, 89:967 | Cite as

The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship

  • Seongkyoon Jeong
  • Jae Young Choi
  • Jaeyun Kim


Given the high priority accorded to research collaboration on the assumption that it yields higher productivity and impact rates than do non-collaborative results, research collaboration modes are assessed for their benefits and costs before being executed. Researchers are accountable for selecting their collaboration modes, a decision made through strategic decision making influenced by their environments and the trade-offs among alternatives. In this context, by using bibliographic information and related internal data from the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM, a representative Korean government institute of mechanical research), this paper examines the suggested yet unproven determinants of research collaboration modes that the SCI data set cannot reveal through a Multinomial Probit Model. The results indicate that informal communication, cultural proximity, academic excellence, external fund inspiration, and technology development levels play significant roles in the determination of specific collaboration modes, such as sole research, internal collaboration, domestic collaboration, and international collaboration. This paper refines collaboration mode studies by describing the actual collaboration phenomenon as it occurs in research institutes and the motivations prompting research collaboration, allowing research mangers to encourage researchers to collaborate in an appropriate decision-making context.


Research collaboration Research and development strategy Co-authorship Multinomial probit model 

Mathematics Subject Classification


JEL Classification



  1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economics, 70, 9–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickel, W. E., & Hattrup, R. A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 35–62.Google Scholar
  4. Bozeman, B. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brousseau, E. (1993). L’economie des contrats. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  6. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cronin, B. (1996). Rates of return of citation. Journal of Documentation, 52(2), 188–197.Google Scholar
  8. Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. (1999). Cross-cultural collaborative research: Toward reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edge, D. (1979). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review. History of Science, 17, 102–134.Google Scholar
  10. Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9, 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geweke, J., Keane, M., & Runkle, D. (1994). Alternative computational approaches to statistical interference in the multinomial probit model. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goffman, W., & Warren, K. S. (1980). Scientific information systems and the principle of selectivity. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  13. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hamermesh, D. S., Johnson, G. E., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). Scholarship, citation and salaries: Economic reward in economics. Southern Economic Journal, 49, 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 10, 153–158.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Imai, K., & Dykz, D. A. (2005). MNP: R Package for fitting the multinomial probit model. Journal of Statistical Software, 14, 1–32.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322, 1259–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreiner, K., & Schultz, M. (1993). Informal collaboration in R&D. The formation of networks across organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landry, R., Traore, N., & Godin, B. (1996). An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education, 32, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 762–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewison, G., & Cunningham, P. (1991). Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of transnational research. Scientometrics, 21, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Skar, J., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69, 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luukkonen, T., Perterson, O., & Siversen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin, B. R., & Skea, J. E. F. (1992). Academic research performance indicators: An assessment of the possibilities. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  28. McCulloch, R. E., Polson, N. G., & Rossi, P. E. (2000). A Bayesian analysis of the multinomial probit model with fully identified parameters. Journal of Econometrics, 99, 173–193.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mcdowell, J. M., & Melvin, M. (1983). The determinants of co-authorship: An analysis of the economics literature. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore, M., & Griffin, B. (2006). Identification of factors that influence authorship name placement and decisions to collaborate in peer-reviewed education-related publications. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Narin, F., & Whitlow, E. S. (1990). Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science (report EUR 12900). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  33. Nathan, S., Hermanson, D., & Hermanson, R. (1998). Co-authoring in refereed journals: Views of accounting faculty and department chairs. Issues in Accounting Education, 12, 79–92.Google Scholar
  34. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. Physical Review E, 64. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131.
  35. Numprasertchai, S., & Igel, B. (2005). Managing knowledge through collaboration: Multiple case studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand. Technovation, 25(10), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  36. Nyden, P., & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. American Sociologist, 23, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piette, M. J., & Ross, K. L. (1992). An analysis of the determinants of co-authorship in economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 23, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rutledge, R., & Karim, K. (2009). Determinants of coauthorship for the most productive authors of accounting literature. The Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 130–134.Google Scholar
  39. Sauer, R. D. (1988). Estimates of the return to quality and coauthorship in economic academy. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1150–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Solla Price, D., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Train, K., & Sonnier, G. (2005). Mixed logit with bounded distribution of partworths. In R. Scarpa & A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (pp. 117–134). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Traore, N., & Landry, R. (1997). On the determinants of scientists’ collaboration. Science Communication, 19, 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vafeas, N. (2010). Determinants of single authorship. EuroMed Journal of Business, 5, 332–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research result. Scientometrics, 42, 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2010). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner, C. S. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and pitfalls. In B. Louk & E. Rutger (Eds.), Science and technology policy for development, dialogues at the interface (pp. 165–176). London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: building capacity in developing countries? MR-1357.0-WB. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Research and Development PolicyKorea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM)Yuseong-GuKorea
  2. 2.Center for Growth Engine IndustriesKorea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade (KIET)Dongdaemun-guKorea

Personalised recommendations