Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 2003–2040 | Cite as

An investigation of impact of research collaboration on academic performance in Italy

  • Luigi Aldieri
  • Gennaro Guida
  • Maxim KotsemirEmail author
  • Concetto Paolo Vinci


The aim of this paper is to investigate theoretically and empirically the impact of research collaborations on the scientific performance of Italian academic institutions. Data are derived from the international Scopus and Web of Science databases. We consider both quantity (the number of publications made in collaboration) and quality indicators from different databases (using indexes such as IF5Y (5-year impact factor of the journal, Web of Science), SJR (SCImago Journal Rank—key integral indicator of the quality of journals, Scopus), IPP (Impact per Publication, Scopus), AIS (Article Influence Scores, Web of Science), H-index (Google Scholar Hirsch-index metric) to evaluate the Italian case of scientific research. To this end, we develop a theoretical and empirical model to consider endogeneity of explanatory variables, the generalized method of moment estimation. The results suggest that international collaborations have a higher impact on the research quality index in Italy.


Academic institutions Research externalities Research performance Research collaboration University research Italian universities Italian regions 

JEL Classification

I21 D2 



The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., Solazzi, M.: Assessing public–private research collaboration: is it possible to compare university performance? Scientometrics 84(1), 173–197 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Di Costa, F.: University–industry research collaboration: a model to assess university capability. High. Educ. 62(2), 163–181 (2011a)Google Scholar
  3. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Di Costa, F., Solazzi, M.: The role of information asymmetry in the market for university–industry research collaboration. J. Technol. Transf. 36(1), 84–100 (2011b)Google Scholar
  4. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Solazzi, M.: A bibliometric tool to assess the regional dimension of university–industry research collaborations. Scientometrics 91(3), 955–975 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Rosati, F.: The north–south divide in the Italian higher education system. Scientometrics 109, 2093–2117 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. Acemoglu, D.A.: Microfoundation for social increasing returns in human capital accumulation. Q. J. Econ. 111(3), 779–804 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., León, M.D.: Factors affecting inter-regional academic scientific collaboration within Europe: the role of economic distance. Scientometrics 87(1), 63–74 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Ajiferuke, I.: Inter-university collaboration in Canada. Can. J. Inf. Libr. Sci. 29(4), 407–418 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Aldieri, L., Vinci, C.P.: R&D spillovers and productivity in Italian manufacturing firms. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 21(04). Paper no. 1750035 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. Aldieri, L., Kotsemir, M.N., Vinci, C.P.: The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: an empirical analysis for Russian universities / university library of Munich. Series “Munich Personal RePEc Archive”. No. 79408 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. Aldieri, L., Kotsemir, M., Vinci, C.P.: The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: an empirical analysis for some European countries. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 62, 13–30 (2018a)Google Scholar
  12. Aldieri, L., Kotsemir, M.N., Vinci, C.P.: The effects of collaboration on research performance of universities: an analysis by federal district and Scientific Fields in Russia. J. Knowl. Econ. (2018b). Google Scholar
  13. Alesina, A., Angeletos, G.M.: Corruption, inequality, and fairness. J. Monet. Econ. 52(7), 1227–1244 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. Ancaiani, A., Anfossi, A.F., Barbara, A., Benedetto, S., Blasi, B., Carletti, V., Costantini, M.: Evaluating scientific research in Italy: the 2004–10 research evaluation exercise. Res. Eval. 24, 242–255 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. Anderson, T.W.: Asymptotic theory for principal component analysis. Ann. Math. Stat. 34(1), 122–148 (1963)Google Scholar
