BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Caroline Wagner

Caroline Wagner appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Librariesphysics.soc-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

Recent Developments in China-U.S. Cooperation in Science

China's remarkable gains in science over the past 25 years have been well documented (e.g., Jin and Rousseau, 2005a; Zhou and Leydesdorff, 2006; Shelton & Foland, 2009) but it is less well known that China and the United States have become each other's top collaborating country. Science and technology has been a primary vehicle for growing the bilateral relationship between China and the United States since the opening of relations between the two countries in the late 1970s. During the 2000s, the scientific relationship between China and the United States--as measured in coauthored papers--showed significant growth. Chinese scientists claim first authorship much more frequently than U.S. counterparts by the end of the decade. The sustained rate of increase of collaboration with one other country is unprecedented on the U.S. side. Even growth in relations with eastern European nations does not match the growth in the relationship between China and the United States. Both countries can benefit from the relationship, but for the U.S., greater benefit would come from a more targeted strategy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Replicability and the public/private divide

In a recent letter, Carlos Vilchez-Roman criticizes Bornmann et al. (2015) for using data which cannot be reproduced without access to an in-house version of the Web-of-Science (WoS) at the Max Planck Digital Libraries (MPDL, Munich). We agree with the norm of replicability and therefore returned to our data. Is the problem only a practical one of automation or does the in-house processing add analytical value to the data? Is the newly emerging situation in any sense different from a further professionalization of the field? In our opinion, a political economy of science indicators has in the meantime emerged with a competitive dynamic that affects the intellectual organization of the field.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently-cited papers

The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and South Africa) are noted for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players on the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently-cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. In a further step of analysis for this study, we generate co-authorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for four time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the USA.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

International Co-authorship Relations in the Social Science Citation Index: Is Internationalization Leading the Network?

We analyze international co-authorship relations in the Social Science Citation Index 2011 using all citable items in the DVD-version of this index. Network statistics indicate four groups of nations: (i) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the UK and Ireland) are attributed; (ii) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries; (iii) the Scandinavian nations; and (iv) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28 (including Croatia), eleven of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. Collapsing the EU-28 into a single node leads to a bi-polar structure between the US and EU-28; China is part of the US-pole. We develop an information-theoretical test to distinguish whether international collaborations or domestic collaborations prevail; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (this was found in both SSCI and SCI). In France, however, the national distribution is more important than the international one, while the reverse is true for most European nations in the core group (UK, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.). Decomposition of the USA in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more US states are domestically oriented in SSCI, whereas more internationally in SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones, but not by replacing them.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

International Collaboration in Science: The Global Map and the Network

The network of international co-authorship relations has been dominated by certain European nations and the USA, but this network is rapidly expanding at the global level. Between 40 and 50 countries appear in the center of the international network in 2011, and almost all (201) nations are nowadays involved in international collaboration. In this brief communication, we present both a global map with the functionality of a Google Map (zooming, etc.) and network maps based on normalized relations. These maps reveal complementary aspects of the network. International collaboration in the generation of knowledge claims (that is, the context of discovery) changes the structural layering of the sciences. Previously, validation was at the global level and discovery more dependent on local contexts. This changing relationship between the geographical and intellectual dimensions of the sciences also has implications for national science policies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access