JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Bibliometric Analysis of Collaboration Network and the Role of Research Station in Antarctic Science
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Bibliometric Analysis of Collaboration Network and the Role of Research Station in Antarctic Science
Kim, Hyunuk; Jung, Woo-Sung;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Due to the large scale of Antarctic science, scientific collaboration is required for conducting scientific research. In this study, we attempted to investigate collaboration network and the role of research station in Antarctic science based on bibliometric data from 1995 to 2014. We confirmed that geographical proximity tends to be important for scientific collaboration by employing community detection in the network. This result raises the question about what the role of research station in Antarctica is. We tried to reveal its role by focusing on five countries, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, India, and Korea that constructed new research stations during the last decade. Relative growth rate, a value to measure the growth of publications, didn`t differ much around the construction period compared to those in other periods for these countries except Belgium. However, we found geographical keywords emerged around the construction for all five countries. These keywords were utilized to observe national research activities in Antarctica. They show where countries started to be concerned about after the construction.
 Keywords
Antarctic Science;Network Analysis;Community Detection;Keyword Analysis;Antarctic Research Stations;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Adams, J., Gurney, K., Hook, D., and Leydesdorff, L. (2014), International collaboration clusters in Africa, Scientometrics, 98, 547-556. crossref(new window)

2.
Bajwa, R., Yaldram, K., and Rafique, S. (2013), A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective, Scientometrics, 94, 333-342. crossref(new window)

3.
Benayas, J., Pertierra, L., Tejedo, P., Lara, F., Bermudez, O., Hughes, K., and Quesada, A. (2013), A review of scientific research trends within ASPA Byers Peninsula, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica, Antarctic Science, 25(126), 128-145. crossref(new window)

4.
Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W., and Young, O. R. (2011), Science diplomacy, Antarctica, Science and the Governance of International Spaces, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

5.
Clauset, A., Newman, M. E., and Moore, C. (2004), Finding community structure in very large networks, Physical Review E, 70, 066111. crossref(new window)

6.
Dastidar, P. G. (2007), National and institutional productivity and collaboration in Antarctic science: an analysis of 25 years of journal publications (1980 2004), Polar Research, 26,175-180. crossref(new window)

7.
Dastidar, P. G. and Persson, O. (2005), Mapping the global structure of Antarctic researchvis-a-vis Antarctic Treaty System, Current Science, 89, 1552.

8.
Dastidar, P. G. and Ramachandran, S. (2008), Intellectual structure of Antarctic science: A25-years analysis, Scientometrics, 77, 389-414. crossref(new window)

9.
Dudeney, J. R. and Walton, D. W. (2012), Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty, Polar Research, 31.

10.
Evans, T., Lambiotte, R., and Panzarasa, P. (2011), Community structure and patterns ofscientific collaboration in business and management, Scientometrics, 89, 381-396. crossref(new window)

11.
Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., and Hoekman, J. (2009), Spatial scientometrics: Towards acumulative research program, Journal of Informetrics, 3, 222-232. crossref(new window)

12.
Hua, W., Li, Y., and Yuan, S. (2014), A quantitative analysis of Antarctic related articles inhumanities and social sciences appearing in the world core journals, Scientometrics, 100, 273-286. crossref(new window)

13.
Ji, Q., Pang, X., and Zhao, X. (2014), A bibliometric analysis of research on Antarctica during 19932012, Scientometrics, 101, 1925-1939. crossref(new window)

14.
Mahapatra, M. (1985), On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature, Proceedings of the 15th IASLIC conference, 61-70.

15.
Newman, M. E. (2004), Analysis of weighted networks, Physical Review E, 70, 056131. crossref(new window)

16.
Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., and Fortunato, S. (2012), World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science, Scientific Reports, 2.

17.
Persson, O. and Dastidar, P. B. (2013), Citation analysis to reconstruct the dynamics of Antarctic ozone hole research and formulation of the Montreal Protocol, Current Science, 104, 835-840.

18.
Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., and Frenken, K. (2007), The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration, Papers in regional science, 86, 423-443. crossref(new window)

19.
Stefenon, V., Roesch, L., and Pereira, A. (2013), Thirty years of Brazilian research in Antarctica: ups, downs and perspectives, Scientometrics, 95, 325-331. crossref(new window)

20.
Stotz, G. C., Salgado-Luarte, C., Rios R. S, Acuna-Rodriguez, I. S., Carrasco-Urra, F., MolinaMontenegro, M. A., and Gianoli, E. (2013), Trends in Antarctic ecological research in Latin America shown by publications in international journals, Polar Research, 32.

21.
Tejedo, P., Gutierrez, B., Pertierra, L. R., and Benayas, J. (2015), Analysis of published scientific research from Deception Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctic Science, 27,134-149. crossref(new window)