The correlation between scientific collaboration and citation count at the paper level: a meta-analysis

Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion

Despite the increasing prominence of research collaboration, a growing number of studies have confirmed that increasing team size can have limited performance benefits. However, the mechanism of this phenomenon has yet to be established. This study, therefore, quantified responsibility diffusion based on author contribution information and explored its mediating role in the relationship between collaboration size and citation impact (citation count in a four-year window). The results show the following: (1) An inverted U-shaped relationship exists between team size and citation count. (2) Responsibility diffusion plays a partial mediating role between team size and citation count. (3) As team size increases, the degree of responsibility diffusion increases. Lastly, (4) responsibility diffusion has an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship with citation count (e.g., a moderate degree of responsibility diffusion has the highest impact). These findings offer a new understanding of the mechanism by which collaboration size influences research performance. This study also has practical implications for solving research collaboration dilemmas based on a group-cognition perspective.

Evolution of global scientific collaboration in mRNA vaccine research: Insights from bibliometric and social network analysis (2010~2023)

The field of mRNA vaccines has witnessed rapid development in recent years, leading to significant changes in global scientific collaboration. In this study, a bibliometric and social network analysis was conducted to reveal the evolution of global scientific collaboration in mRNA vaccine research. Altogether 6974 articles published since 2010 were retrieved and categorized into Period 1 (2010-2019), Period 2 (2020-2021) and Period 3 (2022-2023). During Period 2 and 3, there was a significant rise in the proportion of publications involving domestic inter-institutional cooperation (42.0%, 54.0% and 59.1%, respectively in Period 1, 2, and 3), while a significant decrease in international cooperation (32.1%, 23.7% and 21.0%). More countries participated in international collaboration during Period 2 and 3, with the US, the UK and Germany remaining top three throughout all periods, while some other countries like Italy, Japan, and China experiencing significant shifts. Significant correlations between collaboration type and publication impact and between geographical distance and collaborative publication counts were detected. Furthermore, significant changes in research focuses and institutions that are major contributors in the mRNA vaccine development have been observed. In conclusion, the mRNA vaccine field has experienced rapid development over the past decade, with significant evolutions of global scientific collaboration detected in our study.

Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations

Citations remain a prime, yet controversial, measure of academic performance. Ideally, how often a paper is cited should solely depend on the quality of the science reported therein. However, non-scientific factors, including structural elements (e.g., length of abstract, number of references) or attributes of authors (e.g., prestige and gender), may all influence citation outcomes. Knowing the predicted effect of these features on citations might make it possible to ‘game the system’ of citation counts when writing a paper. We conducted a meta-analysis to build a quantitative understanding of the effect of similar non-scientific features on the impact of scientific articles in terms of citations. We showed that article length, number of authors, author experience and their collaboration network, Impact Factors, availability as open access, online sharing, different referencing practice, and number of figures all exerted a positive influence on citations. These patterns were consistent across most disciplines. We also documented temporal trends towards a recent increase in the effect of journal Impact Factor and number of authors on citations. We suggest that our approach can be used as a benchmark to monitor the influence of these effects over time, minimising the influence of non-scientific features as a means to game the system of citation counts, and thus enhancing their usefulness as a measure of scientific quality.