  16. ANVUR: Rapporto Finale Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca 2004-2010. Luglio, Roma (2013)Google Scholar
  17. Arawatari, R.: Informatization, voter turnout and income inequality. J. Econ. Inequal. 7(1), 29–54 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(7), 1320–1326 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. Autant-Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., Massard, N.: Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Pap. Reg. Sci. 86(3), 495–519 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Balconi, M., Laboranti, A.: University–industry interactions in applied research: the case of microelectronics. Res. Policy 35(10), 1616–1630 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. Balconi, M., Lorenzi, V., Saviotti, P., Zucchella, A.: Cognitive and geographic distance in research collaborations: The case of Italian biotechnology firms, 2011. Paper presented at the 9th Triple Helix International Conference, Stanford University, 11–14 July 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. Balland, P.A., Suire, R., Vicente, J.: Structural and geographical patterns of knowledge networks in emerging technological standards: evidence from the European GNSS industry. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 22(1), 47–72 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. Banal-Estanol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., Meissner, C.: The impact of industry collaboration on research: evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Working paper of City University London (2010). Access date 02 Aug. 2018
  24. Bao, H.: Multi-period risk sharing under financial fairness. Ph.D. thesis, CentER, Center for Economic Research, Tilburg (2016)Google Scholar
  25. Bassecoulard, E., Okubo, Y., Zitt, M.: Insights in determinants of international scientific cooperation. In: Proceedings of the Second Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Collaboration in Science and in Technology, pp. 13–28 (2000)Google Scholar
  26. Beaudry, C., Allaoui, S. (2011 ): Impact of research funding on nanobiotechnology scientific production: Does concentration in a few universities make sense? In: 2011 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, pp. 1–28. IEEE (2011, September)Google Scholar
  27. Bergé, L.R.: Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration. Pap. Reg. Sci. 96(4), 785–815 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. Bernela, B., Levy, R.: Collaboration networks within a French cluster: do partners really interact with each other? Pap. Reg. Sci. 96(1), 115–138 (2017)Google Scholar
  29. Bertocchi, G.: The Vanishing Bequest Tax: The Comparative Evolution of Bequest Taxation in Historical Perspective. IZA discussion papers, paper No. 2578 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. Bird, C., Devanbu, P., Barr, E., Filkov, V., Nash, A., Su, Z.: Structure and dynamics of research collaboration in computer science. In: Proceedings of the 2009 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 826–837. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2009, April)Google Scholar
  31. Boschma, R.: Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg. Stud. 39(1), 61–74 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Bouba-Olga, O., Ferru, M., Pépin, D.: Exploring spatial features of science-industry partnerships: a study on French data. Pap. Reg. Sci. 91(2), 355–375 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. Bovenberg, L., Mehlkopf, R.: Optimal design of funded pension schemes. Ann. Rev. Econ. 6(1), 445–474 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. Broekel, T., Boschma, R.: Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox. J. Econ. Geogr. 12(2), 409–433 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. Broekel, T., Hartog, M.: Determinants of cross-regional R&D collaboration networks: an application of exponential random graph models. In: The Geography of Networks and R&D Collaborations, pp. 49–70. Springer, Cham (2013)Google Scholar
  36. Bruno, B.: Economics of co-authorship. Econ. Anal. Policy 44(2), 212–220 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. Calignano, G.: Italian organisations within the European nanotechnology network: presence, dynamics and effects. DIE ERDE J. Geogr. Soc. Berlin 145(4), 241–259 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. Carboni, O.A.: Spatial and industry proximity in collaborative research: evidence from Italian manufacturing firms. J. Technol. Transf. 38(6), 896–910 (2013)Google Scholar
