Abstract
Australia and Korea are two middle-power countries and significant R&D centers in Asia and the Pacific region, with close economic and security partnerships. This study is the first empirical research to examine the patterns and dynamics of research collaboration in Science and Technology between the two countries, using a bibliometric analysis of co-authored academic publications. The relative specialization of scientific knowledge production analyzed for each country shows that Australia and Korea take different paths in terms of their research focus and are inversely specialized. While having a complementary competence lays a good foundation in scientific cooperation, it also means they do not have a shared field of excellence and of mutual support. We also found that in areas where multilateral collaboration is more prevailing, the effect of third country participation (e.g. U.S. and China) is considerable in bringing together Australian and Korean researchers. In terms of the motives of research collaboration, personal ties turned out to be a strong force. We suggest that national level top-down policies by the governments, institutional level exchanges of researchers and students, and individual level networking opportunities may be helpful to boost and sustain research collaboration between Australia and Korea.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: author’s calculation
Source: author’s calculation
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A middle-power state generally refers to one that is”neither great nor small in terms of their power, capacity and influence and exhibits the capability to create cohesion and obstruction toward global order and governance” (Jordaan 2003, p. 165).
RSI = AI − 1/AI + 1 where AI = the share of the given field in the publications of the given country/the share of the given the field in the world total of publications.
The publications with more than 50 authors are excluded as, in most cases, they involve limited interactions among individual authors. Limited interactions make it hard to evaluate legitimate contributions of collaboration. The distribution of publications by the number of authors per paper show that those with authors in excess of 50 constitute less than 15% of the total co-authored publications.
IRB No. 7001988-201910-HR-612-03.
2008 is the most recent year of data that is available from UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Given the industrial capacities and strategies of Australia and Korea, it can be assumed that the overall trend is not significantly varied.
Universities in Korea tend to provide incentives to their academic faculty for publishing internationally co-authored articles in order to increase their scores in renowned university ranking systems. For instance, Best Global Universities Ranking issued by US News and World Report considers the percentage of total publications with international collaboration as an evaluation indicator. Similarly, QS University Rankings has an indicator on “international research network”, which assesses the level of international research collaboration in the university concerned.
Signed on 5 March 2009 by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, the Joint Statement outlined an ambitious nine-point “Action Plan” for upgrading the bilateral strategic partnership across a range of political, military, and security activities (Lee 2019a).
References
Adams, J., & Gurney, K. A. (2018). Bilateral and multilateral coauthorship and citation impact: Patterns in UK and US international collaboration. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00012.
Aksnes, D. W., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Sivertsen, G. (2014). The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (RSI) on country level. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1391–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1245-3.
Australian Department of Education and Training & Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea. (2015). Strategic implications and guidelines on enhancing opportunities and strengths in future Australia-Korea joint research collaboration.
Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2017). Australia-Korea education research quick factsheet. Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/International-network/korea/publications/Documents/2017%20Australia-Korea%20Education%20Research%20Quick%20Factsheet.pdf.
Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Arcodia, C. (2008). Collaboration in the events literature: A co-authorship network study. In Proceedings of the EUTO.
Bashir, T. (2015). Global STI capacity index: Comparison and achievement gap analysis of national STI capacities. STI Policy Review, 6(2), 105–145.
Beaver, D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.
Benckendorff, P. (2010). Exploring the limits of tourism research collaboration: A social network analysis of co-authorship patterns in Australian and New Zealand tourism research. In CAUTHE 2010: Tourism and Hospitality: Challenge the Limits, 151.
Copland, J. (1997). Research collaboration in parasitology between Indonesia and Australia. International Journal for Parasitology, 27(10), 1169–1176.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges; Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University Of Chicago Press.
Fink, D., Hameed, T., So, M., Kwon, Y., & Rho, J. J. (2012). S&T collaboration in developing countries: Lessons from Brazilian collaboration activities with South Korea. STI Policy Review, 3(2), 92–110.
Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12
Gonzalez-Alcaide, G., Park, J., Huamani, C., & Ramos, J. M. (2017). Dominance and leadership in research activities: Collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182513. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182513.
