Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04297-7

The integration of African countries in international research

networks

Elizabeth S. Vieira1,2   · Jorge Cerdeira3,4,5 

Received: 7 September 2021 / Accepted: 4 February 2022 / Published online: 2 March 2022
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2022

Abstract
In Africa, the production of scientific knowledge in an international context has been
widely studied over time. However, the existing literature lacks a deeper understanding of
the integration of African countries into international networks at the global level. This
enables the identification of strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of African countries
in scientific production. Thus, we looked at the dynamics of international research collabo-
ration (IRC) of African countries from the perspective of the evolution of IRC, the presence
of African countries in international research networks, and the collaboration networks
among African countries. We examined these perspectives through the co-publications in
Natural Sciences (NS), Engineering and Technology (E&T), Medical and Health Sciences
(M&HS), Agricultural Sciences (AS) and Social Sciences and Humanities (SS&H) over
three periods (1990–1999, 2000–2009, 2010–2018). The study revealed the continuous
integration of African countries into global networks, although this integration is higher in
NS and M&HS. Today, African countries can contribute more to the exchange and creation
of knowledge at the international level, and they have more opportunities for boosting their
research networks, exchanging information, and exploring new scientific problems. Nev-
ertheless, most African countries occupy a fragile position in these networks, especially
in E&T, AS and SS&H. Concerning IRC between and within African regions, the results
indicated weak inter/intraregional integration, especially in E&T, AS and SS&H.

Keywords  International research collaboration · Networks · Integration · Africa

* Elizabeth S. Vieira
elizabeth.vieira@fc.up.pt
1
CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigacão em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade
do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, 74485‑661 Vairão, Portugal
2
LAQV/REQUIMTE, Departamento de Ciências dos Computadores, Faculdade de Ciências,
Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre, 4169‑007 Porto, Portugal
3
Escola de Economia e Gestão, Universidade do Minho, Rua Bairro do Sol 4, 4710‑057 Braga,
Portugal
4
Instituto de Sociologia, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade do Porto, Via Panorâmica,
4150‑564 Porto, Portugal
5
CEOS.PP, Centro de Estudos Organizacionais e Sociais, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Rua Jaime
Lopes Amorim, 4465‑004 São Mamede de Infesta, Portugal

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 1996 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

JEL Classification  O30 · O38

Introduction

Research collaboration (domestic or international) is a key element of a country’s research

landscape and is integral to a country’s future. Increasing the number of domestic/interna-
tional links and strengthening existing ones is crucial for improving the competitiveness of
the national scientific system and ensuring economic and social development. Due to its
role, a huge set of scientific policies, at the level of countries and international organiza-
tions, has emerged aimed at fostering research collaboration (Horvat & Lundin, 2008; Katz
& Martin, 1997; Nill et al., 2007).
Given Bozeman and colleagues’ science and technical (S&T) human capital model,
which views S&T human capital as the sum of an individual scientist’s professional net-
works, scientific/technical knowledge and skills, and resources in general (Bozeman et al.,
2001), research collaboration can play an important role in improving the human capital in
Africa (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). The higher the professional ties (the social network),
the higher the probability of getting more professional ties (Barabási et al., 2002; Newman,
2001a). The more scientists build, expand, and maintain their professional ties, the greater
the opportunities for information exchange increasing the possibility of exploring new sci-
entific problems.
Knowledge acquired through research collaboration integrates the body of knowledge
resulting from diverse research and development (R&D) activities and constitutes one of
the inputs to the innovation process. The role of knowledge on innovation as a source of
ideas for the development of new technologies, as a source of engineering design tools
and techniques, and for creating a knowledge base essential for assessing the social and
environmental impacts of new technologies is well documented (Brooks, 1994). Thus, the
research stream linking scientific knowledge to innovation has acknowledged the positive
association between the amount of scientific knowledge cited in patents and their value,
especially in the fields of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals (Fleming & Sorenson, 2004;
Gittelman & Kogut, 2003; Subramanian & Soh, 2010).
Last but not least, various studies revealed a positive association between scientific
knowledge/innovation and economic development (Bilbao-Osorio & Rodriguez-Pose,
2004; Galindo & Mendez, 2014; Hasan & Tucci, 2010; Inglesi-Lotz & Pouris, 2013;
Inglesi-Lotz et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2011; Ntuli et al., 2015; Pinto & Teixeira, 2020; Wong
et al., 2005).
In the case of Africa, in the document regarding the Science, Technology and Inno-
vation Strategy for Africa 2020–2024 it is stated “In view of the importance of coopera-
tion in repositioning STI in Africa, a number of existing partnerships between Africa and
other continents and countries are managed within the African Union Commission” (AUC,
2014). Despite the importance of such partnerships in the science area, there is, to our
knowledge, no study that looks at Africa’s integration into international research networks
in the different scientific fields over time. The studies have examined research networks
involving African scientists, looked at the structure of the networks, highlighted the main
collaborating partners of African countries, identified the African countries and institutions
with greater influence in a given network, discussed the intensity of collaboration between
African countries and between African and non-African countries, and examined inter/