  39. Chakravarty, R., Madaan, D.: SCOPUS reflected study of selected research and higher education institutions (HEIs) of Chandigarh: a city of education and research. Library Hi Tech News 33(2), 12–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  40. Chang, H.W., Huang, M.H.: The effects of research resources on international collaboration in the astronomy community. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(10), 2489–2510 (2016)Google Scholar
  41. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Benavent-Pérez, M., de Moya-Anegón, F., Miguel, S.: International collaboration in Medical Research in Latin America and the Caribbean (2003–2007). J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 63(11), 2223–2238 (2012)Google Scholar
  42. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Bu, Y., Robinson-García, N., Costas, R., & Sugimoto, C. R.: Revealing existing and potential partnerships: Affinities and asymmetries in international collaboration and mobility. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, pp. 869–880 (2017)Google Scholar
  43. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Bu, Y., Robinson-García, N., Costas, R., Sugimoto, C.R.: Travel bans and scientific mobility: utility of asymmetry and affinity indexes to inform science policy. Scientometrics 116(1), 569–590 (2018a)Google Scholar
  44. Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Larivière, V., Costas, R., Robinson-García, N., Sugimoto, C.: Building ties across countries: international collaboration, field specialization, and global leadership. In: 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), September 12–14, 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) (2018b, September)Google Scholar
  45. Chuang, K.Y., Ho, Y.S.: An evaluation based on highly cited publications in Taiwan. Curr. Sci. 108(5), 933–941 (2015)Google Scholar
  46. Chung, K.H., Cox, R.A., Kim, K.A.: On the relation between intellectual collaboration and intellectual output: evidence from the finance academe. Q. Rev. Econ. Finance 49(3), 893–916 (2009)Google Scholar
  47. Colledge, L., Verlinde, R.: SciVal metrics guidebook. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2014)Google Scholar
  48. Crescenzi, R., Filippetti, A., Iammarino, S.: Academic inventors: collaboration and proximity with industry. J. Technol. Transf. 42(4), 730–762 (2017)Google Scholar
  49. Cunningham, S.W., Werker, C.: Proximity and collaboration in European nanotechnology. Pap. Reg. Sci. 91(4), 723–742 (2012)Google Scholar
  50. D’Este, P., Guy, F., Iammarino, S.: Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? J. Econ. Geogr. 13(4), 537–558 (2012)Google Scholar
  51. Dasgupta, P.S.: On the concept of optimum population. Rev. Econ. Stud. 36(3), 295–318 (1969)Google Scholar
  52. Di Cagno, D., Fabrizi, A., Meliciani, V.: The impact of participation in European joint research projects on knowledge creation and economic growth. J. Technol. Transf. 39(6), 836–858 (2014)Google Scholar
  53. Dong, B., Torgler, B.: Democracy, property rights, income equality, and corruption. Nota di lavoro Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Global challenges, No. 08.2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  54. Elhorst, J.P., Zigova, K.: Competition in research activity among economic departments: evidence by negative spatial autocorrelation. Geogr. Anal. 46(2), 104–125 (2014)Google Scholar
  55. Evans, T.S., Lambiotte, R., Panzarasa, P.: Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in business and management. Scientometrics 89(1), 381–396 (2011)Google Scholar
  56. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., Pappas, G.: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 22(2), 338–342 (2008)Google Scholar
  57. Fantino, D., Mori, A., Scalise, D.: Collaboration between firms and universities in Italy: the role of a firm’s proximity to top-rated departments. Italian Econ. J. 1(2), 219–251 (2015)Google Scholar
  58. Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., León, M.D.: Proximity dimensions and scientific collaboration among academic institutions in Europe: the closer, the better? Scientometrics 106(3), 1073–1092 (2016)Google Scholar
  59. Fleming, L., King III, C., Juda, A.I.: Small worlds and regional innovation. Organ. Sci. 18(6), 938–954 (2007)Google Scholar
