Generational differences in international research collaboration: A bibliometric study of Norwegian University staff

This paper addresses the relationship between age and international research collaboration. The main research question is: do younger researchers collaborate more internationally than their senior colleagues? A common assumption is that younger generations are generally more internationally oriented than older generations. On the other hand, senior researchers may have larger international networks compared to younger colleagues. The study is based on data for 5,600 Norwegian researchers and their publication output during a three-year period (44,000 publications). Two indicators for international collaboration are used: The share of researchers involved in international collaboration measured by co-authorship and the average proportion of publications with international collaboration per researcher. These indicators reflect two different dimensions of international collaboration. Although the findings are not consistent across age cohorts and indicators of internationalization, the overall trend is that international collaboration tends to decline with increasing age. This holds both at aggregate levels and within groups of academic positions. However, the generational differences are not very large, and other variables such as the field of research explain more of the differences observed at an individual level.

1374International representation of authors, editors and research in neurology journals

Background Published research informs international healthcare, yet only a few studies have assessed the representation of authors, editors, and research from developing countries in biomedical journals. Methods We reviewed all research articles published in five high-ranking peer-reviewed neurology journals (The Lancet Neurology, Acta Neuropathologica, Nature Reviews Neurology, Brain and Annals of Neurology) in 2010 and 2019 to determine the extent of contributions of authors, editors and research from developing countries, and the degree of international research collaboration between developed and developing countries. Results First authorship was attributed to authors from developing countries in only 2% (11/729) of research articles in 2010 and 3% (19/647) of research articles in 2019. All 144 editorial board members in 2019 were from developed countries. International research collaboration between developing and developed countries accounted for only 4% (30/729) of all research articles in 2010 and 6% (40/647) of all research articles in 2019. Conclusions Representation of authors, editors and research from developing countries is rare in high-ranking peer-reviewed neurology journals, and this has not improved over the past decade. Supporting high quality and contextually appropriate biomedical research now is necessary for developing countries to meet the rising healthcare needs of their populations in the future. Key messages Published research should reflect the diversity of global health. There is an urgent need for strategies to support high quality and contextually appropriate biomedical research in developing countries.

Global infectious disease research collaborations in crises: building capacity and inclusivity through cooperation

Background The initial research requirements in pandemics are predictable. But how is it possible to study a disease that is so quickly spreading and to rapidly use that research to inform control and treatment? Main body In our view, a dilemma with such wide-reaching impact mandates multi-disciplinary collaborations on a global scale. International research collaboration is the only means to rapidly address these fundamental questions and potentially change the paradigm of data sharing for the benefit of patients throughout the world. International research collaboration presents significant benefits but also barriers that need to be surmounted, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion Facilitating international cooperation, by building capacity in established collaborative platforms and in low- and middle-income countries, is imperative to efficiently answering the priority clinical research questions that can change the trajectory of a pandemic.

International Collaboration in the Field of Educational Research: A Delphi Study

(International) research collaboration (IRC) is considered one of the most important aspects of academic careers and, although it is often linked to co-authorship, investigations of academic perceptions and practices are rare. Reflections on factors affecting IRC, as well as effective technology for use in IRC are also now particularly vital, due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The aim of this three-round Delphi study, conducted prior to the pandemic, was to explore why and how academics conduct IRC in the field of Education. The results indicate that the benefits of IRC are more relevant than the barriers, and that networking with and learning from others are two of the most important reasons for conducting IRC. Four stages of IRC were identified, alongside a range of influencing factors, which could inform future project management training. Suggestions for institutional IRC policy are provided, as well as considerations for early career researchers.

A Review of Global Collaboration on COVID-19 Research during the Pandemic in 2020

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, which has become a severe threat to the health and sustainability of human life, scholars have published numerous research results. Although the importance of international research collaboration has been highlighted as a means of overcoming this global crisis, research on this particular problem has been lacking. Therefore, this study focused on the response of academia to COVID-19 by examining the collaboration between international research, and its impact. This study extracted data from Scopus, sampling articles and reviews published in 2020. By analyzing scenarios by country and international research collaboration based on data on authors’ nationalities and the research areas of documents, this study revealed that the United States and China contributed the most. In all countries, most research was conducted on medicine. European and American countries demonstrated significant interest in the social sciences and Asian countries in the life sciences. Furthermore, some countries, including Belgium and Pakistan, extended their research interests through international research collaboration. The results of this study highlight the importance of international research collaboration across various areas by overcoming the regional imbalance in intercountry collaboration and the concentration on a limited scope of subjects.

Is academia becoming more localised? The growth of regional knowledge networks within international research collaboration

It is well-established that the process of learning and capability building is core to economic development and structural transformation. Since knowledge is ‘sticky’, a key component of this process is learning-by-doing, which can be achieved via a variety of mechanisms including international research collaboration. Uncovering significant inter-country research ties using Scopus co-authorship data, we show that within-region collaboration has increased over the past five decades relative to international collaboration. Further supporting this insight, we find that while communities present in the global collaboration network before 2000 were often based on historical geopolitical or colonial lines, in more recent years they increasingly align with a simple partition of countries by regions. These findings are unexpected in light of a presumed continual increase in globalisation, and have significant implications for the design of programmes aimed at promoting international research collaboration and knowledge diffusion.