[目的/意义] 探索杰出科学家科研合作与其学术影响力的关系，为培养创新型人才过程中优化科研合作提供依据。[方法/过程] 采用非平衡面板数据分析方法研究1900-2018年242个英美籍诺贝尔自然科学奖获得者的合作规模、合作广度以及合作角色等合作指标与其学术影响力的关系。[结果/结论] 虽然非一作论文的合作特征对总体合作论文的合作特征的贡献比一作论文的大，但是一作论文对诺奖获得者学术影响力的贡献比非一作论文的大。一作发文的合作规模是诺奖获得者一种有效的合作规模，它与获奖者的学术影响力呈正相关。多与不同的学者合作，对诺奖获得者来说有利于其学术影响力的提高。建议研究学者发文的合作特征对其学术表现影响甚至与合作特征相关的其他研究时将学者的一作、非一作发文分开研究这样有可能得出更有意义的结论。
[Purpose/significance] To explore the relationship between scientific research cooperation of outstanding scientists and their academic influence, this paper provides the basis for optimizing scientific research cooperation in the process of cultivating innovative talents. [Method/process] Unbalanced panel data analysis was used to study the relationship between cooperation indicators such as scale of cooperation, breadth of cooperation and cooperation roles of 242 British and American Nobel Prize winners in natural science from 1900 to 2018 and their academic influence. [Result/conclusion] Although the contribution of cooperative characteristics of papers published by non first authors to cooperative characteristics of the overall cooperative papers is greater than papers published by first authors, and the contribution of papers published by first authors to the academic influence of Nobel laureates is greater than papers published by non first authors. The cooperation scale of papers published by the first author is an effective cooperation scale for Nobel laureates, which is positively correlated with the academic influence of winners. More cooperation with different scholars is conducive to the improvement of Nobel laureates' academic influence. It is suggested that when studying the impact of the cooperative characteristics of scholars' papers on their academic performance, or even other related research with cooperative characteristics, the cooperative papers published by scholars as the first author and those papers published by non first authors should be studied separately, and it is possible to draw more meaningful conclusions.
[1] 中华人民共和国国民经济和社会发展第十四个五年规划和2035年远景目标纲要[EB/OL].[2021-07-20].http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/13/content_5592681.htm.
[2] SOORYAMOORTHY R. Do types of collaboration change citation? collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 81(1):177-193.
[3] ABRAMO G, D'ANGELO C A, SOLAZZI M. The relationship between scientists' research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 86(3):629-643.
[4] BORDONS M, APARICIO J, COSTAS R. Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 96(2):443-466.
[5] KYVIK S, REYMERT I. Research collaboration in groups and networks:differences across academic fields[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(2):951-967.
[6] 邱均平, 曾倩. 国际合作是否能提高科研影响力——以计算机科学为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(10):1-5.
[7] 袭继红, 韩玺, 吴倩倩. 国际合作对论文影响力提升的作用研究——以外科学为例[J]. 情报杂志, 2015, 34(1):92-95.
[8] 王俊婧. 国际合作对科研论文质量的影响研究[D].上海:上海交通大学, 2013.
[9] 李文聪, 何静, 董纪昌. 国际合作与海外经历对科研人员论文质量的影响——以生命科学为例[J]. 管理评论, 2018, 30(11):68-75.
[10] ABRAMO G, D'ANGELO C A, DI COSTA F,et al.University-industry collaboration in Italy:a bibliometric examination[J]. Technovation, 2009, 29(6/7):498-507.
[11] 卢东. 图书情报学领域作者合著方式对科研质量的影响分析——基于SciVal对中国高产机构的样本分析[J]. 现代情报, 2015, 35(9):111-115.
[12] FIGG W D, DUNN L,LIEWEHR D J,et al.Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles[J]. Pharmacotherapy, 2012, 26(6):759-767.
[13] PARISH A J, BOYACK K W, IOANNIDIS J. Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research[J]. Plos one, 2018, 13(1):e0189742.
[14] 石燕青, 孙建军. 我国图书情报领域学者科研绩效与国际合作程度的关系研究[J]. 情报科学, 2017, 35(11):114-120.
[15] FRANCESCHET M, COSTANTINI A. The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2010, 4(4):540-553.
[16] ABBASI A, ALTMANN J, HOSSAIN L. Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars:a correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(4):594-607.
[17] YAN E, YING D. Applying centrality measures to impact analysis:A coauthorship network analysis[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 60(10):2107-2118.
[18] BORDONS M, APARICIO J, GONZALEZ-ALBO B,et al.The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2015, 9(1):135-144.
[19] ABBASI A, CHUNG K S K, HOSSAIN L. Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance[J]. Information processing & management, 2012, 48(4):671-679.
[20] DE STEFANO D, FUCCELLA V, VITALE M P,et al.The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance[J]. Social networks, 2013, 35(3):370-381.
[21] 郭世月, 李睿. 合著网络模式与论文产出数量及质量的相关性研究——以中国催化剂领域期刊论文合著网络为例[J]. 情报学报, 2013, 32(3):314-327.
[22] 宋志红, 武天兰, 史玉英. 明星作者网络位置与科研产出的关系研究——以"竞争情报"领域为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2015, 38(5):55-59.
[23] 孙熊兰, 滕广青, 王思茗,等科研合作状态与学术表现的相关性及影响研究[J]. 情报资料工作, 2019, 40(4):6-14.
[24] WELTZIN J F, BELOTE R T, WILLIAMS L T,et al.Authorship in ecology:attribution, accountability, and responsibility[J]. Frontiers in ecology and the environment, 2006, 4(8):435-441.
[25] 薛镭. 关于学术论文第一作者的署名问题[J]. 编辑学报, 2003(1):33-34.
[26] PAN R K, FORTUNATO S. Author impact factor:tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact[J]. Scientific reports, 2014, 4(1):4880.
[27] CHAN H F, GLEESON L, TORGLER B,et al.Awards before and after the Nobel Prize:a Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one's own funeral?[J]. Research evaluation, 2014, 23(3):210-220.
[28] FRANDSEN T F, NICOLAISEN J J J O T A S F I S, TECHNOLOGY. The ripple effect:citation chain reactions of a nobel prize[J]. 2013, 64(3):437-447.
[29] 高志, 张志强. 科学家个人学术影响力随时间变化的计算方法研究[J]. 现代情报, 2017, 37(5):66-71.
[30] 张丽华, 田丹, 曲建升. 科研合作模式与科研人员角色的变化规律分析——以病毒学领域职业生涯至少为30年的作者为例[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(7):719-730.
[31] VERBREE M, HORLINGS E, GROENEWEGEN P,et al.Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance:a multivariate study of biomedical research groups[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102:25-49.
