Argentine research on agroindustry and its international collaboration (2007-2016)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This work aims to compare the collaboration patterns of the Argentine scientific production of Agroindustry according to the geographical scope of the research, that is, topics addressed to national readers and topics that go beyond the national border. Scopus database were used to carry out this study which span for the period 2007-2016. Collaboration patterns of both groups were analyzed and described as follows: a) whether they are global or local research topics, applying the criterion of absence or presence of national place names, respectively; b) the volume of co-authorship with different countries grouped by continents is presented; c) the 20 most frequent keywords are determined for each case and, d) the H-Index of countries was used as an indicator of the scientific impact of the collaborating country. The main results show that European countries are the main collaborator in Agroindustry research with more than 40% of co-authored papers, while Oceania, Asia, and Africa present lower collaboration rates (5% or less). The distribution of papers in global and local topics appear in all continents with slight increases in Europe, North America, and the Caribbean and Oceania in favor of local topics. The correlation between international collaboration and the scientific impact of the countries with which Argentina collaborates is relatively positive. The topics investigated are mainly anchored in Patagonia, the maritime coastline, and are especially focused on cattle and corn. The study provides useful information to think about the formation of research teams, the planning of international mobility programs, and strategic alliances for future collaboration, and it does so in a strategic area that generates strong expectations for the economic development of the country.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Basualdo, J. A., Grenóvero, M. S., Bertucci, E. & Molina, N. B. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on intestinal parasites in Argentina during the period 1985–2014. Revista argentina de microbiología, 48(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ram.2016.03.005
Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337
Beaver, D. D. & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(3), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016308
Bédu, O., Fournier, D. & Salson, C. (2012). Estudio bibliométrico del INTA. Buenos Aires: Agropolis.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Miguel, S. E. & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research. Scientometrics, 102(1), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1414-4
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Miao, L., Murray, D., Robinson-García, N., Costas, R. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). A global comparison of scientific mobility and collaboration according to national scientific capacities. Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00017
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C. R. & Larivière, V. (2019). Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0218309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218309
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., González-Molina, A. & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). New approach to the visualization of international Scientific collaboration. Information visualization, 9(4), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1057/ivs.2009.31
Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social studies of science, 9(4), 481–497. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/284574
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235632795_Mapping_World_Scientific_Collaboration_Authors_Institutions_and_Countries
Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010512628145
Glänzel, W. & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinational measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015684505035
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 257–276). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12
Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hoekman, J., Frenken, K. & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research policy, 39(5), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012
Jacso, P. (2009). The h”index for countries in the Web of Science and Scopus. Online information review, 33, 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910985756
Kwiek, M. (2015). The Internationalization of research in Europe. Journal of studies in international education, 19(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315572898
Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 481-489. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21682
Leclerc, M. & Gagné, J. (1994). International scientific cooperation: the continentalization of science. Scientometrics, 31(3), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016876
López-Navarro, I., Moreno, A. I., Quintanilla, M. Á. & Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why do I publish research articles in English instead of my language? Differences in Spanish researchers’ motivations across scientific domains. Scientometrics, 103(3), 939–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1570-1
Merlino-Santesteban, C. (2013). Desempeño científico argentino en cinco áreas prioritarias de I+D. Una mirada a través del SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad - CTS, 8(22), 33–56. Recuperado de http://www.revistacts.net/volumen-8-numero-22/121-articulos/493-desempeno-cientifico-argentino-en-cinco-areas-prioritarias-de-id-una-mirada-a-traves-del-scimago-journal-a-country-rank
Miguel, S. E., González, C. M. & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2015). Lo local y lo global en la producción científica argentina con visibilidad en Scopus, 2008-2012. Dimensiones nacionales e internacionales de la investigación. Información, cultura y sociedad, 32, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.34096/ics.i32.1375
Molina, N. B., Grenóvero, M. S., Bertucci, E. & Basualdo, J. Á. (2015). Análisis bibliométrico de la literatura científica sobre epidemiología de Giardia en Argentina (1995-2014). Acta bioquímica clínica latinoamericana, 49(4), 425–432. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=53543485007
Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., González-Molina, A., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J. & Herrero-Solana, V. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 57-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4
Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Bornmann, L. & Moed, H. F. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97(2), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1046-0
Muñoz-Écija, T., Vargas-Quesada, B. & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2019). Coping with the delineation of emerging fields: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology as a case study. Journal of informetrics, 13(4), 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100976
Pereira, S., Higer, D. & Carmaran, C. (2018). Diversidad fúnguica en Argentina: análisis bibliométrico de los aportes realizados y su relación con el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica. Darwiniana, 6(2), 151–164. Recuperado de https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=IFME&sw=w&issn=00116793&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA581622794&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs
Phillips, J. P. (1955). The individual in chemical research. Science,121(3139), 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.121.3139.311-b
Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844
Rehn, C., Kronman, U. & Wadskog, D. (2014). Bibliometric indicators””Definitions and usage at Karolinska Institutet. Karolinska Institutet, 13, 2012.
Russell, J., Madera, M. & Ainsworth, S. (2009). El análisis de redes en el estudio de la colaboración científica. REDES: Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales, 17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.374
Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American psychologist, 13(10), 596–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040487
Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual review of information science and technology, 41, 643–681.
Tijssen, R. J., Mouton, J., Van Leeuwen, T. N. & Boshoff, N. (2006). How relevant are local scholarly journals in global science? A case study of South Africa. Research evaluation, 15(3), 163–174.
Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I. T., Jackson, B. A., Wong, A. & Yoda, T. (2001). Science & technology collaboration: building capacity in developing countries? (Product Page MR-1357.0-WB). RAND Corporation. Recuperado de https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1357z0.html
Wagner, C., Whetsell, T., Baas, J. & Jonkers, K. (2018). Openness and impact of leading scientific countries. Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 3, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00010