Networks of international co-authorship in journal articles about Antarctic research, 1998–2015

  • Duckhee Jang Ocean Policy Institute, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Busan, South Korea
  • Soogwan Doh Department of Public Administration, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, South Korea
  • Yongjin Choi Department of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
Keywords: Antarctica, polar, research cooperation, bibliometrics, social network analysis, Web of Science (WoS)

Abstract

This study seeks insight into the social structure of Antarctic research from 1998 to 2015 by examining peer-reviewed journal articles listed in the Science Citation Index of the Web of Science database. This study identifies leading countries in peer-reviewed journal article output and applies social network analysis methods to identify countries where authors are collaborating with those affiliated with organizations in different countries. The results show that the number of publications on Antarctica and the proportion of international research collaboration increased from 23.0 to 33.2% during the period of time being considered. The number of articles published by authors affiliated with institutions in emerging countries such as China, Turkey, Brazil and South Korea rose, whereas the proportion of articles published by authors affiliated with institutions in the United States decreased. The largest proportion of academic publications pertaining to Antarctic research was within the natural sciences. Within this broad field, the majority of publications fell within Earth and related environmental sciences and the biological sciences. Social network analysis shows that Antarctic research moved towards a network, in which researchers are internationally more connected than ever before, with countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Australia in central positions. Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands did not account for a high percentage of academic contributions but were still notable for their multinational collaborative research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References


Abbasi A., Hossain L. & Leydesdorff L. 2012. Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 6, 403–412, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002.


Aksnes D. & Hessen D. 2009. The structure and development of polar research (1981–2007): a publication-based approach. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 41, 155–163, doi: 10.1657/1938-4246-41.2.155.


Barabási A.L., Jeong H., Néda Z., Ravasz E., Schubert A. & Vicsek T. 2002. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 311, 590–614, doi: 10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7


Boardman P.C. 2009. Government centrality to university-industry interactions: university research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy 38, 1505–1516, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.008.


Borrett S.R., Moody J. & Edelmann A. 2014. The rise of network ecology: maps of the topic diversity and scientific collaboration. Ecological Modelling 293, 111–127, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.02.019.


Boyd P.W., Watson A.J., Law C.S., Abraham E.R., Trull T., Murdoch R., Bakker D.C.E., Bowie A.R., Buesseler K.O., Chang H., Charette M., Croot P., Downing K., Frew R., Gall M., Hadfield M., Hall J., Harvey M., Jameson G., LaRoche J., Liddicoat M., Ling R., Maldonado M.T., McKay R.M., Nodder S., Pickmere S., Pridmore R., Rintoul S., Safi K., Sutton P., Strzepek R., Tanneberger K., Turner S., Waite A. & Zeldis J. 2000. A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern Ocean stimulated by iron fertilization. Nature 407, 695–702, doi: 10.1038/35037500.


Bray D. 2016. The geopolitics of Antarctic governance: sovereignty and strategic denial in Australia’s Antarctic policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs 70, 256–274, doi: 10.1080/10357718.2015.1135871.


Chown S.L., Hughes J.E.L., Barnes J., Barrett P.J.J., Bergstrom D.M.M., Convey P., Cowan D.A., Crosbie K., Dyer G., Frenot Y., Grant S.M., Herr D., Kennicutt M.C. II, Lamers M., Murray A., Possingham H.P., Reid K., Riddle M.J., Ryan P.G., Sanson L., Shaw J.D., Sparrow M.D., Summerhayes C., Terauds A. & Wall D.H. 2012. Challenges to the future conservation of the Antarctic. Science 337, 158–159, doi: 10.1017/S0032247411000763.


Dastidar P.G. & Ramachandran S. 2008. Intellectual structure of Antarctic science: a 25-years analysis. Scientometrics 77, 389–414, doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1947-x.


Elzinga A. 2009. Through the lens of the Polar Years: changing characteristics of polar research in historical perspective. Polar Record 45, 313–336, doi: 10.1017/S0032247409008316.


Erb K.A. 2011. International collaboration in the Antarctic for global science. In P.A. Berkman et al. (eds.): Science diplomacy: Antarctica, science, and the governance of international spaces. Pp. 265–270. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.


Fogg G.E. 1992. A history of Antarctic science. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Freeman L.C. 1978. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks 179, 215–239, doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7


Geissler P.W. & Kelly A.H. 2016. A home for science: the life and times of tropical and polar field stations. Social Studies of Science 46, 797–808, doi: 10.1177/0306312716680767.


Grossman B.J.W. & Erdo P. 2002. Patterns of collaboration in mathematical research. SIAM News 35, 14–16, doi: 10.1142/S0219030302000034


Hanessian J. 1960. The Antarctic Treaty 1959. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 9, 436–480, doi: 10.1093/iclqaj/9.3.436.


Heggie V. 2016. Higher and colder: the success and failure of boundaries in high altitude and Antarctic research stations. Social Studies of Science 46, 809–832, doi: 10.1177/0306312716636249.


Henriksen D. 2015. The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). In A.A. Salah et al. (eds.): Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference. Pp. 209–220. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.


Jang D., Choi Y.J. & Kim J.Y. 2016. Research trend analysis on international research collaboration in regard to Antarctic studies. Ocean and Polar Research 38, 209–224, doi: 10.4217/OPR.2016.38.3.209.


Katz J.S. 1994. Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 31, 31–43, doi: 10.1007/BF02018100.


Leydesdorff L. 2007. Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinary of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 1303–1319, doi: 10.1002/asi.20614.


Lüdecke C. 2003. Scientific collaboration in Antarctica (1901–04): a challenge in times of political rivalry. Polar Record 39, 35–48, doi: 10.1017/s0032247402002735.


Macfarlane B., Devine E., Drake T., Gilbert A., Robinson M. & White I. 2017. Co-authorship in the humanities and social sciences: a global view. A White Paper from Taylor & Francis. Accessed on the internet at https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/coauthorship-in-humanities-and-the-social-sciences(81d6f2a6-d51a-47e7-8356-a35e167ecc2c).html on 24 September 2020.


NESTI Working Party (Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators) 2007. Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Accessed on the internet at https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf on 24 September 2020.


Newman M.E.J. 2001. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 404–409, doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.2.404.


O’Reilly J., Oreskes N. & Oppenheimer M. 2012. The rapid disintegration of projections: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Social Studies of Science 42, 709–731, doi: 10.1177/0306312712448130


Otte E. & Rousseau R. 2002. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science 28, 441–453, doi: 10.1177/016555150202800601.


Petrică N. 2017. Antarctica—the game of great powers’ geopolitical strategies. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Series V. Economic Sciences 10, 215–228.


SCAR 2010. SCAR Strategic Plan 2011–2016: Antarctic science and policy advice in a changing world. Cambridge, UK: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.


Summerhayes C.P. 2008. International collaboration in Antarctica: the International Polar Years, the International Geophysical Year, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Polar Record 44, 321–334, doi: 10.1017/S0032247408007468.


Waltman L. & van Eck N.J. 2015. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics 9, 872–894, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001.


Wasserman S. & Faust K. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Watts D.J. & Strogatz S.H. 1998. Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature 393, 440–442, doi: 10.1038/30918.


Wellman B. 1983. Network analysis: some basic principles. Sociological Theory 1, 155, doi: 10.2307/202050.
Published
2020-11-14
How to Cite
Jang, D., Doh, S., & Choi, Y. (2020). Networks of international co-authorship in journal articles about Antarctic research, 1998–2015. Polar Research, 39. https://doi.org/10.33265/polar.v39.3647
Section
Research Articles