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 1997

intraregional collaborations. However, most of the studies have been done at the level of
particular scientific disciplines, countries or African regions.
Adams et al. (2014) used the IRC network of the African countries to reveal the pivot
role of South Africa in the network, and that in this case, the IRC is not a self-organising
network (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005). Confraria & Godinho (2015) used the co-author-
ship approach to unveil the IRC network behind the scientific knowledge generated by the
African countries with the highest scientific production (13 countries). The authors found
that the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France stand out as collabo-
rators in the networks. Ettarh (2015), using the co-authorship network for cardiovascular
disease research in Sub-Saharan Africa, identified the Hatter Institute for Cardiovascular
Research in the University of Cape Town and the Chris Baragwanath Hospital, affiliated
with the University of Witwatersrand, as the main hubs for cardiovascular research col-
laboration in this region. Kozma & Calero-Medina (2019) analysed the network of collabo-
ration between African and non-African research institutions in ten scientific disciplines,
highlighting the expansion of the intercontinental collaboration, and the most influential
positions held by scientists working at South African institutions in Zoology, Ecology,
Water Resources and Plant Sciences. Onyancha (2018) observed the Library and Infor-
mation Sciences’ network concerning the publications from Sub-Saharan Africa, between
1995 and 2016, and concluded that South African scientists are the most visible in the net-
work. They identified "institutional-based" cluster and that the universities of South Africa
stand out. Quayle & Greer (2014) through the IRC network on scientific knowledge in
Social Psychology between 2000 and 2010, noted that circa 40% of African scientists are
part of the network’s giant component, the low connection between African scientists, and
the role of scientists from non-African countries as mediators of cross-national African col-
laborations. Guns & Wang (2017), using endogenous features of past research collabora-
tion networks, concluded that African countries collaborate more than expected with non-
African countries and less than expected within Africa. Furthermore, the authors observed
that the intensity of the collaboration with non-African countries is decreasing. Toivanen
& Ponomariov (2011) looking at the IRC network of African countries in 2005–2009 iden-
tified that the African innovation system consists of three major regions with weak inter-
regional collaboration: Southern–Eastern, Northern and Western. The authors also empha-
sised the role of the European and North American scientific communities as mediators,
in addition to the role of South African scientists in bridging African scientists. Landini
et al. (2015) focused on the collaborative network of scientific publications and patents of
scientists from Northern Africa and revealed that this region is increasingly interconnected
with other African regions, but scientific integration at the regional level is still low. The
authors stress Egyptian scientists as the most active in the IRC and their central position in
the network.
Our study represents a further step, as it contributes in several ways to expand the litera-
ture on this stream. It makes it possible to obtain information on the integration of African
countries into international networks at the global level. For this, we have looked at the
dynamics of IRC of African countries from different perspectives. We examined the con-
tribution of inter/intracontinental scientists to scientific knowledge generated in Africa, the
degree of interconnectedness of social capital in research networks and its evolution, the
influence of African countries on knowledge exchange and creation, and inter/intraregional
collaboration within Africa. We have examined these issues at a global scale, by scientific
field and over time.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The Methodology section describes
the dataset and methods used to measure and understand the dynamics of IRC of African

13
 1998 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

countries; the Results and Discussion section lists and discusses the main results, and the
Conclusion section summarises the main findings.

Methodology

Data

The dataset covers all co-publications (pub_col), indexed in the Web of Science Core Col-
lection (WoS), between two given countries in a total of 184 countries (member states of
the United Nations), between 1990–1999, 2000–2009 and 2010–2018. We excluded coun-
tries that became independent during this period. Following the definition of the United
Nations, we classified African countries according to their geographical location: North-
ern, Western, Eastern, Central, and Southern Africa. We selected three periods as we are
interested in analysing the integration of African countries into international networks at
the global level over time.
Also, we grouped the publications at the first hierarchical level of the revised Field of
Science and Technology (FOS) classification (OECD schema) aimed at analysing IRC by
scientific field. The scientific fields studied are NS, E&T, M&HS, AS and SS&H (due to
the small number of publications, we have combined the publications of Social Sciences
and Humanities and treated them as a single field). In counting the number of publications
by scientific field, we applied full counting (i.e., if a publication belongs to more than one
scientific field, it was counted as one publication in each field). In this classification, a
given publication can belong to more than one scientific field.
Concerning the bibliographic database, we recognise the limitations especially in the
case of the African journals as several journals are not indexed in the database (Owusu-
Nimo & Boshoff, 2017). Moreover, African scientists tend to publish their research find-
ings in the grey literature (Marfo et al., 2011).

Collaboration approach

In determining the number of pub_col, we used the co-authorship approach, considered

full counting (i.e., if a given publication mention three different countries, it was counted
as one pub_col for each country), and disregarded the number of times that a given country
appears in the affiliations. In the scientific community, the co-authorship is only consid-
ered a partial indicator for IRC (Katz & Martin, 1997). However, this approach has several
advantages (invariable and verifiable characteristics, ease of measurement, and the possi-
bility of using large datasets), which makes it an acceptable and widely used proxy of IRC.
In Africa, there are additional concerns about this methodology, as African scientists who
have contributed to the research activities may be missing from the publications’ author
lists (Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2003; Matenga et al., 2019).

The scientific spectrum of African countries

We started the results section with general statistics on the production of scientific
knowledge by scientific field in Africa and for each African country to give an over-
view of the scientific spectrum. This contributes to a better understanding of the pat-
terns observed as regards the integration of these countries into international research

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 1999

networks by scientific field. Thus, the percentage of documents of each scientific

domain in the total number of publications (at the continental and national levels) was
determined (Pub).

Dynamics of IRC of African countries

We examined the integration of African countries into international research networks

looking at the dynamics of IRC from different perspectives and over time. Thus, we
analysed:

• The evolution of IRC of African countries.

• The participation of African countries in international research networks.
• The collaboration networks among African countries.

The evolution of IRC

We examined the contribution of international collaborative research to the scientific

knowledge generated in Africa. An increment of collaborative research is the first signal
of continuous integration of African countries into research networks at the international
level.
At the continent level in analysing the contribution of non-African scientists to the
knowledge produced in Africa, we determined the percentage of the total number of Afri-
can publications that involved at least one non-African scientist. At the country level, the
contribution of IRC to the scientific knowledge produced by a country was determined
as the percentage of the total number of publications authored by the scientists from that
country with the participation of at least one foreign scientist (it may contain scientists
from another African country). The IRC of each African country can be broken down into
the IRC resulting from collaboration between scientists from different African countries
and the IRC resulting from collaboration with scientists from non-African countries. The
disaggregation of information at this level makes it possible to get a picture of the contribu-
tion of scientists from different geographical regions (inter/intracontinental) to scientific
knowledge resulting from collaborative research. An increase of knowledge at the interna-
tional level characterized by a higher number of publications with the joint participation of
African scientists from several countries is also indicative of their continuous integration
into international research networks.
Thus, we determined three indicators for each African country:

Pub_col it is the percentage of the total publications of a given country with at least one
foreign scientist (it can include a scientist from another African country).
Pub_col (within) it is the percentage of the total pub_col that have as co-author a scien-
tist from another African country (it may also include a non-African scientist).
Pub_col (out) it is the percentage of the total pub_col that have as co-author a non-
African scientist (it may also include another African scientist).

In determining these indicators, we used the web-based tool InCites Benchmarking and
Analytics.

