Co-creating maps and atlasesRivals: How Scientists Learned to Cooperate Lorraine Daston Columbia Global Reports, 2023. 160 pp.

Cooperation was critical to the creation of two major scientific resources.

One-year in: COVID-19 research at the international level in CORD-19 data.

The appearance of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 radically changed the community of researchers working on coronaviruses since the 2002 SARS epidemic. In 2020, coronavirus-related publications grew by 20 times over the previous two years, with 130,000 more researchers publishing on related topics. The United States, the United Kingdom and China led dozens of nations working on coronavirus prior to the pandemic, but leadership consolidated among these three nations in 2020, which collectively accounted for 50% of all papers, garnering well more than 60% of citations. China took an early lead on COVID-19 research, but dropped rapidly in production and international participation through the year. Europe showed an opposite pattern, beginning slowly in publications but growing in contributions during the year. The share of internationally collaborative publications dropped from pre-pandemic rates; single-authored publications grew. For all nations, including China, the number of publications about COVID track closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases. Lower-income nations participate very little in COVID-19 research in 2020. Topic maps of internationally collaborative work show the rise of patient care and public health clusters-two topics that were largely absent from coronavirus research in the two years prior to 2020. Findings are consistent with global science as a self-organizing system operating on a reputation-based dynamic.

Topic evolution, disruption and resilience in early COVID-19 research.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to the global research community as scientists rushed to find solutions to the devastating crisis. Drawing expectations from resilience theory, this paper explores how the trajectory of and research community around the coronavirus research was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Characterizing epistemic clusters and pathways of knowledge through extracting terms featured in articles in early COVID-19 research, combined with evolutionary pathways and statistical analysis, the results reveal that the pandemic disrupted existing lines of coronavirus research to a large degree. While some communities of coronavirus research are similar pre- and during COVID-19, topics themselves change significantly and there is less cohesion amongst early COVID-19 research compared to that before the pandemic. We find that some lines of research revert to basic research pursued almost a decade earlier, whilst others pursue brand new trajectories. The epidemiology topic is the most resilient among the many subjects related to COVID-19 research. Chinese researchers in particular appear to be driving more novel research approaches in the early months of the pandemic. The findings raise questions about whether shifts are advantageous for global scientific progress, and whether the research community will return to the original equilibrium or reorganize into a different knowledge configuration.

Consolidation in a crisis: Patterns of international collaboration in early COVID-19 research.

This paper seeks to understand whether a catastrophic and urgent event, such as the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerates or reverses trends in international collaboration, especially in and between China and the United States. A review of research articles produced in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that COVID-19 research had smaller teams and involved fewer nations than pre-COVID-19 coronavirus research. The United States and China were, and continue to be in the pandemic era, at the center of the global network in coronavirus related research, while developing countries are relatively absent from early research activities in the COVID-19 period. Not only are China and the United States at the center of the global network of coronavirus research, but they strengthen their bilateral research relationship during COVID-19, producing more than 4.9% of all global articles together, in contrast to 3.6% before the pandemic. In addition, in the COVID-19 period, joined by the United Kingdom, China and the United States continued their roles as the largest contributors to, and home to the main funders of, coronavirus related research. These findings suggest that the global COVID-19 pandemic shifted the geographic loci of coronavirus research, as well as the structure of scientific teams, narrowing team membership and favoring elite structures. These findings raise further questions over the decisions that scientists face in the formation of teams to maximize a speed, skill trade-off. Policy implications are discussed.

The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact.

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity-A tribute to Eugene Garfield.

