IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v18y2024i1s1751157724000014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and bias of indicators of international collaboration: A theoretical analysis with an empirical study of Ukraine-Russia-United States and China-United States

Author

Listed:
  • Smolinsky, Lawrence
  • Yang, Seungwon

Abstract

We examine three indicators that give a relative measure of collaborations between countries and introduce a fourth indicator. Of the three established indicators, the Asymmetric Observed to Expected Ratio (AOER-indicator) and the symmetric Observed to Expected Ratio (OER-indicator) have received criticism for some specific theoretical situations. The AOER fails as both a meaningful statistic and an indicator. The OER is a meaningful statistic but fails as an indicator. The Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC-indicator) is relatively recent measure that is a meaningful standard statistic and passes Rousseau's criterion for an indicator. The new indicator is the Odds Ratio of Collaboration (ORC-indicator). It is a symmetric and meaningful standard statistic that passes Rousseau's criterion for an indicator. We give interpretations for all four indicators to give a systematic comparison that recommends the RIC and ORC. We then compare them in analyzing some specific dynamic developments over a 20-year period: The Ukraine-Russia-United States relationship and the China-United States relationship. We believe the analysis illustrates the value of the RIC, the inadequacies of the AOER, and is interesting analysis of its own accord.

Suggested Citation

  • Smolinsky, Lawrence & Yang, Seungwon, 2024. "Validity and bias of indicators of international collaboration: A theoretical analysis with an empirical study of Ukraine-Russia-United States and China-United States," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:1:s1751157724000014
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2024.101488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000014
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101488?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:1:s1751157724000014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.