13
 2000 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

African countries in international research networks

As for the interconnectedness of African countries and their contribution to the

exchange and creation of scientific knowledge, we relied on the concept of social capital
according to Bozeman and colleagues’ S&T human capital model (Bozeman & Cor-
ley, 2004; Bozeman et al., 2001). They defined S&T human capital as the sum of indi-
vidual scientists’ professional networks, scientific/technical knowledge and skills, and
resources in general. We looked at social capital at the country level, and since it is
impossible to obtain information on all dimensions at this level, we considered as social
capital the stock of professional ties (professional networks) of the scientists of each
country.
To investigate the presence of African countries and the interconnectedness of their
social capital in international research networks, we resorted to social network analysis.
For each scientific field and period, we elaborated research networks (research collabo-
ration is a reciprocal relationship, hence we have undirected networks) where the nodes
represent the countries and the edges connecting them represent the ratio between the
observed and expected number of pub_col. In determining the edges’ weight, we used
the information in the matrix which represents country-to-country pub_col, to deter-
mine the probabilistic affinity index (PAI) at the publication-level (Zitt et  al., 2000).
This index is the ratio between the observed and expected number of pub_col. A value
greater than 1 means that the two countries collaborated more than expected, and a
value less than 1 means that they collaborated less than expected.
In creating the networks, we only considered edges representing 30 or more pub_col
for the first two periods and 27 for the last period. A threshold that represents well the
IRC between two specific countries is an open question in the scientific community,
as the production of scientific knowledge is influenced by various factors, including
the collaboration culture of each scientific field. There are scientific fields where joint
activities are more common than in others (Franceschet & Costantini, 2011; Piro et al.,
2013). Therefore, the threshold used in this study does not reflect differences in collabo-
ration culture.
Aimed at giving a more accurate picture of the presence, interconnectedness, and
influence of African countries in the research networks, we adopted a comparative
approach as explained below.
Thus, for each global network (by scientific field and period), we examined:

• The number of countries (NC),

• The number of bilateral collaborations (BC),
• Networks’ structure statistics: density, diameter and clustering coefficient (Oliveira
& Gama, 2012),
• The PAI index,
• Node-based statistics: the degree and eigenvector centrality for each country
(Oliveira & Gama, 2012), and
• The growth rates associated with the number of countries, bilateral collaborations,
density, diameter and clustering coefficient.

The number of countries is an important indicator as it provides information on

the geographical dispersion of knowledge generated in an international context. The
bilateral collaborations give a first picture of the interconnectedness in the networks,

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2001

in addition to the information on the geographical dispersion of professional ties.

The comparison between the number of observed and expected pub_col (PAI index)
informs us about the strength of the connections in the network. A deeper understanding
of interconnectedness is obtained by looking at the number of connections in a coun-
try (degree). Also, the number of connections is indicative of a country’s influence on
the exchange and creation of knowledge in these networks as well as the importance
of these connections (eigenvector centrality). The more connections a country has to
other well-connected countries, the greater its influence in the network as regards the
exchange and creation of knowledge.
The statistics of the network structure allow us to understand the global interconnected-
ness of each scientific field (density and clustering coefficient) and the effort required to
move from one country to another to access new knowledge (diameter).
From the global networks, we select the subnetworks that contain the nodes represent-
ing African countries, their bilateral collaborations, as well as their values in terms of PAI
index, degree and eigenvector centrality. Using this information, we discussed the presence
of African countries in the networks and the evolution over time (growth rates), their inter-
connectedness and influence on knowledge exchange and creation in the international con-
text compared to the behaviour observed in the global networks. Through this comparative
approach, we expect to gain a deeper understanding of the integration of African countries
into international research networks.

Collaboration networks among African countries

We relied on the subnetworks from the global networks that represent the collaborations
among African countries and analysed inter/intraregional collaborations within Africa.
We examined the patterns of collaboration and discussed the role of African countries that
have the most inter/intracontinental connections and influence in the international research
networks as mediators of collaboration.
The majority of networks are not presented due to space constraints; instead, key statis-
tics are summarised in tables and histograms. For the few networks presented, the size of
the nodes is given by the number of edges (degree), and the higher the edge’s thickness, the
higher the PAI. PAI values that are above the expected value are coloured black.
Gephi was used as the network visualisation software. As a layout algorithm, we applied
the ForceAtlas2, which draws strongly linked nodes closer while pushing unrelated nodes
farther apart (Cherven, 2015).
In Table 1, we summarised the main perspectives, relevant points and indicators used
for the analysis of the dynamics of IRC of African countries.

Results and discussion

The scientific spectrum of African countries

The growth of scientific knowledge in the African region is well documented in the litera-
ture (Confraria & Godinho, 2015; Pouris & Ho, 2014; UNESCO, 2015). As regards the
scientific spectrum, we observed unbalanced distributions of the scientific knowledge for
Africa at the global level (Fig.  1) and by country (Fig.  2, see Figures ESM1 and ESM2

13
 2002 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Table 1  The perspectives analysed concerning the dynamics of IRC of African countries

Perspectives Relevant points Indicators

Evolution of Contribution of external knowledge to the total Pub_col, Pub_col (within), Pub_col
IRC knowledge produced in Africa (out)
Contribution of inter/intracontinental scientists to
the total knowledge produced in Africa
African Geographical dispersion of the knowledge produced NC, BL, PAI, density, clustering
countries in through IRC coefficient, diameter, degree, eigen-
interna- Geographical dispersion of professional ties vector centrality, growth rates
tional
Strength of the connections that represent the
research
professional ties
networks
Influence of countries on the exchange and creation
of knowledge
Collaboration Inter/intraregional collaborations NC, BL, PAI, degree, eigenvector
networks centrality
among
African
countries

for the remaining periods and Tables ESM1–ESM3 for the raw data, Supplementary
Information).
The African continent’s abundance of natural resources (AUC, 2014; Murombedzi,
2016) and the fact that it bears the overwhelming burden of global disease (Murray et al.,
1996) may explain the patterns observed in the longitudinal analysis. In Africa, the NS
publications (hereafter NS) and the M&HS publications (hereafter M&HS) are the most
prevalent (Fig. 1). When broken down by country, the NS ranked first (in terms of the rela-
tive share of the total number of publications) in most countries in the Nothern and South-
ern regions, both in the past and in the present, albeit with a different contribution to the
total number of publications (Fig. 2 and Figure ESM1 and ESM2, Supplementary Informa-
tion). The same pattern was observed for M&HS in the other regions.
In 1990–1999 in the Northern and Western regions, SS&H publications (hereafter
SS&H) were the least representative for most countries (Figure ESM1, Supplementary
Information). In the Central and Eastern regions, E&T publications (hereafter E&T) took
this place for those countries where the SS&H were not least frequent in the same period.
In the Southern region, AS publications (hereafter AS) were least common in 1990–1999.
However, in 2010–2018, E&T were the least representative in most countries in the East-
ern region and AS in the countries in the Western and Southern regions (Fig. 2).
Looking at the representativeness of each scientific domain over time, it is clear that NS
and AS are losing their place in the overall portfolio of publications (their representative-
ness increased in only seven countries, but the number of publications continued to grow
over time), while the SS&H raised their visibility in 44 countries. The registered patterns
lead to a more balanced distribution of countries’ publications in the scientific spectrum,
even though they are far from evenly distributed.

