You are on page 1of 13

Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information

Management

ISSN: 0973-7766 (Print) 2168-930X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsim20

Growth versus scientific collaboration in the field


of genetics: A scientometrics analysis
S. L. Sangam & Uma Arali
To cite this article: S. L. Sangam & Uma Arali (2016) Growth versus scientific collaboration
in the field of genetics: A scientometrics analysis, Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and
Information Management, 10:1, 9-19, DOI: 10.1080/09737766.2016.1177938
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2016.1177938

Published online: 17 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsim20
Download by: [New York University]

Date: 17 June 2016, At: 22:19

COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management


ISSN : 0973-7766 (Print) 2168-930X (Online)
Vol. 10(1) June 2016, pp. 9-19, DOI : 10.1080/09737766.2016.1177938

Growth versus scientific collaboration


in the field of genetics: A scientometrics
analysis
Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

S. L. Sangam
Uma Arali

This paper studies the relative growth rate of research publications versus the collaboration and authorship pattern of Genetics subject of the
world and India. Study shows the higher the growth of literature and
higher the scientific collaboration. The data has been collected from the
articles listed in Web of Science 1993-2012.Discussess the types of collaboration and describe the measures of collaboration. Study Shows the
variation with Collaboration Coefficient (CC), Collaboration Index (CI)
and Degree of Collaboration (DC).Finally conclude that there is a relation between growth and scientific collaboration in the field of Genetics.
Keywords: Scientific productivity, Research collaboration, Genetics literature,
Scientometrics, Bibliometrics

1.Introduction

S. L. Sangam*
Uma Arali
Department of Library &
Information Science,
Karnatak University
Dharwad-580 003
India
*slsangam@gmail.com

The productivity of authors in the context of scientific


output is normally measured in terms of published literature. The principle means of communication of authors is
the publication process, which allows authors to verify the
reliability of information, to acquire a sense of relative importance of a contribution, and to obtain critical response
to work. Correspondingly, it is through publication that
authors receive professional recognition and esteem, as
well as promotion, advancement, and funding to future
research work. Publication is so central to an author productivity that the research work carried by him becomes
an authentic document only when it takes a conventional

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

S. L. Sangam & U. Arali

physical form which can be received, assessed, and acknowledged by the scientific community. Usually Collaboration will be held with Intra-Department Collaboration; within
an organisation. Intra - Institutional Collaboration i.e. Collaboration between two or more
organizations. International Collaboration; the collaboration between two or more organizations; or institutions located in more than one country. Guide Research Scholar Collaboration; this is a very common mode of collaboration in an academic setting. The professor in a university department provides the ideas and guidance, and sometimes also the
required funds from a research grant, and the research assistant or student does most of
the bench work. The resulting project report, conference paper, or journal article usually
carries the names of both the professor and the student. It is not uncommon for a professor
to be guiding several students in different research projects at the same time. Collaboration among Colleagues; it is a very common practice in corporate research centres for a
number of colleagues to be working on one or more projects, each contributing expertise
in a different aspect of the project. In interdisciplinary fields such as environment, energy,
or space research, scientists and engineers from a wide variety of specialties often collaborate. In recent days it is common for specialists working together in an interdisciplinary
project. Some of the notable studies are in the field were worth mentioning viz. Beaver
and Rosen (1978, [5]) have explored the origins and history of collaboration from 17th to
20th century. Manimekala and Amsaveni [17] discussed Collaborative Research Publications of Genetics in India. Adams et al. [1] suggested specific measures to foster scientific
collaboration at both local and national level (2005). The formula given by Subramanyam
(1982, [25]) for determining the Degree of Collaboration (DC) in a subject. Ajiferuke at
el. (1988, [2]) find out Collaborative Co-efficient (CC) which is widely used. Lawani (1986,
[16]) showed that as the number of authors per paper increases, the proportion high quality papers also increases and the Collaborative Index (CI).. Maheshwarappa et al. (1984,
[17]) were studied the authorship pattern in science and technology in India. Bordons et al.
(1996, [7]) analyzed the influence of collaborations on scientific performance for three sectors. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (2007, 2013, [14], [15]) developed simple power functions
a new function of co-author-pairs frequencies. (Kretschmer and Kretschmer 2013, [15]).
However, longitudinal studies over time have shown successive variation of collaboration
patterns is possible from Birds of a feather flock together to Opposites attract and
vice versa. In other words Birds of the feather flock together diminishes as Opposites
attract emerges and vice versa.
Sangam and Keshava (2005, [21]) have presented the collaborative research in six sub
disciplines of social science. Sangam and Meera( 2009, [22]) have examined the collaboration in research that is affected by various socioeconomic and other environmental factors
prevailing in the society. Keshava et al.(2010, [13]), have carried out study to know the
characteristics of literature and degree of collaboration. Biradar and Rajashekhar (2010, [6])
presented a study based on references appended to the articles published in open access
e-journal AgBioForum. Sagar et al.(2010, [20]) have performed a scientometric analysis of
all Tsunami related publications as per the Scopus (TM) database during 1997-2008 including authorship pattern as one of the parameter for the study. Bartneck and Hu (2010 [3])
10

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 10(1) JUNE 2016

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

Growth versus scientific collaboration in the field of genetics: A scientometrics analysis

deal with authorship pattern from different organization. Hui-Zhen Fu et al.(2011, [9]),
have provided an overview of the characteristics of research in China. Sangam (2012, [23])
investigated the pattern of authorship, and type of collaborated research in the field of
demography. Jaric et al. (2012, [1]) has applied a bibliometric approach to identify recent
patterns and trends in the methods, subjects, and authorships in the literature published
in fisheries science. Gunasekaran and Balasubramani (2012, [8]) have analyzed the artificial
intelligence research Zheng et al. (2012, [26]) has studied Chinas international S&T collaboration from the perspective of paper and patent analysis. Gupta, (2013, [10]) analyses
the research output of Bangladesh in S&T during 2001-10 on several parameters including
share of international collaborative publications.. Bajwa et al. (2013, [4]) analyse the research trends in Pakistan in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kato and Ando,
(2013, [12]) examine the robustness of the results presented by Abramo et al. and show a
positive relationship between the international mobility of researchers and their performance. Rafols et al. (2014, [19]), have explored the pharmaceutical R & D dynamics by
examining the publication activities of all R & D laboratories of the major European and
US pharmaceutical firms (Big Pharma) during the period 1995-2009. Zyoud and Swelleh,
(2014, [27]) have analysed the worldwide research output in the water pipe tobacco smoking field to examine the authorship and collaboration pattern.

4.Methodology
The data on Genetics of world and India over a period of 20 years (1993-2012) has been
collected from PubMed database for the purpose of analysing the growth rate, doubling
time, pattern of authorship and collaboration.

5. Analysis of the data and Interpretations


5.1 Growth of Research Productivity
The total Genetics publication output of the world and India has been shown in Table
-1 along with the relative growth rate and doubling time for over a period of 20 years
(1993-2012). The Table 1 shows that the relative growth rate of worlds Genetics publications output decreases gradually from 0.735 to 0.082, but seems to be constant from 1999
to 2006 and from 2007 to 2012. Correspondingly the doubling time increases from 0.942 to
8.45 during 1993 to 2012. The mean relative growth rate and doubling time for the world is
0.19 and 5.13 respectively. The Indian Genetics output also decreases gradually from 0.78
to 0.16 except during 2000-03 (0.22-0.25) and 2012 (0.16). The doubling time correspondingly increases from 0.88 to 4.45 with a decrease during 2000-03(3.13-3.2). The average
relative growth rate and doubling time for India is 0.25 and 3.31.
The relative growth rate of Indian Genetics is comparatively more than that of the
world output. This may be because the Worlds relative growth rate is a cumulative result
of many countries of which some are the third world countries which are underdeveloped.
Their contribution to the overall development of the Worlds genetics relative growth rate
COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

10(1) JUNE 2016

11

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

S. L. Sangam & U. Arali

is either negligible or nil. Since, India is a developing country much emphasis is given
for research activities in the field of Genetics. Indian government is also supporting the
research projects by providing sufficient funds to carry out the research activities in the
field of Genetics. This might encourage young academicians and scientists to take up research projects and add good number of publications which have been depicted through
the higher relative growth rate of the publications in Genetics literature when compared
with that of the world. International funding agencies are also coming forward to fund for
the research in basic sciences like Genetics and its branches.
During 1999, the doubling time is almost same for both Indian and the Worlds Genetics literature. The doubling time for number of publications is mainly depending on the
total number of publications during a specific time period from both World and India in
Table 1
World vs. India Relative Growth Rate & Doubling Time of Genetics publications as reflected in
PubMed database (1993-2012)
Year

World
Pub.