Journals were central to Eugene Garfield's research interests. Among other things, journals are considered as units of analysis for bibliographic databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus. In addition to providing a basis for disciplinary classifications of journals, journal citation patterns span networks across boundaries to variable extents. Using betweenness centrality (BC) and diversity, we elaborate on the question of how to distinguish and rank journals in terms of interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to operationalize in the absence of an operational definition of disciplines; the diversity of a unit of analysis is sample-dependent. BC can be considered as a measure of multi-disciplinarity. Diversity of co-citation in a citing document has been considered as an indicator of knowledge integration, but an author can also generate trans-disciplinary-that is, non-disciplined-variation by citing sources from other disciplines. Diversity in the bibliographic coupling among citing documents can analogously be considered as diffusion  or differentiation of knowledge across disciplines. Because the citation networks in the cited direction reflect both structure and variation, diversity in this direction is perhaps the best available measure of interdisciplinarity at the journal level. Furthermore, diversity is based on a summation and can therefore be decomposed; differences among (sub)sets can be tested for statistical significance. In the appendix, a general-purpose routine for measuring diversity in networks is provided.

Generating clustered journal maps: an automated system for hierarchical classification.

Journal maps and classifications for 11,359 journals listed in the combined Journal Citation Reports 2015 of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes are provided at https://leydesdorff.github.io/journals/ and http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15. A routine using VOSviewer for integrating the journal mapping and their hierarchical clusterings is also made available. In this short communication, we provide background on the journal mapping/clustering and an explanation about and instructions for the routine. We compare journal maps for 2015 with those for 2014 and show the delineations among fields and subfields to be sensitive to fluctuations. Labels for fields and sub-fields are not provided by the routine, but an analyst can add them for pragmatic or intellectual reasons. The routine provides a means of testing one's assumptions against a baseline without claiming authority; clusters of related journals can be visualized to understand communities. The routine is generic and can be used for any 1-mode network.

Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine.

Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine who received the Prize between 1969 and 2011 are compared to a matched group of scientists to examine productivity, impact, coauthorship and international collaboration patterns embedded within research networks. After matching for research domain, h-index, and year of first of publication, we compare bibliometric statistics and network measures. We find that the Laureates produce fewer papers but with higher average citations. The Laureates also produce more sole-authored papers both before and after winning the Prize. The Laureates have a lower number of coauthors across their entire careers than the matched group, but are equally collaborative on average. Further, we find no differences in international collaboration patterns. The Laureates coauthor network reveals significant differences from the non-Laureate network. Laureates are more likely to build bridges across a network when measuring by average degree, density, modularity, and communities. Both the Laureate and non-Laureate networks have "small world" properties, but the Laureates appear to exploit "structural holes" by reaching across the network in a brokerage style that may add social capital to the network. The dynamic may be making the network itself highly attractive and selective. These findings suggest new insights into the role "star scientists" in social networks and the production of scientific discoveries.

The Continuing Growth of Global Cooperation Networks in Research: A Conundrum for National Governments.

Global collaboration continues to grow as a share of all scientific cooperation, measured as coauthorships of peer-reviewed, published papers. The percent of all scientific papers that are internationally coauthored has more than doubled in 20 years, and they account for all the growth in output among the scientifically advanced countries. Emerging countries, particularly China, have increased their participation in global science, in part by doubling their spending on R&D; they are increasingly likely to appear as partners on internationally coauthored scientific papers. Given the growth of connections at the international level, it is helpful to examine the phenomenon as a communications network and to consider the network as a new organization on the world stage that adds to and complements national systems. When examined as interconnections across the globe over two decades, a global network has grown denser but not more clustered, meaning there are many more connections but they are not grouping into exclusive 'cliques'. This suggests that power relationships are not reproducing those of the political system. The network has features an open system, attracting productive scientists to participate in international projects. National governments could gain efficiencies and influence by developing policies and strategies designed to maximize network benefits-a model different from those designed for national systems.

Linking Effectively: Learning Lessons from Successful Collaboration in Science and Technology

This report has three goals in studying the efficiency and effectiveness of government- sponsored collaboration: (1) to improve understanding of international collaboration dynamics, (2) to provide tools for policymakers seeking to improve the effectiveness and eficiency of collaboration, and (3) to coordinate with analysts conducting similar studies in different countries.