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2003

Fig. 1  The percentage of docu-

ments of each scientific domain
given the total number of docu-
ments published by at least one
African scientist. Note: The sum
of the percentages is above 100%
as a given publication can belong
to more than one scientific field

The evolution of IRC

The increase in the number of pub_col with at least one international collaboration has
been analysed by several authors (Adams, 2012; Glänzel, 2001; Ribeiro et al., 2018; Schu-
bert & Braun, 1990). In the context of African countries, the subject has received consider-
able attention, as the observed patterns indicate high representativeness of such publica-
tions in the total number of publications (Fig. 3). In 1990–1999 from the total number of
documents published by at least one African scientist, 29% had at least one scientist from
a non-African country (may also include collaboration with another African country, e.g.
two African countries and one non-African country) and this percentage increased to 47%
in the most recent period (Fig.  3). The values for IRC at this level are lower than those
observed for most individual countries. However, to understand this scenario, the reader
should bear in mind that some countries such as Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa (which
have the lowest proportion of publications with IRC, Fig.  3) contribute the most to the
total number of publications in the continent (in 1990–1999, scientists from these countries
were involved in 65% of total publications in Africa1).
IRC increased in 49 African countries between 1990–1999 and 2010–2018 (Fig. 3; the
number of publications with IRC also increased), suggesting a continuous integration of
the scientists in the production of new knowledge at the international level. This integration
may be the result of several actions. On the one hand, we have international collaborations
established by individual scientists motivated by scientific reasons (Katz, 1994; Katz &
Martin, 1997; Owusu-Nimo & Boshoff, 2017), and on the other hand, there are a number
of policy instruments aimed at fostering the creation of knowledge in a collaborative con-
text. In the specific case of Africa, the collaborations between Africa and France through
the presence of specialised research institutes (e.g., Institut Pasteur International Network),
the bilateral and multilateral partnerships such as the European Union-Africa joint strategy,
the India-Africa Science and Technology initiative and the China-Africa Science and Tech-
nology Partnership (AUC, 2014), and the African regional networks of centres of excel-
lence (UNESCO, 2015) are examples of such instruments.
The proportion of pub_col in the total number of publications is highest in the coun-
tries from the Western, Eastern and Central regions, 80% (average value), and lowest in
1
  Authors calculations looking at the publications indexed in the WoS.

13
 2004 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Fig. 2  The percentage of documents of each scientific domain given the total number of documents pub-
lished by the scientists of each country in 2010–2018. The match between the ISO 3166-1 and the respec-
tive African country is in the Supplementary Information

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2005

Fig. 3  In the plot of Africa, it is the percentage of the total number of African publications with at least one
non-African scientist (may include a publication with the collaboration of scientists from two African coun-
tries and one from a non-African country). In the others, it is the percentage of the total number of publi-
cations of each country with at least one foreign scientist (may include a collaboration with another Afri-
can country or with non-African countries). The match between the ISO 3166-1 and the respective African
country is in the Supplementary Information

the countries of the Southern and Northern regions, 68% and 54% (average value), respec-
tively. The low presence of IRC in several countries in the Nothern region (except for Libya
(LBY) and Sudan (SDN)), in Nigeria and South Africa (ZAF) suggests that scientists work-
ing in these countries find more opportunities to develop their research activities within
borders. Among African countries, they are the ones with more investment and human
resources in R&D2 and with higher scientific production (Table ESM1, Supplementary
Information), which makes them more capable in the scientific arena. However, whether
these opportunities result from more investment in R&D, national scientific policies or the
accumulated S&T human capital, mainly through previous IRC (Wagner et al., 2001), is an
open question that deserves further investigation.
By scientific domain, a detailed analysis of publications in the international context
revealed that joint publications with scientists from non-African countries (hereafter non-
African countries) have become less representative in several countries over time, although

2
  UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) database.

13
 2006 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

this type of collaboration stands out in most scenarios (Fig. 4 and Figures ESM3–ESM6,
Supplementary Information). The results of previous studies (Boshoff, 2009; Guns &
Wang, 2017) are consistent with these observations.
For a few countries, the collaborations between scientists from at least two African
countries (hereafter African countries (pub_col (within)) were more visible than that
between African and non-African countries (pub_col (out)), e.g. Lesotho (LSO) and
Eswatini (SWZ) in NS and 2010–2018 (Fig. 4). African countries have collaborated more
with each other over time (Fig. 4 and Figures ESM3–ESM6, Supplementary Information),
suggesting that the integration of African countries into international research networks
has been done through publications with the joint participation of scientists from different
African countries.
The presence of pub_col with non-African countries was lowest in E&T, although the
representativeness is above 80% (2010–2018), on average 83%, and 38 countries had values
above 80%. The presence of pub_col with non-African countries was highest in M&HS,
with an average of 92%, and 50 countries had values above 80% in the same period. In the
last period, the frequency of pub_col between African countries was lowest in SS&H (26%
on average) and highest in AS (45% on average).

African countries in international research networks

The results of the previous section suggest a continuous integration of African countries
into international research networks as the number and percentage of publications with
the participation of non-African scientists have increased over time. Also, this integra-
tion seems to be happening with collaborative research that involves the participation of
scientists from several African countries at the same time.
A deeper understanding of Africa’s integration into international research networks
can be achieved through the visualisation of the collaboration networks.
To get a more accurate picture, the results are discussed from a comparative perspec-
tive. First, the most important developments concerning the global network are dealt
with, then those of the subnetworks of the global networks that include the nodes repre-
senting African countries and their bilateral collaborations.
At the international level, the exchange and knowledge creation have increased in an
environment characterised by greater geographical dispersion, as the number of coun-
tries involved and bilateral collaborations have increased over time, leading to a more
interconnected global science system (Table  2). However, during 2010–2018, several
countries did not participate in the networks (at least with a number of connections
that obey the minimum threshold established for each period), with the highest absence
recorded in AS’ networks. The larger number of bilateral collaborations in the NS
and M&HS’ networks indicates a social capital that is more geographically dispersed
than in the other scientific fields. The NS’ network was the most connected in the first
period (density of 0.064, 6.4% of total possible connections) and the M&HS’ network in
2010–2018 (density of 0.285).
The differences in the number of collaborating countries and bilateral collaborations
result in different growth rates in the IRC context among fields. Although there has been
strong growth in all scientific domains, the network has expanded the most in SS&H, indi-
cating that the IRC is at different stages in the different scientific fields. Also, the exchange
and creation of knowledge and the search for new collaborators can take place very quickly,
as the number of intermediate countries required to move from one country to another is

