive.
Public institutes generally have similar management systems due to government control. Thus, our result could reflect a generic trait of public institutes, different from universities in terms of the relationship between the assessment of research achievement and collaboration tendency.
None of the literature on the determinants of co-authorship uses bibliographic data drawn from the sciences and social sciences (Frame and Carpenter 1979; Mcdowell and Melvin 1983; Luukkonen et al. 1992; Piette and Ross 1992; Traore and Landry 1997; Laband and Tollison 2000; Wagner 2005; Acedo et al. 2006; Vafeas 2010). This is probably due to the distinct nature of each discipline and the difficulty of data mining. Even if a data-set were obtained, it would be very costly and difficult to connect the characteristics of the researchers and their research to the bibliographic data.
References
Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.
Becker, G. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economics, 70, 9–49.
Bickel, W. E., & Hattrup, R. A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 35–62.
Bozeman, B. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.
Brousseau, E. (1993). L’economie des contrats. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cronin, B. (1996). Rates of return of citation. Journal of Documentation, 52(2), 188–197.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. (1999). Cross-cultural collaborative research: Toward reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 76–86.
Edge, D. (1979). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review. History of Science, 17, 102–134.
Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9, 481–497.
Geweke, J., Keane, M., & Runkle, D. (1994). Alternative computational approaches to statistical interference in the multinomial probit model. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 609–632.
Goffman, W., & Warren, K. S. (1980). Scientific information systems and the principle of selectivity. New York, NY: Praeger.
Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hamermesh, D. S., Johnson, G. E., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). Scholarship, citation and salaries: Economic reward in economics. Southern Economic Journal, 49, 472–481.
Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 10, 153–158.
Imai, K., & Dykz, D. A. (2005). MNP: R Package for fitting the multinomial probit model. Journal of Statistical Software, 14, 1–32.
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322, 1259–1262.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.
Kreiner, K., & Schultz, M. (1993). Informal collaboration in R&D. The formation of networks across organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 189–209.
Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.
Landry, R., Traore, N., & Godin, B. (1996). An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education, 32, 283–301.
Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 762–781.
Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.
Lewison, G., & Cunningham, P. (1991). Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of transnational research. Scientometrics, 21, 325–342.
Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Skar, J., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69, 575–589.
Luukkonen, T., Perterson, O., & Siversen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.
Martin, B. R., & Skea, J. E. F. (1992). Academic research performance indicators: An assessment of the possibilities. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex.
McCulloch, R. E., Polson, N. G., & Rossi, P. E. (2000). A Bayesian analysis of the multinomial probit model with fully identified parameters. Journal of Econometrics, 99, 173–193.
Mcdowell, J. M., & Melvin, M. (1983). The determinants of co-authorship: An analysis of the economics literature. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65, 155–160.
Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36, 363–377.
Moore, M., & Griffin, B. (2006). Identification of factors that influence authorship name placement and decisions to collaborate in peer-reviewed education-related publications. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 125–135.
Narin, F., & Whitlow, E. S. (1990). Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science (report EUR 12900). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Nathan, S., Hermanson, D., & Hermanson, R. (1998). Co-authoring in refereed journals: Views of accounting faculty and department chairs. Issues in Accounting Education, 12, 79–92.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. Physical Review E, 64. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131.
Numprasertchai, S., & Igel, B. (2005). Managing knowledge through collaboration: Multiple case studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand. Technovation, 25(10), 1173–1182.
Nyden, P., & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. American Sociologist, 23, 43–55.
Piette, M. J., & Ross, K. L. (1992). An analysis of the determinants of co-authorship in economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 23, 277–283.
Rutledge, R., & Karim, K. (2009). Determinants of coauthorship for the most productive authors of accounting literature. The Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 130–134.
Sauer, R. D. (1988). Estimates of the return to quality and coauthorship in economic academy. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 855–866.
Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1150–1174.
Solla Price, D., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011–1018.
Train, K., & Sonnier, G. (2005). Mixed logit with bounded distribution of partworths. In R. Scarpa & A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (pp. 117–134). Dordrecht: Springer.
Traore, N., & Landry, R. (1997). On the determinants of scientists’ collaboration. Science Communication, 19, 124–140.
Vafeas, N. (2010). Determinants of single authorship. EuroMed Journal of Business, 5, 332–344.
van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research result. Scientometrics, 42, 423–428.
van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2010). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.
Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62, 3–26.
Wagner, C. S. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and pitfalls. In B. Louk & E. Rutger (Eds.), Science and technology policy for development, dialogues at the interface (pp. 165–176). London: Anthem Press.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.
Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: building capacity in developing countries? MR-1357.0-WB. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jeong, S., Choi, J.Y. & Kim, J. The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics 89, 967–983 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0474-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0474-y