Cumulative

RGR

D(t)

47334

India

Cumulative

RGR

D(t)

179

179

Pub.

1993

47334

1994

51408

98742

0.73528

0.942496

213

392

0.78388

0.884067

1995

56244

154986

0.45082

1.537184

259

651

0.50725

1.366196

1996

58939

213925

0.32229

2.150233

321

972

0.40085

1.728843

1997

62913

276838

0.25781

2.688057

329

1301

0.29153

2.377098

1998

70035

346873

0.22553

3.072813

352

1653

0.23946

2.894024

1999

76257

423130

0.19872

3.487306

363

2016

0.19852

3.490762

2000

83711

506841

0.18052

3.838955

499

2515

0.22116

3.133521

2001

87200

594041

0.15875

4.365327

611

3126

0.21748

3.186471

2002

88872

682913

0.13942

4.970623

772

3898

0.22071

3.139881

2003

94640

777553

0.12978

5.339627

944

4842

0.21686

3.195551

2004

100154

877707

0.12116

5.719662

999

5841

0.18757

3.694542

2005

104231

981938

0.11222

6.175626

1189

7030

0.18529

3.740184

2006

108823

1090761

0.1051

6.593549

1404

8434

0.18208

3.805936

2007

113615

1204376

0.09909

6.993926

1578

10012

0.17151

4.040486

2008

118540

1322916

0.09388

7.382016

1802

11814

0.1655

4.187286

2009

125142

1448058

0.09039

7.667205

2094

13908

0.16318

4.246896

2010

132054

1580112

0.08727

7.940656

2279

16187

0.15175

4.566872

2011

139994

1720106

0.08489

8.163488

2539

18726

0.1457

4.756218

2012

147004

1867110

0.08201

8.450615

3158

21884

0.15584

4.446783

Source: Sangam, Madalli & Arali , 2015, [24])

12

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 10(1) JUNE 2016

Growth versus scientific collaboration in the field of genetics: A scientometrics analysis

Table 2

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

Publications by number of authors in Genetics in two block periods


Ten years Block

Single Author

Two Author

Three Author

Four & above authors

1993-2002

191 (5%)

925 (24%)

936 (24%)

1811(47%)

2003-2012

433 (2.5%)

2501 (15%)

3184 (19%)

10846 (64%)

Total

624 (3%)

3426 (16.5%)

4120 (20%)

12657 (60.7%)

contrast to the publications made during the previous year. From the Table- 1 it is evident
that the relative growth rate and the doubling time are inversely proportional in both India
and the World.
5.2 Authorship and Collaboration in the field of Genetics in India
The present situation due to interdisciplinary research compels on the researchers to go
for collaboration in research, thus resulting in the shift from solo research to team research.
Communication and collaboration between researchers are of great importance in the development of subject areas and in the dissemination of research results. Thus, Collaboration is an intense form of interaction that allows for effective communication as well as the
sharing of competence and other resources. The Quantification of Publications by number
of Authors in the field Genetics we can see as below.
The Table - 2 indicates the growth rate during two block periods in all the categories of
co-authorship publications. The single-author publications have decreased from 5% during 1993-2002 to 2.5% during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 3% for the entire period. The two-author publications have also decreased from 24% during 1993-2002
to 15% during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 16.5% for the entire period.
The three-author publications have again decreased from 24% during 1993-2002 to 19%
during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 20% for the entire period. Whereas
the four and more than four-author publications has increased from 47% during 1993-2002
to 64% during 2003-2012 with the average percentage being 60.7% for the entire period.
5.3 Collaboration Coefficient (CC)
To measure the extent and strength of collaboration among the scientists in research,
a measure called Collaboration Coefficient (CC), using formula suggested by Ajiferuke
(1988, [2]), has been used. This can be mathematically expressed as:

