For researchers in the global South, international recognition in science arguably involves engaging with the norms, ideas, and people leading research activity in the global North. This article explores the relationship between international research collaboration and the publication activity of highly cited researchers in Brazil, a country that exerts regional leadership in scientific production in Latin America, but remains relatively peripheral to global science. This study examined the career trajectories and publication patterns of highly cited researchers based in Brazilian universities, using Web of Science and CV data. Our findings show a pattern of international mobility among the Brazilian highly cited researchers from the early stages of their careers. With few exceptions, engagement with the academic Anglosphere is central to their achievement of highly cited status, which is derived from co-authored publications with collaborators from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia in large teams.
AdriansenH. K.MadsenL. M.JensenS. (Eds.). (2016). Higher education and capacity building in Africa: The geography and power of knowledge under changing conditions. Routledge.
AmanoT.González-VaroJ. P.SutherlandW. J. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLOS Biology, 14(12), Article e2000933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933
4.
BarjakF.RobinsonS. (2008). International collaboration, mobility and team diversity in the life sciences: Impact on research performance. Social Geography, 3(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.5194/sg-3-23-2008
5.
BeigelF. (2014). Introduction: Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System. Current Sociology, 62(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114548640
6.
BornmannL.BauerJ. (2015). Which of the world’s institutions employ the most highly cited researchers? An analysis of the data from highlycited.com. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2146–2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23396
7.
BornmannL.DanielH. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
CollyerF.ConnellR.MaiaJ.de Araujo MaiaJ. L.MorrellR. (2019). Knowledge and global power: Making new sciences in the South. Monash University Publishing.
10.
CollyerF. M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020
11.
CraneD. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University of Chicago Press.
12.
DanellR. (2013). Geographical diversity and changing communication regimes. In DanellR.LarssonA.WisselgrenP. (Eds.), Social Science in Context (pp. 177–190). Nordic Academic Press.
13.
de Moya-AnegonF.Guerrero-BoteV. P.Lopez-IllescasC.MoedH. F. (2018). Statistical relationships between corresponding authorship, international co-authorship and citation impact of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.004
14.
Di BitettiM. S.FerrerasJ. A. (2017). Publish (in English) or perish: The effect on citation rate of using languages other than English in scientific publications. Ambio, 46(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0820-7
15.
DuctorL. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity?Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12070
16.
EbrahimN. A.FarhadiH.SalehiH.YunusM. M.ChadeganiA. A.FarhadiM.FooladiM. (2013). Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers?Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(4), 198–202.
17.
FurtadoC. A.DavisC. A.Jr.GonçalvesM. A.de AlmeidaJ. M. (2015). A spatiotemporal analysis of Brazilian science from the perspective of researchers’ career trajectories. PLOS ONE, 10(10), Article e0141528. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141528
18.
GarfieldE. (1992). The 1991 Nobel-Prize winners—From patch clamps (Neher and Sakmann) to spaghetti theory (de Gennes), social costs (Coase), and NMR (Ernst)—Were all citation superstars. Current Contents, 5, 3–9.
19.
GazniA.SugimotoC. R.DidegahF. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21688
HicksD.MelkersJ. (2013). Bibliometrics as a tool for research evaluation. In LinkA. N.VonortasN. S. (Eds.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation (pp. 323–349). Edward Elgar. https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/14384_11.html
22.
HortaH.YonezawaA. (2013). Going places: Exploring the impact of intra-sectoral mobility on research productivity and communication behaviors in Japanese academia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9279-4
23.
HountondjiP. J. (2006). Global knowledge: Imbalances and current tasks. In NeaveG. (Ed.), Knowledge, power and dissent: Critical perspectives on higher education and research in knowledge society (pp. 41–60). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
24.
HwangK. (2008). International collaboration in multilayered center-periphery in the globalization of science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(1), 101–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907306196
25.
JonkersK.Cruz-CastroL. (2013). Research upon return: The effect of international mobility on scientific ties, production and impact. Research Policy, 42(8), 1366–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.005
26.
