Trends in International Co-authorship of Russian Scientists During 2019–2023 According to OpenAlex Data

Collaboration in science is essential and often considered a necessary condition for improving the quality of research. Identifying the changing trends in international scientific cooperation is a crucial task of scientometrics. The purpose of this study is to analyze the trends in Russia’s collaboration with major partner countries. The objectives of the research are: 1. To compare the dynamics of joint publication activity between Russia with two groups of countries – the “BRICS plus” countries and the several Western countries and Japan. 2. To determine the “weight” of publication arrays based on their citation rates compared to the global average ones. The object of the analysis is the array of Russian publications written in collaboration with scientists from the “BRICS plus” countries and several Western countries and Japan. The data source is the OpenAlex open-access resource. The study found that co-authorship between Russian scientists and representatives of the several Western countries and Japan has been actively decreasing in all fields of knowledge, although it is still at a high level in quantitative terms. The citation rates of documents published in collaboration with these countries have been higher than the global average in 14 out of 26 scientific fields. However, joint publication activity with the “BRICS plus” countries is still low. Nevertheless, the average citation rates of publications with these countries in 12 fields exceed the global average, indicating a tangible benefit from scientific cooperation. Trends towards increased joint publication activity have been observed in all fields, to varying degrees, with representatives of the “BRICS plus” countries. The study of bilateral publication relationships has shown that collaboration with Russian colleagues contributes the most to the publication output of Belarus and Kazakhstan.

1. Dezhina IG (2015) BRICS countries: possible areas for scientific cooperation. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya 9: 14–23. (In Russ.).

2. Markusova VA, Libkind AN, Zolotova AV and Kotelnikova NA (2023) Priority areas of scientific cooperation between Russian, Iran, India and Turkey scientists: bibliometric analysis according to the InCites database (2011–2021). Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Seriya 2: Informatsionnye protsessy i sistemy 9: 18–28. (In Russ.).

3. Mokhnacheva YuV (2015) The influence of various forms of co-authorship on the scientific productivity of Russian scientists in the field of molecular biology. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiya. Seriya 1: Organizatsiya i metodika informatsionnoi raboty 8: 13–25. (In Russ.).

4. Mokhnacheva YuV (2016) Russian-Armenian scientific cooperation from the viewpoint of joint publication activity (according to the databases “Web of Science Core Collection”, “Scopus”, Russian Science Citation Index for 2005– 2014). Bibliosfera 3: 53–59. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2016-3-53-59

5. Mokhnacheva YuV, Kharybina TN and Berezkina NYu (2012) Analysis of Russian-Belarusian publications by the main bibliometric indicators. Informatsionnye resursy Rossii 1: 20–25. (In Russ.).

6. Pislyakov VV (2010) Co-authorship of Russian scientists with foreign colleagues: publications and their citation: preprint. Moscow: HSE. (In Russ.).

7. Terekhov AI (2014) Scientific collaboration in the sphere of carbon nanostructures in the mirror of bibliometric analysis. Vestnik Rossiyskoi akademii nauk 84 (8): 708–714. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7868/S0869587314070184

8. Trofimova IN (2023) Current positions and trends in the international cooperation of Russian researchers: according to Web of Science data for 2018–2022. Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiya. Etnologiya 32 (4): 178–198. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038x-2023-32-4-178-198

9. Beskaravainaya EV and Kharibina TN (2023) Prospects for relations of Russia with the BRICS countries in the sphere of the natural and exact sciences. Scientific and Technical Information Processing 50 (2): 121–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223020065

10. Bolton WS, Chapman SJ, Corrigan N, Croft J, Collinson F, Brown JM and Jayne DG (2021) The incidence of low anterior resection syndrome as assessed in an international randomized controlled trial (MRC/NIHR ROLARR). Annals of Surgery 274 (6): e1223–e1229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003806

11. Bordons M and Gómez I (2000) Collaboration networks in science. The web of knowledge: a festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, pp. 197–213.

12. Cronin B, Shaw D and La Barre K (2003) A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (9): 855–871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10278

13. Gazni A and Didegah F (2011) Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics 87 (2): 251–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0343-8

14. Glänzel W and De Lange C (2002) A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 54 (1): 75–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015684505035

15. Goldfinch S, Dale T and DeRouen K (2003) Science from the periphery: collaboration, networks and “periphery effects” in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics 57 (3): 321–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025048516769

16. Isfandyari-Moghaddam A, Saberi MK, TahmasebiLimoni S, Mohammadian S and Naderbeigi F (2021) Global scientific collaboration: a social network analysis and data mining of the co-authorship networks. Journal of Information Science 49 (4): 1126– 1141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211040655

17. Katz JS and Hicks D (1997) How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics 40 (3): 541–554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459299

18. Larivière V, Gingras Y and Archambault É (2006) Canadian collaboration networks: a comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics 68 (3): 519–533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8

19. Moody J (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review 69 (2): 213–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900204

20. Narin F, Stevens K and Whitlow ES (1991) Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics 21 (3): 313–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093973

21. Persson O, Glänzel W and Danell R (2004) Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics 60 (3): 421–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034384.35498.7d

22. Priem J, Piwowar H and Orr R (2022). OpenAlex: a fullyopen index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. ArXiv: website. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.01833

23. Thelwall M, Kousha K, Abdoli M, Stuart E, Makita M, Wilson P and Levitt J (2024) Which international co-authorships produce higher quality journal articles? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 75 (7): 769–788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24881

24. Wagner-Döbler R (2001) Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behaviour since 1800 – from a bibliometric point of view. Scientometrics 52 (3): 503– 517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014208219788