International Research Collaboration: Novelty, Conventionality, and Atypicality in Knowledge Recombination (1804.09070v2)

Abstract: Research articles produced through international collaboration are more highly cited than other work, but are they also more novel? Using measures developed by Uzzi et al. (2013), and replicated by Boyack and Klavans (2014), this article tests for novelty and conventionality in international research collaboration. Scholars have found that coauthored articles are more novel and have suggested that diverse groups have a greater chance of producing creative work. As such, we expected to find that international collaboration tends to produce more novel research. Using data from Web of Science and Scopus in 2005, we failed to show that international collaboration tends to produce more novel articles. In fact, international collaboration appears to produce less novel and more conventional knowledge combinations. Transaction costs and communication barriers to international collaboration may suppress novelty. Higher citations to international work may be explained by an audience effect, where more authors from more countries results in greater access to a larger citing community. The findings are consistent with explanations of growth in international collaboration that posit a social dynamic of preferential attachment based upon reputation.

• The paper reveals that international research collaborations tend to be less novel and more conventional in their reference combinations than domestic or sole-authored work, challenging a common assumption.
• The study employs bibliometric analysis using Web of Science and Scopus data, applying novelty and conventionality metrics to categorize articles and consistently finding correlations between international collaboration and higher conventionality.
• Findings suggest transaction costs may suppress novelty in international collaborations, higher citation rates may reflect audience size rather than creativity, and disciplinary variations influence collaboration impact and typicality.

International Research Collaboration: Implications for Novelty and Conventionality in Scholastic Output

The paper, "International Research Collaboration: Novelty, Conventionality, and Atypicality in Knowledge Recombination," authored by Caroline S. Wagner, Travis A. Whetsell, and Satyam Mukherjee, presents a comprehensive examination of the novelty and conventionality of research articles produced through international collaboration. Employing bibliometric techniques grounded in prior work by Uzzi et al. (2013) and Boyack and Klavans (2014), the paper scrutinizes atypical knowledge recombination in scholarly outputs.

Overview of Findings

The research investigates a prevalent assumption: that international collaborations, typically more highly cited and interdisciplinary, contribute more novel scholarly outcomes than domestic or sole-authored work. Contrary to expectations, the paper reveals that international collaborations tend to be less novel and more conventional in their reference combinations. The results indicate that transaction costs and communication barriers inherent in international collaborations might suppress novelty. The higher citation rates observed may reflect an audience effect, where a larger citing community correlates with multiple authors from different countries rather than inherent creativity or novelty in the research output itself.

Research Methodology

The research leveraged data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, applying the novelty and conventionality metrics pioneered by Uzzi et al. The authors categorized articles based on z-scores into four groups: high novel/high conventional (HN/HC), high novel/low conventional (HN/LC), low novel/high conventional (LN/HC), and low novel/low conventional (LN/LC). The results across various regression models consistently showed international collaboration correlates with higher conventionality and lower novelty.

Disciplinary Variations

The paper also considers variations across disciplines. In fields such as astrophysics and virology, international collaboration maintained its conventionality without significant novel contributions. Thus, disciplinary-specific conditions influence the typicality and impact of international collaborations.

Implications and Future Directions

These findings challenge the paradigm that international collaboration inherently drives novel scholarly advancements. While enhancing citation metrics through broader audience reach, these collaborations may not always foster creative breakthroughs. This understanding is vital for policymakers and academia as they navigate promoting international collaboration versus nurturing environments that might be conducive to creativity and innovation.

Further examination into the social dynamics and transaction costs associated with international collaboration can provide deeper insights. Exploring how factors like team diversity, tacit knowledge exchange, and language barriers affect novelty could yield more informed strategies for maximizing the benefits of international research efforts.

In summary, the paper invites reconsideration of both theoretical and practical aspects of international collaboration. There is an underlying need to balance conventional prestige and the pursuit of novel contributions within the broader global scholarly ecosystem.