Gupta, B. M., Dhawan, S. M., Bose, P. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2002). India’s collaboration with Australia in science and technology: A scientometric study of co-authored papers during 1995–1999. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 22(6), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.14429/dbit.22.6.3580.
Hara, N., Solomon, P., Seung-Lye, K., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10291.
Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888–899.
Jonkers, K., & Tijssen, R. (2008). Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 77(2), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1971-x.
Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: A review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-09-2014-0116.
Lee, P. K. (2019a). Australia and South Korea middle power security cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/australia-and-south-korea-middle-power-security-cooperation/.
Lee, P. K. (2019b). Middle power strategic choices and horizontal security cooperation: The 2009 Australia–South Korea security cooperation agreement. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 73(5), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2019.1632260.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
Lee, U. O., Lee, J., & Bobe, B. (1993). Technological cooperation between European and Korean small firms: The patterns and success factors of contracts. International Journal of Technology Management, 8(6–8), 764–781.
Leonardo de Cássio, R. (2016). Do international S&T agreements matter in promoting scientific collaboration?, Yonsei University, Seoul. Retrieved from http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14450998.
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003.
Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.
Malik, J. A. N. (2018). US and UK sign science and technology agreement. MRS Bulletin, 43(1), 12–13. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2017.310.
Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2018). Trade trends with Australia (2018.6). Retrieved from http://overseas.mofa.go.kr/au-ko/brd/m_3902/view.do?seq=1345196&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&multi_itm_seq=0&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=1.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.
Niu, X. S. (2014). International scientific collaboration between Australia and China: A mixed-methodology for investigating the social processes and its implications for national innovation systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.014.
Park, J. J. (2016). Security cooperation between South Korea and Australia: Bilateral for minilateral? Pacific Focus, 31(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/pafo.12069.
Park, H. W., Yoon, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2016). The normalization of co-authorship networks in the bibliometric evaluation: The government stimulation programs of China and Korea. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1017–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1978-2.
Quansah, K. A., & Ahn, W. C. (2017). The effect of the Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA) on the Korea–Australia trade structure. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 33(4), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.006.
Robinson-Garcia, N., Woolley, R., & Costas, R. (2019). Making sense of global collaboration dynamics: Developing a methodological framework to study (dis) similarities between country disciplinary profiles and choice of collaboration partners. arXiv:1909.04450.
Schulz, P. A., & Manganote, E. J. T. (2012). Revisiting country research profiles: Learning about the scientific cultures. Scientometrics, 93(2), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0696-7.
Sun, J., & Jiang, C. (2014). Sino-South Korean scientific collaboration based on co-authored SCI Papers. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 2(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2014.2.1.4.
Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: Patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 88(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0376-z.
Troekurova, I., & Kolotyrina, E. (2016). Science and technology cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the EU countries. “Building the diverse community: Beyond regionalism in East Asia”. In Mierzejewski, D., & Bywalec, G. (eds.) Contemporary Asian studies series (pp. 57–67). Retrived from http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/18823/5-057_067-Troekurova,%20Kolotyrina.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002.
Wagner, C., Wong, A., Lee, S., & Brahmakulam, I. (2003). Phase transition in Korea-. US science and technology relations (No. RAND-MR-1644-ROK). Rand Corp Washington DC Science and Technology Policy Inst.
Wang, X., Xu, S., Liu, D., & Liang, Y. (2012a). The role of Chinese–American scientists in China–US scientific collaboration: A study in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 91(3), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0693-x.
Wang, X., Xu, S., Wang, Z., Peng, L., & Wang, C. (2012b). International scientific collaboration of China: Collaborating countries, institutions and individuals. Scientometrics, 95(3), 885–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0877-4.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yoon, J., & Park, H. W. (2017). The unbalanced dynamics in Sino-South Korea scientific and technological collaboration: A triple helix perspective with insights from paper and patent network analysis. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 25(1), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2017.1302561.
Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627–657.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5B8A02082240), and the Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, M., Lee, H. & Zoo, H. Scientific knowledge production and research collaboration between Australia and South Korea: patterns and dynamics based on co-authorship. Scientometrics 126, 683–706 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03765-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03765-2