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2007

Fig. 4  The relative weight (percentage) of the publications of each country with at least two African coun-
tries (pub_col (within)) and publications between African countries and non-Africa countries (pub_col
(out)) in the total number of each African country’s pub_col in NS

13
 2008 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Table 2  The number of countries collaborating at the international level (NC), number of bilateral collabo-
rations (NB), network’s density, diameter and clustering coefficient
Fields Period NC (n°) NB (n°) Density Diameter Clustering

NS 1990–1999 120 1077 0.064 4 0.475

2000–2009 148 1927 0.114 4 0.608
2010–2018 171 3673 0.218 3 0.746
Growth (%) 43 241 241 − 25 57
E&T 1990–1999 75 572 0.034 3 0.297
2000–2009 106 1132 0.067 4 0.403
2010–2018 133 2213 0.131 3 0.570
Growth (%) 77 287 285 0 92
M&HS 1990–1999 112 765 0.045 3 0.400
2000–2009 139 1678 0.099 3 0.574
2010–2018 166 4856 0.285 3 0.743
Growth (%) 48 535 533 0 86
AS 1990–1999 64 253 0.015 3 0.221
2000–2009 93 646 0.038 4 0.341
2010–2018 122 1314 0.078 3 0.494
Growth (%) 91 419 420 0 124
SS&H 1990–1999 58 203 0.012 2 0.184
2000–2009 90 564 0.033 3 0.347
2010–2018 135 1572 0.093 4 0.546
Growth (%) 133 674 675 100 197

very small (diameter of the networks). Over time, there are no major differences regarding
the diameter of the networks between the individual domains, except for SS&H.
The increasing clustering coefficient further supports the previous points. The highest
clustering in NS and M&HS could be due to the specificities of research, especially the
need to resort to large teams. In these scientific fields, there are several scientific prob-
lems with ambitious goals that can only be solved in the framework of large-scale projects,
which in turn require a large amount of human and financial resources as well as advanced
equipment (well-known projects are those taking place at the European Organisation for
Nuclear Research and the International Human Genome project).
In the 1990s, African countries’ participation in IRC at the global level was very unu-
sual, especially in E&T, AS and SS&H, as evidenced by the small number of African
countries and low interconnectedness (number of bilateral collaborations) across the net-
work (Table 3). The previous findings on the continuous integration of African countries
into international research networks are reinforced by the increasing presence of African
countries, and the number of connections involving at least one of these countries in the
overall networks. Also, the geographical diversification of professional ties (number of
bilateral collaborations) offers African countries more opportunities to exchange informa-
tion, explore new scientific problems and strengthen their research networks.
As expected, the networks representing NS and M&HS involve more African coun-
tries and bilateral collaborations with the participation of these countries (these scientific
fields are most represented in the majority of these countries, Fig. 2 and Figures ESM1 and
ESM2, Supplementary Information), while the highest growth rates were found in SS&H

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2009

Table 3  Evolution of the IRC Fields Period NC (n°) BC (n°)

concerning the number of
African countries and their
NS 1990–1999 31 146
bilateral collaborations in the
networks 2000–2009 41 375
2010–2018 49 1062
Growth (%) 58 627
E&T 1990–1999 11 16
2000–2009 21 33
2010–2018 33 141
Growth (%) 200 781
M&HS 1990–1999 32 134
2000–2009 38 364
2010–2018 47 1788
Growth (%) 47 1234
AS 1990–1999 16 33
2000–2009 25 97
2010–2018 30 311
Growth (%) 88 842
SS&H 1990–1999 6 12
2000–2009 16 50
2010–2018 31 261
Growth (%) 417 2075

(when interpreting these results, it is important to consider the low values in 1990–1999,
Table 3).
As in global networks, IRC in Africa seems to be at different stages in each scientific
domain. In NS and M&HS, the higher number of African countries and bilateral collabora-
tions in 2010–2018, in addition to the lowest growth rates, in general, is the first signal of
an IRC at a more mature stage and with richer S&T human capital.
In a comparative perspective, the reader can easily see that the number of African coun-
tries and links associated with is increasing most rapidly compared to the global network
(e.g., 58% and 43%, 627% and 241% in NS, respectively, Tables 2 and 3). A few exceptions
are AS, where the number of African countries collaborating increased less than in the
global network, and M&HS with practically the same growth rate as in the global network.
Over time, transnational collaborations that lead to more pub_col than expected become
more representative in the full networks, except for the SS&H, albeit with different growth
rhythms (Fig. 5). This reveals an increase in the strength of the connections between coun-
tries. In 1990–1999, values equal to or below the expected were most common (more
than 60% of the connections have a PAI in the range between 0 and 1 for all the scien-
tific domains). More recently, values for transnational collaboration in NS and M&HS are
above expectations for 59% and 56% of all the connections, respectively. The SS&H con-
tinue to present distinct patterns, as shown by the almost unchanged PAI`s distribution over
time.
Comparing the distributions of PAI values of the connections involving at least one
African country (Fig. 5, right-hand side) with those of global networks (Fig. 5, left-hand
side), different patterns emerge. The increasing presence of connections with more pub_col
than expected is characterised by a more linear pattern in the NS set representing African

13
 2010 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Fig. 5  Distribution of countries pairs according to the PAI value. On the left-hand side is represented all
the connections of the global networks and on the right-hand side only those embracing at least one African
country

countries than in the overall network. In M&HS the growth pattern is visible, but the linear
behaviour observed in the case of the global network is absent. In E&T and AS, the propor-
tion of connections leading to more pub_col than expected decreased in the African group,
while it increased in the global networks. As for the same event in SS&H, a shrinkage in

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2011

the strength of connections in the African group contrasts with the virtually constant pat-
tern in the global networks.
Further additional differences are visible in the M&HS, where the proportions of con-
nections with pub_col equal to or below and above the expected value in the first two peri-
ods are similar in the African set, while the proportion of connections with pub_col equal
to or below the expected value is more representative in the global network in the same
periods.
We also observed increasing representativeness of connections between two given Afri-
can countries in the group characterised by PAI > 1. In the most recent period, these con-
nections represent 20% of those with more pub_col than expected in E&T, 30% in NS,
M&HS and SS&H and 40% in AS.
So far, the reader has had the opportunity to learn about the development of global net-
works and the integration of African countries, especially from the point of view of the
presence of these countries in the networks and the geographical dispersion and strength
of their connections. However, a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of these
countries can be gained by examining the number of connections (degrees) of each coun-
try. The values of the degrees are shown in Fig. 6.
In the first period, a large percentage of countries had a degree in the range [0, 61]. The
most connected countries by this measure were the USA and the UK in all scientific fields.
Over time, some countries stand out for the high number of connections they can establish,
especially in the first three scientific fields, suggesting that influence is being spread across
the network, albeit at very different rates. In 2010–2018, the USA and UK remain the most
connected countries, although the continuous diffusion of influence, especially in NS, E&T
and M&HS, is reducing the dependence of the scientific community on the knowledge of
scientists from these countries.
In 2010–2018, African countries did not have sufficient connections to be part of the
cohort with the highest scores (see Tables ESM4 to ESM8, Supplementary Information).
In AS and SS&H, all countries had a degree equal to or below 61. In NS, E&T and M&HS,
4, 2 and 18 African countries respectively had a degree in the range)61, 122]. South Africa
had the greatest number of connections in all scientific fields, in addition to Egypt in E&T.
South Africa’s position among the top 20 countries in the ranking of degrees in all the sci-
entific fields is indicative of its major role in the creation and dissemination of knowledge
at the international level.
A particular country certainly benefits from a large number of professional ties but fur-
ther rewards can be obtained if the existing ties also have many connections. Although we
can name several advantages, three stand out immediately: (1) better dissemination of the
knowledge generated by the scientists of a given country, (2) increasing the likelihood of
new collaborations (Newman, 2001a, b), and (3) increasing a country’s influence on the
exchange and creation of new knowledge. Of these advantages, we are particularly inter-
ested in the last one. Therefore, we examined more advanced node-based statistics such as
eigenvector centrality to obtain additional information on the influence of African coun-
tries in research networks (Fig. 7).
The number of countries in the cohort with the highest eigenvector centrality values
increased (Fig. 7). While in earlier times scientific powers such as Germany, the UK and
the USA (in no particular order) were the most influential nations in each scientific field,
recent networks show that knowledge exchange and creation was not dominated solely by
these countries. At least one country from each region had an eigenvector centrality above
0.8 in the first three scientific fields in Fig. 7, and European countries dominate this cohort
(values range from 36 in NS to 64% in AS). The reasons for this European pattern are

13
 2012 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Fig. 6  Distribution of the number of connections (degree) given the total number of countries. See the Sup-
plementary Information for the degree values of African countries

manifold and the EU Framework Program for Research and Innovation certainly played
a crucial role in strengthening the influence of European countries. Finally, regarding the
AS’s network and that of SS&H, countries from Africa and Latina American and the Car-
ibbean are not among the most influential actors in 2010–2018.

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2013

Fig. 7  Distribution of the eigenvector centrality values given the total number of countries. See the Supple-
mentary Information for the eigenvector centrality values of African countries

Looking at African countries and their eigenvector values (Tables ESM4–ESM8, Sup-
plementary Information), we see that several countries increased their interconnectedness
with other well-connected countries. The number of countries whose centrality improved
was higher in the dominant scientific domains (NS and M&HS).

13
 2014 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

In NS and M&HS, the share of African countries in the cohort with the lowest val-
ues fell from around 90 to 45% in 2010–2018 (denominator: all African countries). In NS,
African countries were represented in all cohorts of the most recent network, albeit with
prevalence in the range of)0.2; 0.4], 36 African countries. South Africa was the only coun-
try in the range with the highest values. Concerning M&HS and the period 2010–2018,
African countries were also present in all the ranges but their concentration was highest in
the two cohorts on the far right of the distribution, at 17% and 16% respectively. At least
one country from each African region belongs to the range with the highest values in the
M&HS. In E&T, AS and SS&H, the high share of African countries in the cohort with the
lowest values persists in the most recent period: 81%, 77% and 83% respectively.
Within each region, some countries stood out for their valuable connections play-
ing a relevant role in the exchange and creation of knowledge. In NS, Egypt, Nigeria,
Kenya, Cameroon and South Africa have the best chances to grow further in the IRC
context (the highest eigenvector centrality values). The same countries are also found
in the M&HS, in addition to Ghana and Ethiopia. In the missing scientific domains, the
country integration of some regions is so low that a discussion of the outstanding coun-
try is not permissible. This is the case with the countries of the Central region in E&T,
AS and SS&H, the Western region in AS and the Northern region in SS&H. As for the
remaining situations, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa are best positioned in the
networks to create and exchange more knowledge at the international level.

Collaboration networks among African countries

The analysis of the inter/intraregional collaboration of African countries makes it possi-

ble to understand their integration at the continental level and to derive possible directions
within the framework of IRC. Figures 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 show the subnetworks with at
least one African country in 2010–2018. For reasons of visualisation, the connections with
non-African countries are not shown. The node’s size and edges’ length and thickness are
not comparable among scientific fields.
The NS and M&HS networks unveiled that all regions collaborated (Figs.  8, 10),
although not all opportunities for collaboration have been exploited (Table ESM9, Supple-
mentary Information). In these scientific fields, all countries from Northern and Southern
Africa are part of the networks, which is not the case for the Central, Western and Eastern
regions.

Fig. 8  The subnetwork representing African countries collaboration in the NS between 2010 and 2018
(black links represent PAI > 1 and node’s size the total degree)

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2015

Fig. 9  The subnetwork representing African countries collaboration in E&T between 2010 and 2018 (black
links represent PAI > 1 and node’s size the total degree)

Fig. 10  The subnetwork representing African countries collaboration in the M&HS between 2010 and 2018
(black links represent PAI > 1 and node’s size the total degree)

As for the other networks, there still seems to be a long way to go to create more solid
collaboration networks for the exchange and creation of knowledge, as shown by the lack
of intraregional and interregional integration (Figs. 9, 11 and 123).
In the E&T, AS and SS&H there was no intraregional collaboration in Central Africa
and only scientists from Cameroon (CMR) participated in interregional collaboration. In
the AS’s network, Cameroon and The Democratic Republic of the Congo (ZAR) are the
two countries from the Central region with interregional collaborations.