  60. Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., Kok, S., Ponds, R., van Oort, F., van Vliet, J.: Death of distance in science? A gravity approach to research collaboration. In: Pyka, A., Scharnhorst, A. (eds.) Innovation Networks. Understanding Complex Systems, pp. 43–57. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  61. Fritsch, M., Schwirten, C.: Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Ind. Innov. 6(1), 69–83 (1999)Google Scholar
  62. Fu, J.Y., Zhang, X., Zhao, Y.H., Tong, H.F., Chen, D.Z., Huang, M.H.: Scientific production and citation impact: a bibliometric analysis in acupuncture over three decades. Scientometrics 93(3), 1061–1079 (2012)Google Scholar
  63. Garcia, A., López-López, W., Acevedo-Triana, C.A., Bucher-Maluschke, J.S.N.F.: Cooperation in the Latin American behavioral sciences: motivation, evaluation and difficulties. Suma Psicológica 23(2), 125–132 (2016)Google Scholar
  64. Garcia, R., Araújo, V., Mascarini, S., Santos, E.G.D., Costa, A.R.: An analysis of the relation between geographical and cognitive proximity in university–industry linkages. In: Anais do XLIV Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 44th Brazilian Economics Meeting] (No. 132) (2018)Google Scholar
  65. Gausia, K., Thompson, S.C., Lindeman, M.A., Brown, L.J., Perkins, D.: Contribution of university departments of rural health to rural health research: an analysis of outputs. Aust. J. Rural Health 23(2), 101–106 (2015)Google Scholar
  66. Gigliotti, G.A.: Total utility, overlapping generations and optimal population. Rev. Econ. Stud. 50(1), 71–86 (1983)Google Scholar
  67. Giunta, A., Pericoli, F.M., Pierucci, E.: University–Industry Collaboration in Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Italian Case. Paper presented at 55th Italian Economic Association Conference, Trento, Italy, 23–25 October 2014 (2014, May)Google Scholar
  68. Giunta, A., Pericoli, F.M., Pierucci, E.: University–industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case. J. Technol. Transf. 41(4), 818–840 (2016)Google Scholar
  69. Granovetter, M.: Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91(3), 481–510 (1985)Google Scholar
  70. Graue, M., Iversen, M.M., Sigurdardottir, Á.K., Zoffmann, V., Smide, B., Leksell, J.: Diabetes research reported by nurses in Nordic countries. Eur. Diabetes Nurs. 10(2), 46–51 (2013)Google Scholar
  71. Guida, G.: Italian economics departments’ scientific research performance: comparison between VQR and ASN methodologies. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 13(9), 182–188 (2018)Google Scholar
  72. Haagsma, R., Koning, N.: Endogenous norms and preferences and the farm income problem. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 32(1), 25–49 (2005)Google Scholar
  73. Hardeman, S., Frenken, K., Nomaler, Ö., Ter Wal, A.: A proximity approach to territorial science systems. In: EUROLIO Conference on ‘Geography of Innovation’, Saint-Etienne, France, pp. 24–26 (2012, January)Google Scholar
  74. Hautala, J.: Cognitive proximity in international research groups. J. Knowl. Manag. 15(4), 601–624 (2011)Google Scholar
  75. Havemann, F., Heinz, M., Kretschmer, H.: Collaboration and distances between German immunological institutes—a trend analysis. J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 1(1), 6 (2006)Google Scholar
  76. Hazir, C.S., Autant-Bernard, C.: Determinants of cross-regional R&D collaboration: some empirical evidence from Europe in biotechnology. Ann. Reg. Sci. 53(2), 369–393 (2014)Google Scholar
  77. Heringa, P.W., Hessels, L.K., van der Zouwen, M.: The influence of proximity dimensions on international research collaboration: an analysis of European water projects. Ind. Innov. 23(8), 753–772 (2016)Google Scholar
  78. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., Van Oort, F.: The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Ann. Reg. Sci. 43(3), 721–738 (2009)Google Scholar
  79. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., Tijssen, R.J.: Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Res. Policy 39(5), 662–673 (2010)Google Scholar
  80. Hofstede, G.: Culture’s consequences: software of the mind. McGraw Hill, London (1991)Google Scholar
  81. Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H.: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. an independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 15(4), 417–433 (1984)Google Scholar
