Short abstract

There is limited quantifiable evidence of research consortium impact on collaborations between researchers. This was explored through a survey and longitudinal social network analysis (SNA) of researcher members of a national tele-health-focused research consortium from conception to 4 years.

Long abstract

Background: Research consortia are frequently used to promote research collaboration, however there is limited quantifiable evidence of their impact on collaborations between researchers.

Methods: A survey and longitudinal social network analysis (SNA) of researcher members of a national US tele-health-focused research consortium from baseline to 4 years. An online survey collected member demographics, consortium activities, and collaborative relationships among the member list. SNA outcomes were network density (percent of total possible connections) and average connections.

Results: Membership increased from 167 researchers at baseline to 351. 41% (145) of members responded to the survey including 98 who were members at baseline and follow up. Respondents were 53% female, 65% White, 25% Asian, 37% medical doctors, and 61% held a non-clinical doctorate. Overall, 38% agree they found new collaborations and 41% saw a benefit to their work. Members were more likely to make new collaborations if they reported participating in in-person events (56% vs 35%, p=0.017), engaging with consortium resources for research (59% vs 30%, p<0.001), and applying for consortium-related funding (45% vs 32%, p=0.064). Participation in cyber seminars and newsletters was not associated with collaboration. In SNA, at 4-year follow-up members at baseline increased number of connections from an average of 19 to 39 and increased network density from 25% to 33% as compared to an overall 15% density.

Conclusions: Consortia can contribute to creation of new research collaborations. However, impact can vary depending on type of activity participation. Research consortia leaders should consider implementing activities that promote active consortium participation.

Short abstract

Global science has shifted from Euro-American dominance to a multipolar system, with China leading integration. Using a core-periphery framework, we show how rising powers enter the rich club, while nat./transnat. innovation systems and large-team science projects promote global science integration.

Long abstract

The global post-industrial shift has witnessed vast geo-political and technological transformations -- but to what degree are they mirrored in the scientific enterprise? We examine the structure and dynamics of international collaboration networks from 1980 to 2020, which features the disruptive shift from the longstanding Anglophone duopoly to the multi-polar landscape of the 21st century. To this end, we develop a systematic framework for tracking core-periphery dynamics, which facilitates analyzing the structural factors underlying the ascendance of China and other global south nations. To provide a more granular perspective on the shifting geo-political role of the U.S. within the global science system, we disaggregated cross-border publications by U.S. states alongside other countries. Longitudinal analysis illustrates the global shift from Euro-American dominance to a multipolar system, with China emerging as a leader and facilitating the integration of its most active partners into the rich club of scientific production. This structural transformation has, nevertheless, altered the stability of longstanding systemic hierarchies and is reminiscent of the ``Three-Body Problem'' in dynamical systems theory, where the addition of massive poles reduces the system's stability and predictability. Our findings also highlight the roles of overarching national (US) and transnational innovation (EU) systems, and the expansive influence of large team science projects as two factors promoting global science integration. These insights provide a fresh perspective on the analysis of global science and its implications for national science policy development, offering strategies for global science countries to strengthen their positions in an increasingly integrated global science system.

Short abstract

We examine disparities in North-South medical collaborations using PLOS ONE metadata and a new TF-IDF-based method to quantify contributions. Accounting for authors’ output, impact, gender, age, and specialization, we document clear regional imbalances and misalignment between roles and authorships.

Long abstract

Global North-South disparities persist in science, yet our understanding of the mechanisms sustaining them remain limited. Focusing on North-South research partnerships, this study examines how the division of labor within medical research teams contributes to these disparities. We harvested article metadata from PLOS ONE alongside CRediT contributorship data, and then applied a new TF-IDF-based method to account for variation in the prevalence and distribution of contributor roles across authors. In linear probability models, adjusting for authors’ prior publication output and impact, gender, scientific age, medical specialization and TF-IDF adjusted contributor roles, we find that GS researchers are more likely to assume first authorships but have substantially lower representation in last and corresponding authorships compared to their GN team-mates. Subgroup analyses reveal that this regional disadvantage is most pronounced for researchers from Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, while those from East and South Asia are underrepresented in all lead-authorship roles, including also first authorships. This pattern also holds across national income levels, with clear disparities observed between researchers from lower- and higher-income countries. We also find that while leadership roles generally increase the likelihood of assuming first-, last- or corresponding authorships, GS scientists with such roles remain less likely to obtain last authorships. These findings expose a consistent misalignment between contributions and authorship positions in North-South collaborations and highlight the need for experimental research to clarify the causal pathways through which these imbalances arise.

Short abstract

Science has grown tremendously and become globally integrated since the times of the Cold War. We use bibliographic data to document the global network of scientific collaboration throughout fifty years with a focus on early and recent influences of geopolitical tensions and security policy.

Long abstract

Security policy has traditionally influenced science and science policy with systems for export control and counterintelligence in the commercial R&D sector. Public science is now affected as well after policies for Research Security, accompanied by the vague term dual-use technology, were introduced to science policy in the USA in 2021 and in the European Union in 2024.

The present situation differs from the times of the Cold War. Science has grown tremendously and become globally integrated. Fifty years ago, NATO member states dominated public science and only two percent of the articles had co-authors outside of NATO. Now, public science is larger outside of NATO than within and a third of NATO’s articles have external co-authors.

We will use bibliographic data and the indicator Relative Intensity of Collaboration (Fuchs, Sivertsen & Rousseau, 2021) to document the global network of scientific collaboration among forty countries throughout fifty years. Our aim is to provide a broad basis for discussing possible problems with securitizing global science (Shih & Wagner, 2024) Preliminary results indicate that 1) the present collaboration patterns in science do not align with defence alliances, and that 2) security policy only recently influenced these patterns.