3
  Edges representing less than 27 co_pub are not represented.

13
 2016 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Fig. 11  The subnetwork representing African countries collaboration in the AS between 2010 and 2018
(black links represent PAI > 1 and node’s size the total degree)

Fig. 12  The subnetwork repre-

senting African countries col-
laboration in the SS&H between
2010 and 2018 (black links
represent PAI > 1 and node’s size
the total degree)

In general, Egypt is the country from the Northern region that has the most inter/intrare-
gional collaborations in all networks (number of bilateral collaborations, Table ESM9,
Supplementary Information). Cameroon, Kenya (KEN) and South Africa (ZAF) occupy
this position in the Central, Eastern and Southern regions respectively. However, the low
number of connections of these countries in the networks of E&T, AS and SS&H is an
indication of the great weakness of these connections at the continental level. When we
put together these observations with the degree and eigenvector values of these countries,

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2017

we easily conclude that IRC policies must take into account the role of these countries as
mediators of IRC among the African countries and between African countries and non-
African countries. Among the countries in their respective regions, these have the most
connections (degree) and influence in the global networks (eigenvector centrality). We
have highlighted these countries, but there are others with similar behaviour in terms of
inter/intraregional collaboration that should also be considered important in increasing the
collaboration dynamics (e.g. Uganda (UGA) and Tanzania (TZA) in NS and M&HS).
In the Western region, the country with the most inter/intraregional collaborations
varies by scientific field, and within a field, we can identify more than one country that
have close patterns. Senegal has the highest number of intraregional collaborations (bilat-
eral collaborations) in NS and M&HS (Table ESM9, Supplementary Information). As for
interregional collaborations in NS and M&HS, Ghana (GHA) and Nigeria (NGA) are very
similar. On the other hand, these countries are very close to Senegal in intraregional col-
laborations in the same fields. Therefore, they can be the key to promote inter/intraregional
collaborations, while also contributing to greater integration of African countries with
countries from other non-African regions. They have the highest values for the number
of connections (degree) and are connected to countries that also have many connections
(higher values for eigenvector), which gives them advantages in terms of their influence on
exchange and knowledge creation. In the remaining fields, Ghana and Nigeria excel but the
number of connections is low.

Conclusions

Through this paper, it is possible to get an accurate picture of the level of participation of
African research communities in the IRC over time. These insights are crucial for decision-
makers in African countries and international organisations concerned with IRC policy. On
the other hand, the scientific community has more information that can be used in identify-
ing opportunities for knowledge sharing and creation.
Most of the scientific knowledge acquired by African countries (measured by the num-
ber of publications) has been produced at the international level; values above 80% are
common. A few exceptions are scientifically more capable countries (with more financial
and human resources for R&D) such as the countries of the Northern region, Nigeria and
South Africa, where the presence of IRC was less pronounced in the most recent period
(2010–2018); values are below 50%.
Collaboration with non-African countries was the most common form in all scientific
fields, although publications with contributions from scientists from various African coun-
tries has increased over time. During 2010–2018, the presence of publications with non-
African countries was lowest in E&T and highest in M&HS. The share of publications
involving scientists from multiple African countries in the total scientific output of each
African country was lowest in SS&H and highest in AS.
Considering the networks by scientific fields, African countries have been working on
their integration into international research networks, and this integration is happening
faster compared to the global pattern (increase in the number of countries and bilateral col-
laborations in the overall networks). In Africa, IRC is at different stages in each scientific
field. In NS and M&HS, the higher number of African countries in the global networks and
the greater number of bilateral collaborations, together with a more central position com-
pared to the other scientific fields, suggest that the IRC is at a more mature stage.

13
 2018 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Nowadays, African countries can make a greater contribution to the exchange and crea-
tion of knowledge at the international level, mainly in the NS and M&HS. They have more
opportunities to expand their research networks, exchange information, and explore new
scientific problems as their professional ties with other countries are constantly increas-
ing, especially with those that also have many professional ties, i.e. more influence in the
network. The Northern region excels in this respect, as countries in the region had on aver-
age more influence in the networks, except in the SS&H’ networks, where the Southern
region stood out, mainly due to South Africa. At the country level, within African coun-
tries, South Africa was the one that occupied a more central position (higher degree and
eigenvector centrality) in all networks.
Despite the positive development and high presence of IRC in the knowledge produced
by African scientists, most African countries are in a weak position, especially in the E&T,
AS and SS&H’s networks, where professional ties with countries that are well integrated
into the networks are low. Given the importance of physical communications (land, air,
maritime routes and others), agriculture, food security and human studies in promoting
sustainable economic growth, thorough work by the scientific communities representing
these fields and policy actors is needed to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
for IRC at the E&T, AS and SS&H levels.
Inter/ intraregional integration at the level of the African continent is higher in NS and
M&HS especially in the latter. In the other scientific domains, this integration is low and
practically non-existent in AS, highlighting the long road to an Africa with more opportu-
nities for information exchange and knowledge creation in these scientific domains.
As for inter/intraregional integration in the NS and M&HS, there seem to be two groups
of countries in Africa. One is characterised by IRC in the Northern region and another rep-
resents the strong interconnectedness between countries in the other regions. In these sci-
entific fields, there are one or more countries in each region that stand out in terms of the
number of inter/intraregional connections—Egypt (Northern); Ghana and Nigeria (West-
ern); Kenya (Eastern); Cameroon (Central), and South Africa (Southern).
In Africa, when defining new collaboration instruments and improving those already in
place, it is essential to identify all opportunities that will lead to greater accumulation of
scientific knowledge. Collaboration mechanisms should take into account African coun-
tries that have the most inter/intracontinental connections and have the most influence in
international research networks, as these countries can have a major impact as mediators of
IRC in Africa. They are in a position that offers the opportunity to expand African research
networks, i.e. to increase the inter/intracontinental integration of African countries. Egypt,
Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya Cameroon, and South Africa are those from each region with the
most inter/intraregional connections in the African continent by scientific field. These
countries also have the most connections and influence in global networks by scientific
field. Therefore, collaboration mechanisms aimed at increasing the integration of African
countries into international research networks should consider these countries as strategic
partners.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​

org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​022-​04297-7.

Acknowledgements  Elizabeth S. Vieira thanks FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia) for funding
through program DL 57/2016—Norma transitória (DL 57/2016/CP1346/CT0017). This work received
financial support from PT national funds (FCT/MCTES, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia and Ministé-
rio da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior) through the project UIDB/50006/2020. The research by Jorge
Cerdeira has been supported by FCT within the scope of UIDB/00727/2020.

