, Volume 79, Issue 2, pp 389–408 | Cite as

Strength and weakness of national science systems: A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns

  • Thed N. van Leeuwen


In this study we have focused on long term developments of various types of scientific publishing, and the field-normalized impact generated by these various types. The types of scientific output distinguished are output resulting from international cooperation, national cooperation, and single address publications, in which no apparent cooperation is found. A fourth type is distinguished by focusing on first authorship, within the international cooperation output. Changes in especially the share of a country’s output from first-authored international cooperation and the share of single address publications can be regarded as indicators of strength and/or weakness of a science system.


International Cooperation Scientific Output Impact Score Impact Level Citation Window 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bordons, M., I. Gomez, M. T. Fernandez, M. A. Zulueta, A. Mendez (1996), Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research, Scientometrics, 37: 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler, L. (2002), A list of published papers is no measure of value — The present system rewards quantity, not quality — but hasty changes could be as bad, Nature, 419: 877–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calero Medina, C., H. F. Moed (2006), Depicting the landscape of research universities, presentation at the 9th International Conference on Science & Technology Indicators, 7–9 September 2006, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  4. Glänzel, W., C. De Lange (2001), A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration, Scientometrics, 54: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glänzel, W., A. Schubert (2004), Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship, In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, chapter 11, 257–276.Google Scholar
  6. Mattsson, P., P. Laget, A. Nilsson, C. J. Sundberg, Intra-European vs. extra-European scientific copublication, submitted.Google Scholar
  7. Moed, H. F., R. E. De Bruin, A. J. Nederhof, R. J. W. Tijssen (1991), International scientific co-operation and awareness within the European Community: Problems and perspectives, Scientometrics, 21: 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. NOWT (2000), Report of the Dutch Observatory of Science & Technology 2000, page 64 (see, NOWT 2000 report).
  9. Van Leeuwen, T. N., H. F. Moed, J. Reedijk (1999), Critical comments on Institute for Scientific Information impact factors: a sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals. Journal of Information Science, 25(6): 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zitt, M., E. Bassecoulard, Y. Okubo (2000), Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science, Scientometrics, 47: 627–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science & Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations