Keywords
Information Science.
network communication
Co-authorship
How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction: Open Science is a movement largely based on knowledge sharing and its discussion has been carried out by several areas, including Information Science. Scientific collaboration has the potential to benefit science in several ways, however, little is known about country collaboration in this area. Objective: Therefore, the objective of this work is to analyze scientific cooperation between countries on the subject of Open Science in the field of Information Science. Methodology: The network analysis method (co-authorship between countries) and the frequency of keywords were used to identify the most discussed subjects. Results: The results showed that England has a central position in the studied scientific collaboration network. However, it is necessary to improve communication to avoid loss of quality in the transmission of information. Conclusion: The Open Access theme is still the most evident, however, topics such as research data management have gained notoriety in discussions on Open Science in the field of Information Science.
References
ALVES, Bruno Henrique et al. Rede de coautoria institucional em Ciência da Informação: uma comparação entre indicadores de rede e os conceitos CAPES. Em Questão, v. 20, n. 3, p. 1–15, 2014.
BOAI: BUDAPEST OPEN ACCESS INITIATIVE. Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002. Disponível em: https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2023.
BOZEMAN, Barry; CORLEY, Elizabeth. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, v. 33, p. 599–616, 2004. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008
BRONNER, Marianne; MEIJER, Gerard; YAM, Vivian; FRIEDRICH, Bretislav. UNESCO issues a powerful endorsement of Open Science. Natural Sciences, v. 2. n. 1. P. 1-3. 2022. Disponível em <https://doi.org/10.1002/ntls.10037>
CARVALHO, M.M.; FLEURY, André; LOPES, Ana Paula. An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 80, n. 7, p. 1418–1437, 2013. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.008
CHEN, Chaomei. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 57, n. 3, p. 359–377, 2006. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
CROWLEY, John. Open Data for Resilience Initiative: Field Guide. World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014.
GLÄNZEL, W.; SCHOEPFLIN, U. Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond? Scientometrics, v. 30, n. 2–3, p. 375–384, 1994. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018107
HAN, Jiawei; KAMBER, Micheline; PEI, Jian. Advanced Cluster Analysis. In: DATA MINING. [S. l.]: Elsevier, 2012. p. 497–541. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381479-1.00011-3
HE, Zi-Lin; GENG, Xue-Song; CAMPBELL-HUNT, Colin. Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, v. 38, n. 2, p. 306–317, 2009. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.011
HOMOLAK, J.; KODVANJ, I.; VIRAG, D. Preliminary analysis of COVID-19 academic information patterns: a call for open science in the times of closed borders. Scientometrics, v. 124, n. 3, p. 2687–2701, 2020. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03587-2
JOSEPH, Heather. Building momentum to realign incentives to support open science. Data Intelligence, v. 3, n. 1, p. 71–78, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00079
KATZ, J. Sylvan; MARTIN, Ben R. What is research collaboration? Research Policy, v. 26, n. 1, p. 1–18, 1997. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
LOPES, Ana Paula Vilas Boas Viveiros; CARVALHO, Marly Monteiro de. Evolução da literatura de inovação em relações de cooperação: um estudo bibliométrico num período de vinte anos. Gestão & Produção, v. 19, n. 1, p. 203–217, 2012. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2012000100014
MAIA, Maria de Fátima S.; CAREGNATO, Sônia Elisa. Co-autoria como indicador de redes de colaboração científica. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, v. 13, n. 2, p. 18–31, 2008. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-99362008000200003
MAX PLANCK SOCIETY. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 2003. Disponível em: http://bit.ly/46me515. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2023.
MUELLER, Suzana Pinheiro Machado. A comunicação científica e o movimento de acesso livre ao conhecimento. Ciência da Informação, v. 35, n. 2, p. 27–38, 2006. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-19652006000200004
NIH: NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, 2003. Disponível em: bit.ly/3NK4SZ4. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2023.
O’MALLEY, A. James; MARSDEN, Peter V. The analysis of social networks. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, v. 8, n. 4, p. 222–269, 2008. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-008-0041-z
OECD: ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. OECD Principles and guidelines for access to Research data form public funding. OECD: Paris, 2007. Disponível em: bit.ly/3NLLLOA. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2023.
OKAMURA, Keisuke. Scientometric engineering: Exploring citation dynamics via arXiv eprints. Quantitative Science Studies, v. 3, n. 1, p. 122–146, 2022. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00174
OLIVEIRA, Francina Tannnuri de; GRÁCIO, Maria Cláudia Cabrini. Visibilidade dos pesquisadores no periódico Scientometrics a partir da perspectiva brasileira: um estudo de cocitação. Em Questão, v. 18, p. 99–113, 2012.