CC = 1 E [1/n]
E [1/n] = 1

{ f 1 + (1/ 2) f 2 + (1/ 3) f 3 + ....(1/ k ) fk }


N

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

10(1) JUNE 2016

13

S. L. Sangam & U. Arali

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

Where fj is the number of j authored publications published in a discipline during a


certain period of time, N is the total number of research papers published in a discipline
during a certain period of time, k is the greatest number of authors per publication in a
discipline. The data collected from PubMed database for a period of 20 years 1993-2012
are divided into 11 columns based on the number of authors per publication from single
authored to 10 and above authors year-wise. CC is calculated using the above formula.
Based on the data reflected in Table 2, the value of CC has increased from 0.60 in 1993 to
0.74 in 2012 indicating that research among scientists is fairly collaborative with an average CC of 0.68.
Calculation: CC = 1 [ f1 + (1/2) f2 + (1/3) f3 + + (1/k) fk ] / N
Based on the data in the table 2, CC for the year 1994 = 1 { [ 17 + (1/2) 71 + (1/3) 45 +
(1/4) 35 + (1/5) 22 + (1/6) 11 + (1/7) 4 + (1/8) 3 + (1/9) 3 + (1/10) 1 + (1/11) 1] / 213 / N}
= 1 { [ 17 + 35.5 + 15 + 8.75 + 4.4 + 1.83 + 0.56 + 0.37 + 0.33 + 0.1 + 0.09 ] / 213 }
= 1 [83.93 / 213] = 1 0.394 = 0.606
5.4 Collaboration Index (CI)
It calculates the mean number of authors per publication. For calculation of CI, the data
represented in Table 3 is considered again. The Table 3 depicts that the three authored
publications (4120) are more in number among multi-authored papers, followed by 3757
by four authored publications. The results of CI calculated in the last two columns of Table
3 reveals that the number of authors per publication has increased from 3.15 in 1993 to 4.52
in 2012 indicating the trend towards multi-authorship publications.
Calculation: CI =[ ( f1 )1 + ( f2 ) 2 + ( f3) 3 +( fk ) k ] / N
Using data in the table -3, During 1993 CI = (14 + 54 X 2 + 61 X 3 + 50 X 4) / 179 = 505
/ 179 = 2.8
For CI (grouped after 10), During 1993 CI = (14 + 54 X 2 + 61 X 3 + 16 X 4+18 X 5 + 6 X
7 +21 + 32 + 9 + 11) / 179 = 574 / 179 = 3.15
5.5 Degree of Collaboration (DC)
DC calculates the proportion of co-author publications among total publications. In order to determine the degree of collaboration or the collaborative research pattern in quantitative terms, an indicator or the formula suggested by Subramanyam (1982, [25]) has been
used and results are given in Table 4. The formula is
DC =

NM
Nm + Ns

Where C is degree of collaboration in a discipline, Nm is number of multi authored


papers during a specific period in a discipline, Ns is number of single authored papers in
a discipline during the same period of time. For calculation of DC, the data represented in
14

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 10(1) JUNE 2016

14

17

13

13

14

18

18

27

30

27

36

45

43

31

41

51

44

41

44

57

Year

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

2009

2010

2011

2012

10(1) JUNE 2016

376

305

276

287

277

220

213

188

160

199

157

132

100

85

82

87

84

73

71

54

491

420

385

366

336

304

280

214

184

204

176

120

126

81

90

89

89

59

45

61

510

432

390

355

335

294

217

200

194

158

136

122

92

69

56

55

40

51

35

16

476

370

298

310

237

211

202

172

142

137

104

81

61

50

35

38

44

36

22

18

Authorship pattern

352

282

247

229

169

177

162

137

103

68

70

46

36

24

22

15

26

12

11

256

184

162

146

124

100

94

75

60

41

35

35

21

18

27

13

89

62

64

60

51

33

31

22

15

14

10

12

145

122

105

71

70

51

48

42

27

31

19

19

12

14

104

71

42

36

41

26

23

18

12

13

10

131

96

66

59

39

33

25

21

21

17

>10

2969

2368

2076

1977

1704

1509

1329

1144

974

914

749

608

496

363

351

325

320

259

213

179

No. Of
Papers

0.74

0.73

0.73

0.72

0.71

0.72

0.71

0.70

0.69

0.68

0.68

0.67

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.65

0.65

0.64

0.61

0.60

CC

3.35

3.35

3.36

3.34

3.3

3.34

3.32

3.3

3.26

3.15

3.2

3.17

3.12

3.16

3.08

3.04

3.04

3.04

2.86

2.8

CI (grouped
after 4)

Quantification of publications by numbers of authors. Collaborative Measures (CC and CI)

Table 3

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

4.52

4.44

4.45

4.38

4.23

4.31

4.29

4.26

4.11

3.85

3.89

3.89

3.76

3.81

3.75

3.54

3.63

3.49

3.28

3.15

CI (grouped
after 10)

Growth versus scientific collaboration in the field of genetics: A scientometrics analysis

