Abstract
The present study sought to examine the trend and impact of international collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam during the period after the introduction of the a reform policy and the normalization of relations with the United States. Using the Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science data (2001–2015) we found that 77% of Vietnam’s scientific output (n = 18,044 papers) involved international collaborations, with the United States and Japan researchers being the most frequent partners. The proportion of international collaborations has decreased slightly over time at the expense of an increased rate of domestic collaborations. The rate of growth in Vietnam’s scientific output was 17% per annum, and three-quarters of the growth was associated with international collaborations rather than purely domestic production. Moreover, internationally coauthored papers received twice the average citation as domestic papers. Of note, papers with overseas corresponding author had higher citation rate than papers with domestic corresponding author. These data suggest that the vast majority of scientific papers from Vietnam was attributable to international collaboration, and this had a positive impact on the quality and visibility of Vietnam science. The data also indicate that Vietnam is in the growth phase of building up research capacity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahn, C. Y. (1991). Technology transfer and economic development: The case of Korea. In K. Minden (Ed.), Pacific cooperation in science and technology. Honolulu: East West Center(I).
Akre, O., Barone-Adesi, F., Pettersson, A., Pearce, N., Merletti, F., & Richiardi, L. (2011). Differences in citation rates by country of origin for papers published in top-ranked medical journals: do they reflect inequalities in access to publication? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(2), 119–123.
Antonelli, C., & Fassio, C. (2015). Academic knowledge and economic growth: are scientific fields all alike? Socio-Economic Review. doi:10.1093/ser/mwv025.
Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). International partnerships for knowledge in business and academia: A comparison between Europe and the USA. Technovation, 24, 517–528.
Australian Academy of Science. (2016). The importance of advanced physical, mathematical and biological sciences to the Australian economy. Australian Academy of Science: Acton.
Baumann, P., Belanger, R. E., Akre, C., & Suris, J. C. (2011). Increased risks of early sexual initiators: time makes a difference. Sex Health, 8(3), 431–435.
Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. P. (1982). Peer review–a study of reliability. Change, 14(6), 44–48.
Chen, K., Yao, Q., Sun, J., He, Z. F., Yao, L., & Liu, Z. Y. (2016). International publication trends and collaboration performance of China in healthcare science and services research. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 5, 1.
De Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (1999). Science in America Latina: a comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics, 46, 299–320.
Gantman, E. R. (2012). Economic, linguistic, and political factors in the scientific productivity of countries. Scientometrics, 93, 967–985.
Glanzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115.
Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 952–965.
Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Pouris, A. (2012). The influence of scientific research output of academics on economic growth in South Africa: an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) application. Scientometrics, 95, 129–139.
Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554.
Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30, 791–801.
Khor, K. A., & Yu, L. G. (2016). Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics, 107, 1095–1110.
Kim, M. J. (2005). Korean science and international collaboration, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 63, 321–339.
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles. BioScience, 55(5), 438–443.
Lou, W., & He, J. (2015). Does author affiliation reputation affect uncitedness? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52, 1–4.
Low, W. Y., Ng, K. H., Kabir, M. A., Koh, A. P., & Sinnasamy, J. (2014). Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia. Scientometrics, 98, 1521–1533.
Mahian, O. (2015). Corresponding authors: Is there fame bias in editorial choice? Nature, 519(7544), 414.
Manh, H. D. (2015). Scientific publications in Vietnam as seen from Scopus during 1996–2013. Scientometrics, 105, 83–95.
Nguyen, T. V., & Pham, L. T. (2011). Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: An analysis of ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 89, 101–117.
Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: a new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84, 365–371.
Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometrics, 74, 361–377.
Smith, M. J., Weinberger, C., Bruna, E. M., & Allesina, S. (2014). The scientific impact of nations: journal placement and citation performance. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109195.
The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society.
Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2003). Bibliometric analyses of world science. In Third european report on S&T indicators. European Communities.
Venets, V. I. (2014). Some problems associated with affiliation of the authors in the web of science. Journal of Communications Technology and Electronics, 59, 681–687.
