Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSud, Pardeep
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mike
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-01T14:56:46Z
dc.date.available2016-11-01T14:56:46Z
dc.date.issued2015-05-13
dc.identifier.citationSud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (8), pp 1849-1857.en
dc.identifier.issn2330-1635
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/asi.23515
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/620248
dc.descriptionThis is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Wiley Blackwell in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 13/05/2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23515 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.
dc.description.abstractBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the USA, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations associate with lower impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would have found international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley Blackwellen
dc.relation.urlhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/asi.23515en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technologyen
dc.subjectAltmetricsen
dc.subjectsocial media metricsen
dc.subjectMendeleyen
dc.titleNot all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaborationen
dc.typeJournal article
dc.identifier.journalJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technologyen
dc.contributor.institutionStatistical Cybermetrics Research Group; School of Mathematics and Computer Science; University of Wolverhampton; Wulfruna Street Wolverhampton WV1 1SB UK
dc.contributor.institutionStatistical Cybermetrics Research Group; School of Mathematics and Computer Science; University of Wolverhampton; Wulfruna Street Wolverhampton WV1 1SB UK
dc.date.accepted2014-02-10
rioxxterms.versionAM
dc.source.volume67
dc.source.issue8
dc.source.beginpage1849
dc.source.endpage1857
refterms.dateFCD2020-06-17T12:58:31Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-21T13:32:01Z
html.description.abstractBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the USA, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations associate with lower impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would have found international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
InternationalCollaborationBioC ...
Size:
193.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record