OSTP: OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY. Harnessing the Power of Open Data: A Framework for Federal Agencies. OSTP: 2013. Disponível em: bit.ly/46fjGXb. Acesso em: 31 jan. 2023.
RESTREPO-ARANGO, Cristina; ALVARADO, Ruben Urbizagástegui. La red de co-autores en la Bibliometría mexicana. Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, v. 23, n. 51, p. 74–94, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2018v23n51p74
RODRÍGUEZ, Yariannis Cuba et al. Open Science and the Scientific Production of the University of Camagüey in Academic Social Networks. Bibliotecas, Anales de Investigacion, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1–18, 2022.
ROSA, Samuel Santos da; SILVA, Fabiano Couto Corrêa da; PAVÃO, Caterina Marta Groposo. Iniciativas de acesso aberto no combate à pandemia. RDBCI Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, v. 19, p. 1–22, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v19i00.8666880
SANTOS, P. X.; ALMEIDA, B. A.; HENNING, P. (Orgs). Livro verde - ciência aberta e dados abertos: mapeamento e análise de políticas, infraestruturas e estratégias em perspectiva nacional e internacional. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2017. 140p. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/3NNg6MJ. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2023.
SAYÃO, Luis Fernando; SALES, Luana Farias. Algumas considerações sobre os repositórios digitais de dados de pesquisa. Informação & Informação, v. 21, n. 2, p. 90, 2016. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5433/1981-8920.2016v21n2p90
SENABRE, Enric; FERRAN-FERRER, Nuria; PERELLÓ, Josep. Participatory design of citizen science experiments. Comunicar, v. 26, n. 54, p. 29–38, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3916/C54-2018-03
SHEN, Hongquan et al. The correlation between scientific collaboration and citation count at the paper level: a meta-analysis. Scientometrics, v. 126, n. 4, p. 3443–3470, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03888-0
SILVEIRA, Lúcia da et al. Ciência aberta na perspectiva de especialistas brasileiros: proposta de taxonomia. Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, v. 26, p. 1–27, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79646
SINGH, Gurmeet et al. Optimizing Workflow Data Footprint. Scientific Programming, v. 15, n. 4, p. 249–268, 2007. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/701609
TAGUE-SUTCLIFFE, Jean. An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management, v. 28, n. 1, p. 1–3, 1992. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G
TALKE, Katrin; SALOMO, Søren; KOCK, Alexander. Top Management Team Diversity and Strategic Innovation Orientation: The Relationship and Consequences for Innovativeness and Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 28, n. 6, p. 819–832, 2011. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00851.x
TESTA, James. A base de dados ISI e seu processo de seleção de revistas. Ciência da Informação, v. 27, n. 2, p. 233–235, 1998. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-19651998000200022
UNESCO: UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Paris: [s. n.], 2021. 36 p.
UNITED NATIONS. The Future is Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York, 2019.
VAN WESEL, Maarten; WYATT, Sally; TEN HAAF, Jeroen. What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation. Scientometrics, v. 98, n. 3, p. 1601–1615, 2014. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1154-x
VICENTE-SAEZ, Ruben; MARTINEZ-FUENTES, Clara. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, v. 88, p. 428–436, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
WEITZEL, Simone Rocha; MESQUITA, Marco Aurelio Alencar. Preservação digital em repositórios institucionais: práticas na região Sudeste do Brasil. Liinc em Revista, v. 11, n. 1, p. 181–196, 2015. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.18225/liinc.v11i1.778
WILKINSON, Mark D. et al. Comment: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, v. 3, p. 1–9, 2016. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
YAN, Erija; ZHU, Yongjun; HE, Jiangen. Analyzing academic mobility of U.S. professors based on ORCID data and the Carnegie Classification. Quantitative Science Studies, v. 1, n. 4, p. 1451–1467, 2020. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00088
YU, Xuan et al. Open science in practice: Learning integrated modeling of coupled surface-subsurface flow processes from scratch. Earth and Space Science, v. 3, n. 5, p. 190–206, 2016. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000155
ZHANG, Junlong; LUO, Yu. Degree Centrality, Betweenness Centrality, and Closeness Centrality in Social Network. In: Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on Modelling, Simulation and Applied Mathematics (MSAM2017). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.2991/msam-17.2017.68
ZIPF, G. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addson-Wesley Press, 1949.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Ligia Parreira Muniz Gaal, Cesar Antonio Pereira
Downloads
