IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v125y2020i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03582-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyu Cai

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Tao Han

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

International cooperation has always been a popular subject in academic research. Recently, with the rise of “Author Contributions,” quantitative research using the authors' division of labor in scientific research has provided a new perspective for the measure of international cooperation. In this article, international collaboration is analyzed in a more fine-grained way, namely by considering the importance of contributions of different authors at the national level. Semantic structures of the division of labor are extracted via text mining from the author contribution sections of life sciences publications in the Nature Index’s 68 journals, are categorized with two predefined rule libraries into corresponding division categories. Then, quantitative analysis of the Chinese division of labor is conducted from the perspectives of both quantity and structure and at both the national and international levels. From the perspective of quantity, at both the national and international levels, Chinese contributions in any category of the division of labor have been increasing in the past 10 years, not only in proportion, but also in as ranked among other countries, especially in the category of experiment operation. From the structural perspective, China’s contributions have become more structurally balanced in the past decade. In 2017, China's structure of the division of labor was between those of BRICS countries and G7 countries. From the co-authorship perspective, the significant differences between China and other countries are reflected in both sample and data collection and tools and technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyu Cai & Tao Han, 2020. "Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1077-1094, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03582-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03582-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03582-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03582-7?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 606-617.
    2. Csaba Kozma & Clara Calero-Medina, 2019. "The role of South African researchers in intercontinental collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1293-1321, December.
    3. Sergey Shashnov & Maxim Kotsemir, 2018. "Research landscape of the BRICS countries: current trends in research output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1115-1155, November.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "On the normalization and visualization of author co‐citation data: Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(1), pages 77-85, January.
    5. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & U. Schoepflin & H. J. Czerwon, 1999. "An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in journals covered by the SSCI database using reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 431-441, November.
    6. Siluo Yang & Dietmar Wolfram & Feifei Wang, 2017. "The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1273-1296, March.
    7. A. Basu & P. Foland & G. Holdridge & R. D. Shelton, 2018. "China’s rising leadership in science and technology: quantitative and qualitative indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 249-269, October.
    8. Corrêa Jr., Edilson A. & Silva, Filipi N. & da F. Costa, Luciano & Amancio, Diego R., 2017. "Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 498-510.
    9. Graf, Holger & Kalthaus, Martin, 2018. "International research networks: Determinants of country embeddedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1198-1214.
    10. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & H. -J. Czerwon, 1999. "An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 427-439, March.
    11. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    12. Zhihui Zhang & Jason E. Rollins & Evangelia Lipitakis, 2018. "China’s emerging centrality in the contemporary international scientific collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1075-1091, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    2. Antonio J. Gómez-Núñez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2011. "Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 741-758, December.
    3. Staša Milojević, 2020. "Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1301-1315, June.
    4. Christoph Neuhaus & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 219-229, February.
    5. Sjögårde, Peter & Ahlgren, Per, 2018. "Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 133-152.
    6. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    7. Marginson, Simon, 2021. "National modernisation and global science in China," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Dorothea Jansen & Regina Görtz & Richard Heidler, 2010. "Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 219-241, April.
    9. Martin Grančay & Tomáš Dudáš & Ladislav Mura, 2022. "Revealed comparative advantages in academic publishing of “old” and “new” European Union Member States 1998–2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1247-1271, March.
    10. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    11. Edson Melo Souza & Jose Eduardo Storopoli & Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves, 2022. "Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2249-2276, May.
    12. Chao Lu & Yingyi Zhang & Yong‐Yeol Ahn & Ying Ding & Chenwei Zhang & Dandan Ma, 2020. "Co‐contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1162-1178, October.
    13. Zhou-min Yuan & Mingxin Yao, 2022. "Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6191-6207, November.
    14. Júlio Cesar Rodrigues Pereira & André Luiz Fischer & Maria Mercedes Loureiro Escuder, 2000. "Driving Factors of High Performance in Brazilian Management Sciences for the 1981–1995 Period," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(2), pages 307-319, October.
    15. Wei Du & Raymond Yiu Keung Lau & Jian Ma & Wei Xu, 2015. "A multi-faceted method for science classification schemes (SCSs) mapping in networking scientific resources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2035-2056, December.
    16. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Dietmar Wolfram, 2018. "Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1017-1037, May.
    17. Bluma C. Peritz & Judit Bar-Ilan, 2002. "The sources used by bibliometrics-scientometrics as reflected in references," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 269-284, June.
    18. Diana Hicks, 2005. "The Four Literatures Of Social Sciences," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-20.
    19. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    20. Xiaojie Fan & Hong Liu & Yang Wang & Yawen Wan & Duanhong Zhang, 2022. "Models of Internationalization of Higher Education in Developing Countries—A Perspective of International Research Collaboration in BRICS Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.

    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:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03582-7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.