  82. Hong, W., Su, Y.S.: The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university–industry collaborations: an analysis based on Chinese patent data. Res. Policy 42(2), 454–464 (2013)Google Scholar
  83. Isiordia-Lachica, P., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Angulo, G., Chávez, K., Barboza-Flores, M.: Measurement of scientific research performance at the Universidad De Sonora, México. In: 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), pp. 204–210. IEEE (2015, August)Google Scholar
  84. Katz, J.S.: Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 31(1), 31–43 (1994)Google Scholar
  85. Khor, K.A., Yu, L.G.: Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics 107(3), 1095–1110 (2016)Google Scholar
  86. Khosrowjerdi, M., Bayat, M.K., Eslami, A., Hajipoor, M., Zeraatkar, N.: Proximity rule and Matthew effect in co-authorships of Iranian medical universities. Webology 8(2), 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  87. Khosrowjerdi, M., Zeraatkar, N., Hajipour, M.: Proximity and Matthew effect in co-authorship pattern of Iranian top universities. Malays. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 17(2), 71–82 (2012)Google Scholar
  88. Kodama, H., Watatani, K., Sengoku, S.: Competency-based assessment of academic interdisciplinary research and implication to university management. Res. Eval. 22(2), 93–104 (2012)Google Scholar
  89. Kotsemir, M., Shashnov, S.: Measuring, analysis and visualization of research capacity of university at the level of departments and staff members. Scientometrics 112(3), 1659–1689 (2017)Google Scholar
  90. Kotsemir, M., Kuznetsova, T., Nasybulina, E., Pikalova, A.: Identifying Directions for Russia’s science and technology cooperation. Foresight STI Gov. 9(4), 54–72 (2015)Google Scholar
  91. Kryger, E.M.: Fairness versus efficiency of pension schemes. Eur. Actuar. J. 1(1), 85–100 (2011)Google Scholar
  92. Kuld, L.: A local idea space: the value of personal and thematic proximity in academic research. Working paper no. tep0617. Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics (2017)Google Scholar
  93. Kumar, S., Jan, J.M.: Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics 97(3), 491–517 (2013)Google Scholar
  94. Lander, B.: Proximity at a distance: the role of institutional and geographical proximities in Vancouver’s infection and immunity research collaborations. Ind. Innov. 22(7), 575–596 (2015)Google Scholar
  95. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174 (1977)Google Scholar
  96. Landry, R., Traore, N., Godin, B.: An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. High. Educ. 32(3), 283–301 (1996)Google Scholar
  97. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Archambault, E.: Comparative analysis of networks of collaboration of Canadian researchers in the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics 68(3), 519–533 (2006)Google Scholar
  98. Lee, C., Yoon, T.-J., Sohn, S.: Reception of South Korean satellite television: In Depth Interview with Korean-Chinese in Yanbian. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 15–19 July 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  99. Liang, L., Zhu, L.: Major factors affecting China’s inter-regional research collaboration: regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity. Scientometrics 55(2), 287–316 (2002)Google Scholar
  100. Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., Tanzi, G.M.: Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. J. Technol. Transf. 41(4), 694–729 (2016)Google Scholar
  101. Lissoni, F., Mairesse, J., Montobbio, F., Pezzoni, M.: Scientific productivity and academic promotion: a study on French and Italian physicists. Ind. Corp. Change 20(1), 253–294 (2011)Google Scholar
  102. Lord, W., Rangazas, P.: Savings and wealth in models with altruistic bequests. Am. Econ. Rev. 81(1), 289–296 (1991)Google Scholar
  103. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., Sivertsen, G.: Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 17(1), 101–126 (1992)Google Scholar
  104. Ma, H., Fang, C., Pang, B., Li, G.: The effect of geographical proximity on scientific cooperation among Chinese cities from 1990 to 2010. PLoS ONE 9(11), e111705 (2014)Google Scholar
  105. Marek, P., Titze, M., Fuhrmeister, C., Blum, U.: R&D collaborations and the role of proximity. Reg. Stud. 51(12), 1761–1773 (2017)Google Scholar
  106. Mattsson, P., Laget, P., Vindefjärd, A.N., Sundberg, C.J.: What do European research collaboration networks in life sciences look like? Res. Eval. 19(5), 373–384 (2010)Google Scholar