Wagner, C. S., Branmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries (RAND, 2001). World Bank Report MR-1357.0-WB.
Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94, 851–872.
Witze, A. (2016). Research gets increasingly international. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19198.
World Bank. (2014). Science Technology and Innovation in Vietnam. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy. Washington: World Bank.
Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2004). S&T networks and bibliometrics: The case of international scientific collaboration. In 4th Proximity Congress: Proximity, Networks and Co-ordination, Marseille (France) (p. 15), June 17, 2004.
Acknowledgements
Professor Tuan V. Nguyen’s work is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. We thank Professor Robert M. Graham of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute (Australia) for his personal interest of this work and his thoughtful comments that improved the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Classification of broad research areas
Appendix: Classification of broad research areas
Mathematics Mathematics—general Mathematics—applied Mathematics—miscellaneous Statistics and probability Social sciences—mathematical methods Physics Acoustics Crystallography Physics—general Physics—applied Physics—atomic, molecular and chemical Physics—condensed matter physics—fluids and plasmas Physics—mathematical optics thermodynamics Physics—miscellaneous Physics—nuclear Physics–particles and fields Astronomy and astrophysics Chemistry Chemistry—general Chemistry—analytical Chemistry—applied Chemistry—inorganic and nuclear Chemistry—miscellaneous Chemistry—medicinal Chemistry—organic Chemistry—physical Electrochemistry Polymer science | Engineering and technology Engineering—electrical and electronic Telecommunications Materials sciences Metallurgy and metallurgical engineering Metallurgy and mining Construction and building technology Civil Engineering Mechanical engineering Instruments and instrumentation Fuels and energy Geological engineering Chemical engineering Aerospace engineering Other engineering sciences Computer sciences Earth Science Geochemistry and geophysics Geography geology Geosciences—general Geosciences—interdisciplinary Remote sensing Meteorology and atmospheric sciences Mineralogy Oceanography Paleontology Environmental sciences Ecology Environmental sciences Limnology Water resources |
Clinical Medicine Allergy Anesthesiology Cardiac and cardiovascular system Cardiovascular system Chemistry—clinical and medicinal Clinical neurology Critical care Dermatology and venereal diseases Drugs and addiction Emergency medicine and critical care Endocrinology and metabolism Gastroenterology and hepatology Geriatrics and gerontology Hematology Medical informatics Medical laboratory technology Medicine—general and internal Medicine—miscellaneous Obstetrics and gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Orthopedics Otorhinolaryngology Pediatrics Peripheral vascular disease Psychiatry Respiratory system Rheumatology Sports science Surgery Transplantation Tropical medicine Urology and nephrology Vascular diseases Dentistry and odontology Oral surgery and medicine | Public Health and Health Sciences Drugs and addiction Hygiene and public health Nursing Public—environmental and occupational health Rehabilitation Substance abuse Biomedical science Anatomy and morphology Andrology Cytology and histology Embryology Immunology Infectious diseases Engineering—biomedical Medicine—research and experimental Neurosciences Parasitology Pathology Radiology and nuclear medicine Physiology Virology Pharmacology and pharmacy Toxicology Basic life sciences Biochemistry and molecular biology Biomethods Biophysics Biotechnology and applied microbiology Cell biology Developmental biology Genetics and heredity Microbiology Reproductive biology Reproductive systems |
Social sciences Anthropology Anthropology Legal medicine International relations Communication Psychology Religion Education and educational research Area studies Public administration Family studies Social work Physical geography Behavioral sciences Linguistics Women’s studies Paleontology Information science and library science Transportation Geography | Demography Urban studies Government and law Social sciences—other topics Medical ethics Cultural studies Film, radio and television Sociology Art Social issues Mathematical methods in social sciences Criminology and penology Arts and humanities—other topics History Archaeology Literature Asian Studies Ethnic Studies Philosophy History and philosophy of science Business and economics Business and economics Operations research and management science |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, T.V., Ho-Le, T.P. & Le, U.V. International collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam: an analysis of patterns and impact. Scientometrics 110, 1035–1051 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2201-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2201-1