15

S. L. Sangam & U. Arali

Table 4
Authorship pattern with Degree of Collaboration measures (DC).
Authorship Pattern
Number of
publication

% of Total
Publications

DC

Total number of Single/Multi Authored Publication

20827

100

Number of Co- Authored Publication (NM)

20203

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

0.97

Number of Single Authored Publication (NS)

624

3.00

Number of two Authored Publication

3426

16.45

0.84

Number of three Authored Publication

4120

19.78

0.80

Number of Four Authored Publication

3757

18.04

0.82

Number of Five Authored Publication

3044

14.62

0.85

Number of Six Authored Publication

2195

10.54

0.89

Number of Seven Authored Publication

1409

6.77

0.93

Number of Eight Authored Publication

859

4.12

0.96

Number of Nine Authored Publication

535

2.57

0.97

Number of Ten and above Authored Publication

858

4.12

0.96

table 4 is used. The table 4 shows total number of single authored publications up to 10 and
above authored articles along with the percentage irrespective of the year. The computed
data are presented in the column 4 of the Table 4. It has been noted from the table - 4 that,
0.97 is the value of the highest degree of collaboration during 1993-2012. The value of DC
is lowest among three author publications which are 0.80 and highest of 0.97 among nine
authored publications again indicating trend towards multi-authorship papers.
Calculation: DC = Nm / (Nm + Ns)
Based on the data in the table -4, DC for two authored publications; Nm = 3426 & Ns
=624 DC = 3426 / (3426 + 624) = 0.845

6. Growth versus Collaboration


It has been observed that there is a relation between the growth and collaboration,
higher the growth higher the collaboration. Present study has revealed some important
characteristic of collaboration in academic research. Table -1 shows the relative growth
rate of Indian Genetics is comparatively more than the world output. Correspondingly
the doubling time also increases from 0.942 to 8.45 during 1993 to 2012.We can observe its
effect on table -2, which reveals that the following the growth rate during two block peri-

16

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 10(1) JUNE 2016

Growth versus scientific collaboration in the field of genetics: A scientometrics analysis

ods in all the categories of authorship ( two to ten authors) publications are increased 97%
for the entire period. Even we can observe the value of DC is lowest among three author
publications which are 0.80 and highest of 0.97 among nine authored publications again
indicating trend towards multi-authorship papers. What emerges is that the correlation
degree (DC, CC and CI) between productivity and collaboration intensity varies substantially among different areas viz. Behavioural Genetics, classical Genetics, Developmental Genetics, Human Genetics, Medical Genetics, Microbial Genetics, Molecular Genetics,
and Population Genetics etc. The proportion of collaborative publication has a consistent
growth with time.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

7.Conclusion
With the above discussion and interpretation we can draw the inferences that :
1. The relative growth rate and the doubling time are inversely proportional in both
India and the World.
2. Even we can observe the value of DC is lowest among three author publications
which are 0.80 and highest of 0.97 among nine authored publications again indicating trend towards multi-authorship papers.
3. What emerges is that the correlation degree (DC, CC and CI) between productivity
and collaboration intensity varies substantially in pattern of authorship.
4. Study observed that less importance has been given to Social sciences and Humanities research in the field of Scientometrics.
5. Results can be used as an indicators for policy making in Science and Technology.

References
[1] Adams,S.J.D.,Black,G.C.,Clemmons,J.R.,Paula,E.,&Stephan,P.E.(2005)Scientific teams and
institutional Collaboration: Evidence from Universities, 1981-1999.Research Policy, 34(3),
259-285.
[2] Ajiferuke,I, Burell, Q &Tague, J. (1988).Collaborative coefficient : A single
collaboration in research.Scientometrics.14. 421-433.

measure of the

[3] Bartneck, C. & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85 (1), 4152.
[4] Bajwa, R. S., Yaldram, K. & Rafique, S. (2013). A Scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective. Scientometrics, 94, 333-338.
[5] Beaver, D.& Rosen, R.(1978).Studies in scientific collaboration part 1:The professional origins of scientific co authorship.Scientometrics.1, 72-

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

10(1) JUNE 2016

17

S. L. Sangam & U. Arali

[6] Biradar, B. S. & Rajashekhar, G. R. (2010), December). Scientometric analysis of Biotechnology literature. In eds Sangam. Paper presented at Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics National seminar, Dharwad (134-145).
[7] Bordons,M., Gomez I.,Fernandez.,M.T.,Zulueta,M.A.,&Mendez,A.(1996).Local, domestic
andinternational scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2),279295.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

[8] Gunasekaran, M. & Balasubramani, R. (2012). Scientometric Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Research output: An Indian Perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research, 70
(2), 317-322.
[9] Fu, H., Chuang, K., Wang, M., & Ho, Y. (2011). Characteristics of research in China assessed with ESI. Scientometrics, 88, 841-862.
[10] Gupta, B. M. (2013). Bangladesh: A Scientometric Analysis of National Publications Output in S&T, 2001-10. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 33 (1).
[11] Jaric, I., Cvijanovic, G., Knezevic-Jaric, J., & Lenhardt, M. (2012). Trends in Fisheries Science from 2000 to 2009: A Bibliometric Study. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 20 (2), 70-79.
10.1080/10641262.2012.659775.
[12] Kato, M. & Ando, A. (2013). The relationship between research performance and international collaboration in chemistry. Scientometrics, 97 (3), 535-553.
[13] Keshava, Prakash, Y. & Gowda, M. P. (2010, December). Global warming: A bibliometric
analysis. In eds Sangam. Paper presented at Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics National seminar, Dharwad (27-36).
[14] Kretschmer,H. & Kretschmer,T. (2007). Lotkas distribution of co-author pairs frequencies. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 308-337.
[15] 
Kretschmer,H. & Kretschmer,T. (2013). Who is collaborating with whomin
science?Explanation of a fundamental principle.Social Networking,2,99-137, doi:10.4236/
sn2013.23011Publishedonline July 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/sn)
[16] Lawani,S.M.(1986) Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientometric research. Scientometrics.9 (1&2) 13-25.
[17] Manimekalai, A. & Amsaveni, N. (2012). Collaborative Research Publications of Genetics
in India. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 1 (2), 88-93. www.jails.in/.
[Retrieved on 21/6/2013].
[18] Maheshwarappa,B.S, Nagappa,B & Mathias (1984). S.A.Collaborative research in science
and technology in India: A Bibliometric study.Journal of Library and Information science.9 (2)154-159.
[19] Rafols, I., Hopkins, M. M., Hoekman, J., Siepel, J., Hare, A., Perianes-Rodriguez, A. &
Nightingale, P. (2014). Big Pharma, little science? : A bibliometric perspective on Big Pharmas R & D decline. Technological forecasting and social change, 81, 22-38. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.007.

18

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 10(1) JUNE 2016

Growth versus scientific collaboration in the field of genetics: A scientometrics analysis

[20] Sagar, A., Kademani, B. S., Garg, R. G. & Vijaykumar (2010). Scientometric mapping of
Tsunami publications: a citation based study. Malaysian journal of Library and Information
Science, 15 (1), 23-40.
[21] Sangam. S.L. & Keshava. (2005). Colloboration in Social Science Research in India. Journal
of Information Management and Scientometrics, 2 (1), 34-39.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016

[22] Sangam, S. L. & Meera. (2009). Research Collobration Pattern in Indian Contribution to
Chemical sciences. Collenet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 3 (1), 3945.
[23] Sangam, S. L. (2012). Scientific productivity and collaborative research patterns in the field
of demography. In eds Kumbar, et al. Paper presented at Statistical methods for communication science national Workshop, Dharwad (pp. 109-117). UGC/SAP/DRS-1: Dharwad.
[24] Sangam,S.L.,Devika Madalli &Uma B. Arali (2015).Scientometric profile of global genetics literatureas seen through PubMed.Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information
management 9(2) 175-192.
[25] Subramanyam, K (1982).Research collaboration and funding in biochemistry and chemical engineering .Int. forum Inf.Doc.7(4)26-29.
[26] Zheng, J.Zhao, Z.,Zhang, X.,Chen, D.,Huang, M., Lei, X.,Zhao,Y.(2012). International scientific and technological collaboration of China from 2004 to 2008:a perspective from paper and patent analysis.Scientometrics, 91(1),65-80.
[27] Zyoud, S. H., Al-Jabi, S. W. & Swelleh, W. M. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of scientific
publications on waterpipe (narghile, shisha, hookah) tobacco smoking during the period
2003-2012. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 12 (7), 1-6. www.tobaccoindueddiseases.com/content/12/1/7. [Retrieved on 2/6/2014].

COLLNET JOURNAL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

10(1) JUNE 2016

19

Downloaded by [New York University] at 22:19 17 June 2016