La investigación argentina sobre agroindustria y su colaboración internacional (2007-2016)

Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Zaida and González, Claudia La investigación argentina sobre agroindustria y su colaboración internacional (2007-2016). Palabra Clave (La Plata), 2020, vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 1-22. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of 12814] Text
12814 - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.
Download (5kB)
Alternative locations: https://doi.org/10.24215/18539912e103

English abstract

This work aims to compare the collaboration patterns of the Argentine scientific production of Agroindustry according to thegeographical scope of the research, that is, topics addressed to national readers and topics that go beyond the national border.Scopus database were used to carry out this study which span for the period 2007-2016. Collaboration patterns of both groupswere analyzed and described as follows: a) whether they are global or local research topics, applying the criterion of absence orpresence of national place names, respectively; b) the volume of co-authorship with different countries grouped by continents ispresented; c) the 20 most frequent keywords are determined for each case and, d) the H-Index of countries was used as an indicatorof the scientific impact of the collaborating country. The main results show that European countries are the main collaborator inAgroindustry research with more than 40% of co-authored papers, while Oceania, Asia, and Africa present lower collaborationrates (5% or less). The distribution of papers in global and local topics appear in all continents with slight increases in Europe, North America, and the Caribbean and Oceania in favor of local topics. The correlation between international collaboration andthe scientific impact of the countrie with which Argentina collaborates is relatively positive. The topics investigated are mainlyanchored in Patagonia, the maritime coastline, and are especially focused on cattle and corn. The study provides useful information to think about the formation of research teams, the planning of international mobility programs, and strategic alliances for future collaboration, and it does so in a strategic area that generates strong expectations for the economic development of the country.

Spanish abstract

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo comparar los patrones de colaboración de la producción científica argentina de agroindustria de acuerdo con el alcance geográfico de la investigación, es decir, temas dirigidos a lectores nacionales y temas que van más allá de la frontera nacional recogida en la base de datos Scopus para el periodo 2007-2016. El comportamiento de ambos grupos se analiza y describe de la siguiente manera: a) se discrimina según se trate de temas de investigación globales o locales, aplicando el criterio de ausencia o presencia de topónimos nacionales, respectivamente; b) se presenta el volumen de coautoría con diferentes países agrupados por continentes; c) se determinan las 20 palabras claves más frecuentes para cada caso y, d) se pone en relación con el Índice-H de los países, utilizado en este caso como indicador de impacto científico del país colaborador. Los principales resultados muestran que solo con Europa se logra la proporción de colaboración a los niveles de la ciencia del país (40%). Con países de continentes como Oceanía, Asia y África, la colaboración es muy minoritaria (5% o menos). La distribución en temas globales y locales se mantiene en todos los continentes con leves incrementos en Europa, América del Norte y Caribe y Oceanía a favor de los temas locales. La correlación entre la colaboración internacional y el impacto científico que tienen los países con los que se colabora es relativamente positiva. Los temas sobre los que se investiga se anclan principalmente en la Patagonia, el litoral marítimo y se centran especialmente en los bovinos y el maíz. El estudio aporta información útil para pensar la conformación de equipos de investigación, la planificación de programas de movilidad internacional y alianzas estratégicas en relación con la colaboración futura, y lo hace en un área estratégica que genera fuertes expectativas para el desarrollo económico del país.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Bibliometrics, International collaboration, Agroindustry, Geographical scope of research, Argentina, Bibliometría, Colaboración internacional, Agroindustria, Temas locales
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Palabra Clave
Date deposited: 12 Nov 2020 01:11
Last modified: 12 Nov 2020 01:11
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/40610

References

Basualdo, J. A., Grenóvero, M. S., Bertucci, E. & Molina, N. B. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on intestinal parasites in Argentina during the period 1985–2014. Revista argentina de microbiología, 48(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ram.2016.03.005

Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337

Beaver, D. D. & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(3), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016308

Bédu, O., Fournier, D. & Salson, C. (2012). Estudio bibliométrico del INTA. Buenos Aires: Agropolis.

Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Miguel, S. E. & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm ofresearch. Scientometrics, 102(1), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1414-4

Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Miao, L., Murray, D., Robinson-García, N., Costas, R. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). A global comparison of scientific mobility and collaboration according to national scientific capacities. Frontiersin research metrics and analytics, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00017

Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C. R. & Larivière, V. (2019). Follow the leader: On the relation ship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0218309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218309

Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., González-Molina, A. & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). New approach to the visualization of international Scientific collaboration. Information visualization, 9(4), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1057/ivs.2009.31

Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social studies of science, 9(4), 481–497. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/284574

Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235632795_Mapping_World_Scientific_Collaboration_Authors_Institutions_and_Countries

Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010512628145

Glänzel, W. & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinational measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015684505035

Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 257–276). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12

Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

Hoekman, J., Frenken, K. & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research policy, 39(5), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012

Jacso, P. (2009). The h‐index for countries in the Web of Science and Scopus. Online information review, 33, 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910985756

Kwiek, M. (2015). The Internationalization of research in Europe. Journal of studies in international education, 19(4),341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315572898

Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flowsin the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 481-489. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21682

Leclerc, M. & Gagné, J. (1994). International scientific cooperation: the continentalization of science. Scientometrics,31(3), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016876

López-Navarro, I., Moreno, A. I., Quintanilla, M. Á. & Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why do I publish research articlesin English in stead of my language? Differences in Spanish researchers’ motivations across scientific domains. Scientometrics, 103(3), 939–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1570-1

Merlino-Santesteban, C. (2013). Desempeño científico argentino en cinco áreas prioritarias de I+D. Una mirada a través del SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad - CTS, 8(22), 33–56. Recuperado de http://www.revistacts.net/volumen-8-numero-22/121-articulos/493-desempeno-cientifico-argentino-en-cinco-areas-prioritarias-de-id-una-mirada-a-traves-del-scimago-journal-a-country-rank

Miguel, S. E., González, C. M. & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2015). Lo local y lo global en la producción científica argentina con visibilidad en Scopus, 2008-2012. Dimensiones nacionales e internacionales de la investigación. Información, cultura y sociedad, 32, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.34096/ics.i32.1375

Molina, N. B., Grenóvero, M. S., Bertucci, E. & Basualdo, J. Á. (2015). Análisis bibliométrico de la literatura científica sobre epidemiología de Giardia en Argentina (1995-2014). Acta bioquímica clínica latinoamericana, 49(4), 425–432. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=53543485007

Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., González-Molina, A., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J. & Herrero-Solana, V. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 57-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4

Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Bornmann, L. & Moed, H. F. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97(2), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1046-0

Muñoz-Écija, T., Vargas-Quesada, B. & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2019). Coping with the delineation of emerging fields: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology as a case study. Journal of informetrics, 13(4), 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100976

Pereira, S., Higer, D. & Carmaran, C. (2018). Diversidad fúnguica en Argentina: análisis bibliométrico de los aportes realizados y su relación con el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica. Darwiniana, 6(2), 151–164. Recuperado de https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=IFME&sw=w&issn=00116793&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA581622794&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs

Phillips, J. P. (1955). The individual in chemical research. Science,121(3139), 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.121.3139.311-b

Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844

Rehn, C., Kronman, U. & Wadskog, D. (2014). Bibliometric indicators—Definitions and usage at Karolinska Institutet. Karolinska Institutet, 13, 2012.

Russell, J., Madera, M. & Ainsworth, S. (2009). El análisis de redes en el estudio de la colaboración científica. REDES: Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales, 17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.374

Smith, M. (1958). e trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American psychologist, 13(10), 596–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040487

Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual review of information science and technology, 41, 643–681.Tijssen, R. J., Mouton, J., Van Leeuwen, T. N. & Boshoff, N. (2006). How relevant are local scholarly journals in globalscience? A case study of South Africa. Research evaluation, 15(3), 163–174.

Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I. T., Jackson, B. A., Wong, A. & Yoda, T. (2001). Science & technology collaboration:building capacity in developing countries? (Product Page MR-1357.0-WB). RAND Corporation. Recuperado dehttps://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1357z0.html

Wagner, C., Whetsell, T., Baas, J. & Jonkers, K. (2018). Openness and impact of leading scientific countries. Frontiersin research metrics and analytics, 3, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00010


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS