Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Collaboration Pattern in Male Breast Cancer Research


Affiliations
1 Department of Library & Information Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221005, India
2 CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi - 110012, India
 

An analysis of 4168 research papers on male breast cancer (MBC) published by different countries and indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded during 2005–2014 indicates that only 15% of the papers were non-collaborative and the rest were published either in domestic or international collaboration. The sub-field of MBC had a high proportion of domestic collaboration. The number of papers written with domestic collaboration was almost three times the number of papers written with international collaboration. The value of co-authorship index (CAI) decreased in single-, twoand multi-authored papers in the second block 2010–2014 as compared to the first block (2005– 2009). Higher value of CAI for mega-authored papers reflects higher collaborative coefficient (CC) in 2010–2014. The highest value of CC is for the sub-field S9 (genetics and heredity). This is also indicated by the highest value of CAI for mega-authored papers in this subfield. Among 17 highly productive institutions, CC value is more or equal to the global value of CC for 10 prolific institutions.

Keywords

International Collaboration, Male Breast Cancer, Research Publications.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bozeman, B. and Boardman, C., Research collaboration and team science: a state of the art review and agenda. Assessing Research Collaboration Studies: A Framework for Analysis, Springer, London, Chap 1, 2014.

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. and Uzzi, B., The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 2007, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

  • Bennett, L. M. and Gadlin, H., Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J. Invest. Med., 2012, 60(5), 768–775; doi:10.231/JIM.0b013e318250871d.

  • Adams, J., Collaborations: the fourth age of research. Nature, 2013, 497, 557–560; doi:10.1038/497557a.

  • Glanzel, W., National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 2001, 51, 69–115.

  • Wagner, C. S. and Leydesdorff, L., Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. Int. J. Technol. Globalisation, 2005, 1(2), 185–208.

  • Wagner, C. S., The New Invisible College, Brookings Press, Washington, DC, 2008.

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W. and Danell, R., Inflationary bibliometrics values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 2004, 60(3), 421– 432.

  • Low, W. Y., Ng, K. H., Kabir, M. A., Koh, A. P. and Sinnasamy, J., Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2), 1521–1533; doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1121-6.

  • Prakasan, E. R., Mohan, L., Girap, P., Surwase, G., Kademani, B. S. and Bhanumurthy, K., Scientometric facts on international collaborative Indian publications. Curr. Sci., 2014, 106(2), 166–169.

  • Basu, A. and Kumar, B. S. V., International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 2000, 48(3), 381–402.

  • Garg, K. C. and Dwivedi, S., Pattern of collaboration in the discipline of Japanese encephalitis. DESIDOC J. Lib. Infor. Technol., 2014, 34(3), 241–247.

  • Gupta, B. M. and Karisiddappa, C. R., Collaboration in theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 1998, 42(3), 349– 376.

  • Garg, K. C. and Padhi, P., A study of collaboration in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 2001, 51(2), 415–427.

  • Shrivats, S. V. and Bhattacharya, S., Forecasting the trend of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 2014, 101, 1941–1954; doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1364-x.

  • Dwivedi, S., Garg, K. C. and Prasad, H. N., Scientometric profile of global male breast cancer research. Curr. Sci., 2017, 112(9), 1814–1821.

  • Ajiferuke, I., Burrel, Q. and Tague, J., Collaborative coefficient: a single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 1988, 14(5–6), 421–433.

  • De Solla Price, D. and Beaver, D. B., Collaboration in an invisible college. Am. Psychol., 1966, 21(11), 1011–1018.

  • De Solla Price, D., The analysis of scientometric metrics for policy implications. Scientometrics, 1981, 3(1), 47–54.

  • Frame, J. D., Mainstream research in Latin America and Caribbean. Interciencia, 1977, 2(3), 143–148.

  • Schubert, A. and Braun, T., Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5–6), 281–291.

  • Bordons, M., Gomez, I. and Teresa, F. M., Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 1996, 37(2), 279–295.


Abstract Views: 444

PDF Views: 124




  • Collaboration Pattern in Male Breast Cancer Research

Abstract Views: 444  |  PDF Views: 124

Authors

Sandhya Dwivedi
Department of Library & Information Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221005, India
K. C. Garg
CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi - 110012, India

Abstract


An analysis of 4168 research papers on male breast cancer (MBC) published by different countries and indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded during 2005–2014 indicates that only 15% of the papers were non-collaborative and the rest were published either in domestic or international collaboration. The sub-field of MBC had a high proportion of domestic collaboration. The number of papers written with domestic collaboration was almost three times the number of papers written with international collaboration. The value of co-authorship index (CAI) decreased in single-, twoand multi-authored papers in the second block 2010–2014 as compared to the first block (2005– 2009). Higher value of CAI for mega-authored papers reflects higher collaborative coefficient (CC) in 2010–2014. The highest value of CC is for the sub-field S9 (genetics and heredity). This is also indicated by the highest value of CAI for mega-authored papers in this subfield. Among 17 highly productive institutions, CC value is more or equal to the global value of CC for 10 prolific institutions.

Keywords


International Collaboration, Male Breast Cancer, Research Publications.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi5%2F845-850