KingR. (2011). Power and networks in worldwide knowledge coordination: The case of global science. Higher Education Policy, 24(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.9
27.
KreimerP.ZabalaJ. P. (2008). What knowledge and for whom?Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 2(3), 413–439.
28.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. SAGE.
29.
LetaJ.ChaimovichH. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration: The Brazilian case. Scientometrics, 53(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014868928349
30.
LetaJ.ThijsB.GlänzelW. (2013). A macro-level study of science in Brazil: Seven years later. Encontros Bibli: Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência a Informação, 18(36), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2013v18n36p51
31.
LeydesdorffL.WagnerC. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003
32.
MaN.GuanJ. (2005). An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in molecular biology. Scientometrics, 65(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0278-z
33.
MartinB. R.SkeaJ. E. F. (1992). Academic research performance indicators: An assessment of the possibilities [Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Economic and Social Research Council]. Economic and Social Research Council.
34.
Más-BledaA.AguilloI. (2013). Can a personal website be useful as an information source to assess individual scientists? The case of European highly cited researchers. Scientometrics, 96(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0952-5
35.
Más-BledaA.ThelwallM.KoushaK.AguilloI. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0
36.
MertonR. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193
37.
MullerJ. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.
38.
NygaardL. P. (2017). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351
39.
ParishA. J.BoyackK. W.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2018). Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLOS ONE, 13(1), Article e0189742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189742
40.
PetersM. A. (2006). The rise of global science and the emerging political economy of international research collaborations. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00257.x
41.
PheraliT. J. (2012). Academic mobility, language, and cultural capital: The experience of transnational academics in British higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(4), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311421842
42.
PodlubnyI.KassayovaK. (2006). Towards a better list of citation superstars: Compiling a multidisciplinary list of highly cited researchers. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154406781775887
43.
PolanyiM. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.
44.
RussellJ. M.Madera-JaramilloM. J.Hernández-GarcíaY.AinsworthS. (2008, September29). Mexican collaboration networks in the international and regional arenas [Conference session]. Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting, Berlin, Germany.
45.
SáC.GriecoJ. (2015). International collaboration in Brazilian higher education. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03397050
46.
SáC. M.KretzA.SigurdsonK. (2015). Research and the “third mission” in light of global events. In SchwartzmanS.PinheiroR.PillayP. (Eds.), Higher education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society (pp. 379–398). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9570-8_19
47.
SooryamoorthyR. (2009). Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications. Scientometrics, 81(1), Article 177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2126-z
48.
StreitwieserB. (2014). Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility. Symposium Books.
49.
SudP.ThelwallM. (2016). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1849–1857. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23515
50.
TijssenR. J. W.VisserM. S.van LeeuwenT. N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?Scientometrics, 54(3), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016082432660
51.
VelhoL. (1986). The “meaning” of citation in the context of a scientifically peripheral country. Scientometrics, 9(1–2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016609
52.
VessuriH.GuédonJ.-C.CettoA. (2014). Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology, 62(5), 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113512839
53.
WagnerC. S. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and pitfalls. In BoxL.EngelhardR. (Eds.), Science and technology policy for development: Dialogues at the interface (pp. 165–176). Anthem Press.
WagnerC. S.BrahmakulamI.JacksonB.WongA.YodaT. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capability in developing countries (No. RAND/MR-1357.0-WB). https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA391917
56.
WagnerC. S.WhetsellT. A.MukherjeeS. (2019). International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination. Research Policy, 48(5), 1260–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.002
57.
WendeM. V. D. (2015). International academic mobility: Towards a concentration of the minds in Europe. European Review, 23(Suppl. 1), S70–S88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798714000799
58.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
59.
YonezawaA.HortaH.OsawaA. (2016). Mobility, formation and development of the academic profession in science, technology, engineering and mathematics in East and South East Asia. Comparative Education, 52(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1125617