  107. Meade, J.E.: Trade and Welfare. Oxford Press, Oxford (1965)Google Scholar
  108. Medoff, M.H.: The input relationship between co-authors in economics: a production function approach. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 66(2), 289–308 (2007)Google Scholar
  109. Meho, L.I., Yang, K.: A new era in citation and bibliometric analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar (2006). arXiv preprint arXiv:0612132
  110. Mena-Chalco, J.P., Digiampietri, L.A., Lopes, F.M., Cesar, R.M.: Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(7), 1424–1445 (2014)Google Scholar
  111. Meyborg, M., Schaffer, A.: Regional and global collaborations for knowledge in German academia. Rev. Reg. Res. 34(2), 157–176 (2014)Google Scholar
  112. Muscio, A.: University–industry linkages: what are the determinants of distance in collaborations? Pap. Reg. Sci. 92(4), 715–739 (2013)Google Scholar
  113. Muscio, A., Pozzali, A.: The effects of cognitive distance in university–industry collaborations: some evidence from Italian universities. J. Technol. Transf. 38(4), 486–508 (2013)Google Scholar
  114. Nagpaul, P.: Exploring a pseudo-regression model of transnational cooperation in science. Scientometrics 56(3), 403–416 (2003)Google Scholar
  115. Nooteboom, B.: Innovation and inter-firm linkages: new implications for policy. Res. Policy 28(8), 793–805 (1999)Google Scholar
  116. Nooteboom, B.: Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. OUP, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  117. O’Leary, J.D., Crawford, M.W., Jurczyk, E., Buchan, A.: Benchmarking bibliometrics in biomedical research: research performance of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Medicine, 2008–2012. Scientometrics 105(1), 311–321 (2015)Google Scholar
  118. Obamba, M.O., Mwema, J.K.: Symmetry and asymmetry: new contours, paradigms, and politics in African academic partnerships. High. Educ. Policy 22(3), 349–371 (2009)Google Scholar
  119. Okamuro, H., Nishimura, J.: A Hidden Role of Public Subsidy in University–Industry Research Collaborations. Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series, Paper No. 183. (2011)Google Scholar
  120. Olmeda-Gómez, C., Perianes-Rodríguez, A., Antonia Ovalle-Perandones, M., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., de Moya Anegón, F.: Visualization of scientific co-authorship in Spanish universities: From regionalization to internationalization. In: Aslib Proceedings, vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 83–100. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2009, January)Google Scholar
  121. Ortega, J.L.: Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search. J. Inform. 8(3), 728–737 (2014)Google Scholar
  122. Paier, M., Scherngell, T.: Determinants of collaboration in European R&D networks: empirical evidence from a discrete choice model. Ind. Innov. 18(1), 89–104 (2011)Google Scholar
  123. Peres-Neto, P.R., Jackson, D.A., Somers, K.M.: Giving meaningful interpretation to ordination axes: assessing loading significance in principal component analysis. Ecology 84(9), 2347–2363 (2003)Google Scholar
  124. Polanyi, K.: The Great Transformation. Beacon Press, Boston (1944)Google Scholar
  125. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., Frenken, K.: The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Pap. Reg. Sci. 86(3), 423–443 (2007)Google Scholar
  126. Reiter, M.: The optimal nonlinear taxation of capital in models with uninsurable income risk. Working paper by Institut für Höhere Studien—Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS), Vienna (2004). Access date 01 Aug. 2018
  127. Rey-Rocha, J., Garzón-García, B., Martín-Sempere, M.J.: Scientists’ performance and consolidation of research teams in Biology and Biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Scientometrics 69(2), 183–212 (2006)Google Scholar
  128. Reznik-Zellen, R.: Benchmarking with SciVal in scholarly communication and research services. Library Connect, Elsevier (2016). Access date 01 Aug. 2018
  129. Riahi, A., Siamian, H., Zareh, A., Alizadeh Navaei, R., Haghshenas, M.R.: Quantitative evaluation of scientific productions in Iran in immunology and microbiology indexed in Scopus database (2000–2012). J. Mazandaran Univ. Med. Sci. 24(118), 205–213 (2014)Google Scholar
  130. Rivellini, G., Rizzi, E., Zaccarin, S.: The science network in Italian population research: an analysis according to the social network perspective. Scientometrics 67(3), 407–418 (2006)Google Scholar
