[目的/意义] 科研合作已经成为一种非常普遍的现象，并且很多科研项目也将团队合作纳入实施效果的考核范围，因此，本研究从科研合作的角度，分析长江学者在受资助后的科研合作情况是否产生变化，探讨长江学者在团队建设、国际国内合作等方面发挥的作用，有助于项目实施效果的评估，有利于人才项目的可持续性发展。[方法/过程] 以2005年度长江学者特聘教授为例，获取83位长江学者的个人信息，及其发表在1996-2015年间的所有SCI/SSCI论文数据。设置两个时间窗口：对于2005年度长江学者获得者而言，其获评长江学者之前的10年（1996-2005年，简称为获评前10年），及获评长江学者之后的10年（2006-2015年，简称为获评后10年）；采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验方法，分析其在获评长江学者前后的科研合作变化情况，包括合作圈子大小的变化、合作强度的变化、合作持续性的变化、在合作中承担角色的变化以及国际/国内合作的变化。[结果/结论] 研究发现，长江学者在获评后10年间发挥了学术带头作用，在团队建设、国际国内合作等方面发挥了显著作用。获评后10年，科研合作圈子（42 VS.148）、合作强度（2.17 VS.2.45）均显著增大，但在获评前后与合作者之间的合作持续时间大都较短，近70%的合作只持续了一年。长江学者在合作中承担的角色发生了显著的变化，在获评后更倾向于担任末位作者（96%）和通讯作者（84%），而不是第一作者。
[Purpose/significance] Scientific cooperation has become a common phenomenon in research activities, and many research projects have also included teamwork in the scope of assessment of implementation effects. Therefore, it is beneficial to the evaluation and sustainable development of the talents projects to explore the changes in the cooperation relationship before and after their receiving the support and explore the role of Cheung Kong Scholars in team building, international and domestic cooperation.[Method/process] In this study, we take the recipients in 2005 of the Cheung Kong Scholars Award as example and take the Wilcoxon signed rank test method to analyze the changes in the cooperative relationship before and after their receiving the award. The cooperative relationship includes the following aspects:the size of the cooperation social network, the strength of cooperation, the duration of cooperation, the role of cooperation, the strength of international and domestic cooperation. The dataset of this study comprised 83 researchers and 11 522 SCI/SSCI papers published between 1996 and 2015, and the analysis was divided into two 10-year periods-the preaward period (1996-2005) and the postaward period (2006-2015).[Result/conclusion] It is found that the Cheung Kong Scholars have played a leading role in team building, international and domestic cooperation after reviving the award. The scholars significantly increased their cooperation social networks (42 VS. 148) and enhanced their cooperation strength (2.17 VS. 2.45) with their partners in the postaward periods. However, the duration of cooperation between the recipients and their collaborators before and after receiving the award was relatively short, and nearly 70% of the cooperation lasted only one year. Moreover, the scholars' coauthorship patterns changed significantly after receiving the award. In both number and proportion, they became less likely to act as the first author, but more likely to be listed as the last author or corresponding author.
[1] 张建卫,王健,周洁,等.高校高层次领军人才成长的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2019,37(2):235-244.
[2] 李波平, 邹德文. 湖北海外高层次人才"百人计划"实施效果评价与政策优化研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2015(9):32-35.
[3] 杨河清, 陈怡安. 海外高层次人才引进政策实施效果评价——以中央"千人计划"为例[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2013, 30(16):107-112.
[4] 赵俊芳, 叶甜甜. "千人计划"入选者学术发展力的计量学研究——基于"985工程"高校前五批入选者[J]. 中国高教研究, 2014(11):43-48.
[5] 郑巧一, 朱佳妮, 张国栋. "千人计划"政策实施效果评价——基于"C9"高校创新人才"长期千人"的学术表现[J]. 中国农业教育, 2015(6):22-27.
[6] LOTKA A J.The frequency distribution of scientific productivity[J]. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 1926,16:317-323.
[7] PRICE D J, BEAVER D D. Collaboration in an invisible college[J]. American psychology, 1966, 21(11):1011-1018.
[8] ZUCKERMAN H. Nobel laureates in science:patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship[J]. American sociological review, 1967, 32(3):391-403.
[9] 王帆,郭洪林,张冉.人文社会科学领军人才成长特征研究——基于长江学者特聘教授的分析[J].中国人民大学教育学刊,2015(4):128-145.
[10] 牛珩,周建中.基于CV分析方法对中国高层次科技人才的特征研究——以"百人计划""长江学者"和"杰出青年"为例[J].北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2012,28(2):96-102.
[11] 张艳,李悦,李茹祯,等.农业院校"长江学者奖励计划"特聘教授状况研究[J].高等农业教育,2014(11):41-44.
[12] 高勇. 长江学者学术成长路径研究[D].北京:清华大学,2014.
[13] 杨得前,姜群.长江学者特聘教授成长路径研究[J].高教探索,2018(5):27-35.
[14] 黄海刚,连洁,曲越.高校"人才争夺":谁是受益者?——基于"长江学者"获得者的实证分析[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2018(5):39-52.
[15] 张营营,协天紫光,张雪凯.长江学者提高高校科研创新效率了吗?——基于42所世界一流大学建设高校的实证检验[J].高校教育管理,2019,13(4):80-90.
[16] 陈悦,刘则渊,姜照华,等.各地区知识生产合作的定量分析[J].科学学研究,2005,23(21):68-71.
[17] LANDRY R, AMARA N. The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research[J]. Research policy, 1998, 27(9):901-913.
[18] 陈立新,梁立明,刘则渊.国际力学科学合作中是否存在马太效应[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2006,27(8):12-16.
[19] PETERSEN A M. Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(34):E4671-E4680.
[20] BU Y, DING Y, LIANG X, et al. Understanding persistent scientific collaboration[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(3):438-448.
[21] BU Y, MURAY D S, DING Y, et al. Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(2):463-479.
[22] AZOULAY P, STUART T, WANG Y. Matthew:effect or fable?[J]. Management science, 2013, 60(1):92-109.
[23] BORIAS G J, DORAN K B. Prizes and productivity:How winning the Fields Medal affects scientific output[J]. Journal of human resources, 2013,50(3):728-758.
[24] CHAN H F, ÖNDER A S, TORGLER B. Do Nobel Laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 105(3):2215-2235.
[25] WAGNER C S, HORLINGS E, Whetsell T A, et al. Do Nobel Laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine[J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10(7):e0134164.
