19 April 2019
19 April 2019
18 April 2019
In this study, we investigated how scientific collaboration represented by co-authorship is related to citation indicators of a scientist. We use co-authorship network to explore the structure of scientific collaboration. For network construction, the profiles of scientists from various countries and scientific fields in Google Scholar were used. We ran the count data regression model for a sample of more than 30 thousand authors with the first citation after 2007 to analyze the correlation between co-authorship network parameters of scientists and their citation characteristics. We identify that there is a positive correlation between citation of scientist and number of his co-authors, between citation and the author’s closeness centrality, and between scholar’s citation and the average citation of his co-authors. Also, we reveal that h-index and i10-index are correlated significantly with the number of co-authors and average citation of co-authors. Based on these results, we can conclude that scientists who maintain more contacts and more active than others have better bibliometric indicators on an average.
his article provides the comprehensive analysis of research landscape in BRICS countries in different aspects: level of their publication activity and contribution to the global process of knowledge generation; thematic structure of publications of BRICS countries, their scientific specialization; quality of articles measured by citation indicators; similarity of thematic structures of publications; international research collaboration profiles; and finally closeness and relative influence of each country in intra-BRICS collaborating pairs.
Special sections of the article are devoted to review of the literature, which discusses the main articles on various aspects of BRICS countries' publication activity and their international research collaboration and to description the database and set of various bibliometric indicators, used in our analysis. We use Scopus database and the timespan of our research covers 2001 – 2015 years that allows us to identify key points in development of research landscapes of BRICS countries. The empirical part of the article is structured as follows. First, we provide the overview of publication activity and thematic structure of BRICS countries. Second, we measure the closeness of thematic structure of publications vs. each other and vs. general research agenda in the world using different indices of structural difference. Third part is the analysis of research collaboration with clear visualization of its thematic structure, identification of potential areas of collaboration and detection the influential countries in intra-BRICS collaborating pairs. We use wide range of bibliometric indicators: citation indicators; indices of structural difference; indicators of scientific collaboration. We apply different approaches to visualise data in form of different illustrative graphs including colored tables to do our research easy-to-read-and understand.
The results of the study may be of interest to decision makers in determining the conscientious research story of the BRICS countries and priorities setting for multilateral scientific and technological cooperation, as well as for researchers dealing with relevant problems.
When scientists change jobs, they bring to their new workplace the experience, tacit knowledge and social ties they acquired at their previous workplace. Not only is the level of mobility important when discussing knowledge transfer between academic organizations or between regions, but the topology of a mobility network is also of crucial importance. This study presents a comparison of the structure of internal migration networks for Russian and American physicists, more specifically for scholars working in the field of applied physics. The comparison resulted in the set of hypotheses of how the features of the network are connected to the overall scientific productivity of the system.
This article presents a methodology for the selection of priorities for science and technology (S&T) cooperation among the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa based on an analysis of international and national strategic documents of BRICS countries and a bibliometric analysis of joint publications by researchers from BRICS countries indexed in the Scopus database. The national S&T priorities for countries are systemized and a comparative assessment of capacities for S&T development in BRICS countries is developed. Indicators of publication activity of all BRICS countries have significantly increased since 2000. Analysis shows that Russia must pay particular attention to the development of cooperation with China, which is already one of the leaders on the global S&T stage. Cooperation with India, Brazil and, in some research areas, with South Africa could also have a positive impact on the performance of research and development in Russia. A list of 14 thematic priorities for S&T cooperation for BRICS countries is presented in the paper based on the analysis of a set of national, bilateral and multilateral strategic and forward-looking documents. Priorities of S&T development create a basis for more efficient and mutually beneficial cooperation between BRICS countries and allows individual scientists to broaden the range of research, use new tools for S&T cooperation and share best practices.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.