  131. Roebken, H.: The formation and development of co-operations among South African universities. High. Educ. 56(6), 685–698 (2008)Google Scholar
  132. Scherngell, T., Hu, Y.: Collaborative knowledge production in China: regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Reg. Stud. 45(6), 755–772 (2011)Google Scholar
  133. Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M.: Measuring the research capacity of a university: use of Web of Science and Scopus. In: 2nd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2015. Conference Proceedings, Vol. II. Book 1: Psychology and Psychiatry, Sociology and Healthcare, Education, pp. 621–628. STEF92 Technology Ltd., Sofia (2015)Google Scholar
  134. Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M.: Research landscape of the BRICS countries: current trends in re-search output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners. Scientometrics 117(2), 1115–1155 (2018)Google Scholar
  135. Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., Grebenyuk, A.: Identification of priorities for S&T cooperation of BRICS countries. Int. Organ. Res. J. 12, 32–67 (2017)Google Scholar
  136. Staiger, D., Stock, J.H.: Instrumental variables with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3), 557–586 (1997)Google Scholar
  137. Stein, D.J., Daniels, W., Emsley, R., Harvey, B., Blackburn, J., Carey, P., Ellis, G., Illing, N., Flisher, A., Moolman-Smook, H., Mwaba, K.: A brain-behaviour initiative for South Africa: the time is right. Metab. Brain Dis. 21(2–3), 266–271 (2006)Google Scholar
  138. Stock, J.H., Wright, J.H., Yogo, M.: A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 20(4), 518–529 (2002)Google Scholar
  139. Sun, Y.: The structure and dynamics of intra-and inter-regional research collaborative networks: the case of China (1985–2008). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 108, 70–82 (2016)Google Scholar
  140. Sun, Y., Cao, C.: Intra-and inter-regional research collaboration across organizational boundaries: evolving patterns in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 96, 215–231 (2015)Google Scholar
  141. Sutter, M., Kocher, M.: Patterns of co-authorship among economics departments in the USA. Appl. Econ. 36(4), 327–333 (2004)Google Scholar
  142. Sweileh, W.M., Shraim, N.Y., Sa’ed, H.Z., Al-Jabi, S.W.: Worldwide research productivity on tramadol: a bibliometric analysis. Springerplus 5(1), 1–8 (2016)Google Scholar
  143. Trepte, S.: Cultural proximity in TV entertainment: an eight-country study on the relationship of nationality and the evaluation of US prime-time fiction. Communications 33(1), 1–25 (2008)Google Scholar
  144. Vieira, E., Gomes, J.: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics 81(2), 587–600 (2009)Google Scholar
  145. Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., Grimaldi, R.: How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: a proximity approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 114, 86–102 (2017)Google Scholar
  146. Zaharopoulos, T.: International news coverage: 1988 U.S. presidential campaign in the Greek press. Journal. Q. 67(1), 190–195 (1990)Google Scholar
  147. Zdravkovic, M., Chiwona-Karltun, L., Zink, E.: Experiences and perceptions of South–South and North–South scientific collaboration of mathematicians, physicists and chemists from five southern African universities. Scientometrics 108(2), 717–743 (2016)Google Scholar
  148. Zhou, P., Tijssen, R., Leydesdorff, L.: University–industry collaboration in China and the USA: a bibliometric comparison. PLoS ONE, 11(11), paper no. e0165277 (2016)Google Scholar
  149. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., Okubo, Y.: Shadows of the past in international cooperation: collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics 47(3), 627–657 (2000)Google Scholar
  150. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R.: Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. J. Technol. Transf. 26(1–2), 37–58 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economic and Statistical SciencesUniversity of SalernoFiscianoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economic and Legal StudiesParthenope University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  3. 3.Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of KnowledgeNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations