search
for
 About Bioline  All Journals  Testimonials  Membership  News


Australasian Biotechnology (backfiles)
AusBiotech
ISSN: 1036-7128
Vol. 12, Num. 3, 2002, pp. 38-41

Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 12, No. 3, June-July, 2002, pp. 38-41

RESEARCH COLLABORATION

RESEARCH COLLABORATION IN AUSTRALIAN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Kavoos Mohannak

Centre for Asia Pacific Social Transformation Studies, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522. Email: Australia kmohan@uow.edu.au

Code Number: au02022

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to present characteristics and patterns of scientific research collaboration in the field of biotechnology in Australia, based on the 1356 articles published in 127 titles of scientific and technical periodicals between the years 1995 and 1999. The methodology adopted draws mainly on bibliographic data on collaborative research publications that are evident from joint scientific publications in the field of biotechnology.

Introduction

The area of biotechnology is one of the research-intensive fields characterised by innovations that are directly linked to technological advances based on results of fundamental scientific research derived from domestic and international research and development. Research and development (R&D) activities and technological progress within the area of biotechnology are considered to be of great importance for Australian science and the economy as well. However, despite the importance of biotechnology to the Australia's future science and economy, comparatively little is understood of the nature of the institutional interactions and patterns of collaboration.

One important feature of biotechnology research and development is the close relationships between the public-sector science base, private industry and universities (Shohet and Prevezer, 1996). The interrelationships and R&D collaboration in this field should consist of a network comprising universities, public research labs, private enterprises and hospitals. R&D linkages between universities, public sector institutes and enterprises, which are focused on applied research with identifiable commercial applications, have traditionally been an important vehicle for creating strategic competencies in this area.

Scientific and technological collaboration also has become a major issue in innovation policy in Australia and there has been tremendous growth in the number of research collaborations (Turpin et al, 1999).

From total of 1356 papers, with at least one Australian address, that published between 1995 and 1999 in 127 core biotechnology journals of the Science Citation Index (SCI), nearly 92% were written by more than one author (1251 articles) and only 8% of the papers were produced by a sole author (105 articles). Also there has been a notable growth in the mean number of authors per article, termed the Collaborative Index by Lawani (1986). In the field of biotechnology in Australia the mean number of authors during the said period has been 4.13. In this context, bibliometric analysis of co-authored scientific articles provides one promising approach to analyse research collaboration in the field of biotechnology (Bordons etal, 1996).

Method

Collection of data in studies of research collaboration is a difficult problem. The precise nature and magnitude of collaboration cannot be easily determined by the usual methods of observation, interviews or questionnaire because of the complex nature of human interaction that takes place between or among collaborators over a period of time. However, despite some limitations, bibliographic data containing the names of all the cooffer an unobtrusive indicator for the study of collaboration (Melin and Persson, 1996; Persson, 1997; Zhang and Guo. 1997)

For the present paper data on institutionally co-authored articles have been retrieved from CD-ROM version of Science Citation Index (SCI). The SCI's journal subject category has been used to identify list of all biotechnology-related journals. These journals focus on areas such as: use of organisms in the production of foods and drugs; the bioconversion of toxic and unsanitary wastes; and the use of recombinant DNA to produce improved plants, animals and diagnostic products. 127 journals in these areas have been identified which included total of 1356 articles with at least one Australian institutional address. Therefore, this study is limited to the core biotechnology journals which are covered by the SCI's subject category and does not take into account other biotechnology publications such as papers published in international conferences, posters, etc. Figure 1 shows the number of papers in the top 10 core journals where most of the Australian scientists have published their papers from 1995 to 1999.

The levels of collaboration in this study are defined as the ways in which the collaboration is organised, which can be easily obtained through the institutional affiliation information provided under authors' names. Each author is equivalent to count as data entry and each entry consists of the institutional affiliations and country affiliations. The levels of collaboration for the samples are collaboration in department within an institution, collaboration between two or more departments within an institution; collaboration between two or more institutions from different national institutions and international institutions.

Results

Overall, the data from 1995 to 1999 shows that about one third of the copapers were produced by authors from a single departmental affiliation (38%) and also about one third of the papers were internationally co-authored (32%). The rest of the copapers were mainly produced through national collaboration, which accounted for almost 24% of all the copapers. Interdepartmental collaboration within an institution was the least developed type and accounted for nearly 6%; most of them occurred within university departments (see Figure 2). However, it should be noted that many publications result from a number of different types of collaboration. If all collaborations evident in a paper are taken into account, the percentages would be different and would become: single department 66%, inter-departmental 15%, national 31% and international 32%.

Among the nationally co-authored papers, collaboration took place primarily between universities and public research centres. This accounted for almost 28% of all the nationally copapers that followed by university-university (20%) and university-private industry collaboration (16%).

Furthermore, the data indicate that most of the collaboration took place in the university sector and within a single department, but a great deal of interaction also involves governmental institutes and hospitals. The private sector also participated in collaboration but with far less intensity. When it comes to foreign collaboration, the hospital sector comprises a much smaller part. This can be attributed to the role that the national hospital sector has. Foreign universities and public institutes are frequent collaboration partners of the Australian institutions. This is an interesting finding, because it suggests that university-university or university-public research centre interactions are not only a matter of national concern. It might even mean that the national scientific base is not broad enough to satisfy the collaborative needs of the universities.

To explore the data further, this study examined the pattern of co-authored articles with both Australian national and foreign institutions as the first author (see Table 1). The data show that most of the co-authored papers during 1995-1999 were produced with an Australian author as the first author, accounting for nearly 83% of all the copapers. Only 17% of the joint papers were produced by a first author from a foreign institution. Among the Australian first authors the majority were affiliated with universities (64%) and the rest affiliated with public research centres, private industry or hospitals. The pattern is similar for the first authors from a foreign institution. Therefore, the data suggest that most of the published research output in Australian biotechnology initiated and encouraged by university and public sector research agencies.

In terms of the number of joint papers that originated from Australian universities, the data indicate that the ten most productive universities in the area of biotechnology include University of Queensland, University of New South Wales, Adelaide University, University of Melbourne, Australian National University, University of Sydney, University of Western Australia, Macquarie University, La Trobe University and Monash University. Table 2 indicates the number of joint national and international papers produced in the top ten universities. Other productive universities include Flinders University of South Australia, Murdoch University and Queensland University of Technology.

Public research centres in Australia are also prominent in joint publications. For example, CSIRO has been involved in 157 scientific research publications over the five years period with 106 national coand 51 international co-authorship papers (see Table 2). The data also identified 26 Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) in the sample that involved in 105 research publications, which comprises of 87 national collaborations and 18 international collaborations. The most productive CRC has been the CRC for Food Industry Innovation, located at UNSW, with 18 nationally co-authored papers. Other productive CRCs include the CRC for Tissue Growth and Repair, located at Adelaide University with I 1 nationally co-authored and 1 internationally copaper, the CRC for Tropical Plant Pathology, at the University of Queensland with 10 nationally co-authored papers, and the CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control, at the University of Queensland with 5 nationally coand 2 internationally co-authored papers. ln terms of the collaborating countries, the United States with 157 and England with 83 joint papers are the principal partners for collaboration. These were followed by Germany (45), France (44) and Japan (42). Other major countries include Netherlands (39), New Zealand (34), Canada (21) and Sweden (19) (see Figure 3). Overall, the results suggest that the current trend of collaboration among multi-authors and multi-institutions for producing scientific articles may have reflected the importance of local, national, and international links and more generally the multidimensional scientific research in Australian biotechnology.

In recent times, scientific and technological knowledge production and diffusion have been reshaped by the processes of internationalisation and globalisation. Transnational links among researchers, which are largely supported and stimulated by the development of new information and communication technologies, facilitates production and diffusion of knowledge. As a result international cooperation in science is becoming more frequent and more extensive and is playing a far greater role today in the production of scientific knowledge. As data show, about one third of the papers were internationally co-authored. These results are evidence of the increasing role that international collaboration is playing in the generation of scientific publications.

In terms of nationally copapers, the data show that domestic collaboration in the field of biotechnology took place primarily between universities and public research centres that followed by university-university and university-industry collaboration. This might be due to establishment of new institutes and R&D networks to support, enhance and extend the interactions between the Australian universities, public research institutes and private industry. Many of these collaborative programs involve formal institutional networks connecting R&D activities at universities, public research organisations

The data suggest that most of the published research output in Australian biotechnology initiated and encouraged by university and public sector research agencies. Also most of the co-authored papers during 1995-1999 were produced with an Australian author as the first author. This is indeed encouraging since it points to the fact that most Australian collaborations in the field of biotechnology result in a publication with an Australian scientist as the main author.

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by a Small Grant of the Australian Research Council through the University of Wollongong. The author would also like to acknowledge the assistance received from Gogor Nurharyoko during the analysis of the data.

References

  • Bordons, M. et al (1996) Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37, 279-295.
  • Lawani, S.M. (1986) Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research, Scientometrics, 9, 13-25.
  • Melin, G. & Persson, O. (1996) Studying research collaboration using co-authorships, Scientometrics, 36, 363-377.
  • Persson, O. et al (1997) Research collaboration at Nordic universities, Scientometrics, 39, 209-233.
  • Shohet, S. & Prevezer, M. (1996) UK Biotechnology: institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries, R&D Management, 26, 283-298.
  • Turpin, T. et al, (1999) University and industry research partnerships in Australia, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, 115 pages.
  • Zhang, H.Q. and H.N. Guo (1997), 'Scientific research collaboration in China', Scientometrics, 38(2): 309-319.

Copyright 2002 - AusBiotech Ltd.


The following images related to this document are available:

Photo images

[au02022t2.jpg] [au02022f3.jpg] [au02022f2.jpg] [au02022t1.jpg] [au02022f1.jpg]
Home Faq Resources Email Bioline
© Bioline International, 1989 - 2024, Site last up-dated on 01-Sep-2022.
Site created and maintained by the Reference Center on Environmental Information, CRIA, Brazil
System hosted by the Google Cloud Platform, GCP, Brazil