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2019

References
Adams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–336. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
49033​5a
Adams, J., Gurney, K., Hook, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). International collaboration clusters in Africa.
Scientometrics, 98(1), 547–556. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​013-​1060-2
AUC. (2014). Science, technology and innovation strategy for Africa 2024. Retrieved from https://​au.​int/​
sites/​defau​lt/​files/​newse​vents/​worki​ngdoc​uments/​33178-​wd-​stisa-​engli​sh_​final.​pdf.
Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social
network of scientific collaborations. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 311(3),
590–614. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0378-​4371(02)​00736-7
Bilbao-Osorio, B., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2004). From R&D to innovation and economic growth in the EU.
Growth and Change, 35(4), 434–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1468-​2257.​2004.​00256.x
Boshoff, N. (2009). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81(2),
413–434. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​008-​2211-8
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and techni-
cal human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2004.​01.​008
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative
model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), 716–740.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1504/​ijtm.​2001.​002988
Brooks, H. (1994). The relationship between science and technology. Research Policy, 23(5), 477–486.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0048-​7333(94)​01001-3
Cherven, K. (2015). Mastering gephi network visualization : Produce advanced network graphs in Gephi
and gain valuable insights into your network datasets (p. 2015). UK Packt Publishing.
Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scien-
tometrics, 102(2), 1241–1268. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​014-​1463-8
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ahimbisibwe, J., Van Moll, R., & Koedam, N. (2003). Neo-colonial science by the
most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing. Scientometrics,
56(3), 329–343. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/a:​10223​74703​178
Ettarh, R. R. (2015). Institution-level collaboration in cardiovascular research in sub-Saharan Africa.
Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy, 5(4), 311–315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3978/j.​issn.​2223-​3652.​
2015.​07.​04
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management
Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​smj.​384
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2011). The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric
perspective. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 275–291. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joi.​2010.​12.​002
Galindo, M. A., & Mendez, M. T. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feed-
back effects at work? Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 825–829. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​
es.​2013.​11.​052
Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms
and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​49.4.​366.​14420
Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Sciento-
metrics, 51(1), 69–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/a:​10105​12628​145
Guns, R., & Wang, L. L. (2017). Detecting the emergence of new scientific collaboration links in Africa:
A comparison of expected and realized collaboration intensities. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3),
892–903. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joi.​2017.​07.​004
Hasan, I., & Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation-economic growth nexus global evidence. Research
Policy, 39(10), 1264–1276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2010.​07.​005
Horvat, M., & Lundin, N. (2008). Review of the science and technology cooperation between the Euro-
pean community and the government of the People’s Republic of China. European Commission.
Inglesi-Lotz, R., Balcilar, M., & Gupta, R. (2014). Time-varying causality between research out-
put and economic growth in US. Scientometrics, 100(1), 203–216. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11192-​014-​1257-z
Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Pouris, A. (2013). The influence of scientific research output of academics on eco-
nomic growth in South Africa: An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) application. Scientomet-
rics, 95(1), 129–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​012-​0817-3
Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​bf020​18100

13
 2020 Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0048-​7333(96)​00917-1
Kozma, C., & Calero-Medina, C. (2019). The role of South African researchers in intercontinental col-
laboration. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1293–1321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​019-​03230-9
Landini, F., Malerba, F., & Mavilia, R. (2015). The structure and dynamics of networks of scientific
collaborations in Northern Africa. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1787–1807. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11192-​015-​1635-1
Lee, L. C., Lin, P. H., Chuang, Y. W., & Lee, Y. Y. (2011). Research output and economic productivity: A
Granger causality test. Scientometrics, 89(2), 465–478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​011-​0476-9
Marfo, K., Pence, A., LeVine, R. A., & LeVine, S. (2011). Strengthening Africa’s contributions to child
development research: Introduction. Child Development Perspectives, 5(2), 104–111. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1750-​8606.​2011.​00164.x
Matenga, T. F. L., Zulu, J. M., Corbin, J. H., & Mweemba, O. (2019). Contemporary issues in north-
south health research partnerships: Perspectives of health research stakeholders in Zambia. Health
Research Policy and Systems. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12961-​018-​0409-7
Murombedzi, J. C. (2016). Inequality and natural resources in Africa. In World social science report:
Challenging inequalities, pathways to a just world. France: UNESCO/ISSC.
Murray, C. J. L., Lopez, A. D., World Health, O., Ani, B., & Harvard School of Public, H. (1996). The
global burden of disease: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases,
injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. World Health Organizatio.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review
E. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​evE.​64.​025102
Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1073/​pnas.​02154​4898
Nill, J., Schuch, K., Serger, S., Sonnenburg, J., Teirlinck, P., & Zwan, A. (2007). Policy Approaches towards
S&T Cooperation with Third Countries. Analytical report on behalf of the CREST Working Group
Internationalisation of R&D Facing the Challenge of Globalisation: European Commission.
Ntuli, H., Inglesi-Lotz, R., Chang, T. Y., & Pouris, A. (2015). Does research output cause economic growth
or vice versa? Evidence from 34 OECD countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 66(8), 1709–1716. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​asi.​23285
Oliveira, M., & Gama, J. (2012). An overview of social network analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(2), 99–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​widm.​1048
Onyancha, O. B. (2018). Mapping collaboration and impact of library and information science research in
sub-Saharan Africa, from 1995 to 2016. Library Management, 39(6–7), 349–363. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​lm-​06-​2017-​0059
Owusu-Nimo, F., & Boshoff, N. (2017). Research collaboration in Ghana: Patterns, motives and roles. Sci-
entometrics, 110(3), 1099–1121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​016-​2221-x
Pinto, T., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2020). The impact of research output on economic growth by fields of sci-
ence: A dynamic panel data analysis, 1980–2016. Scientometrics, 123(2), 945–978. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11192-​020-​03419-3
Piro, F. N., Aksnes, D. W., & Rorstad, K. (2013). A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields:
Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Informa-
tion Science and Technology, 64(2), 307–320. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​asi.​22746
Pouris, A., & Ho, Y. S. (2014). Research emphasis and collaboration in Africa. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2169–
2184. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​013-​1156-8
Quayle, M., & Greer, M. (2014). Mapping the state of the field of social psychology in Africa and patterns
of collaboration between African and international social psychologists. International Journal of Psy-
chology, 49(6), 498–502. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ijop.​12059
Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network
of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114(1), 159–179. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11192-​017-​2573-x
Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). International collaboration in the sciences 1981–1985. Scientometrics,
19(1), 3–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF021​30461
Subramanian, A. M., & Soh, P. H. (2010). An empirical examination of the science-technology relationship
in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(3–4), 160–
171. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jengt​ecman.​2010.​06.​003
Toivanen, H., & Ponomariov, B. (2011). African regional innovation systems: Bibliometric analysis of
research collaboration patterns 2005–2009. Scientometrics, 88(2), 471–493. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11192-​011-​0390-1

13
Scientometrics (2022) 127:1995–2021 2021

UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030. Retrieved from https://​en.​unesco.​org/​unesco_​
scien​ce_​report.
Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology col-
laboration: Building capacity in developing countries? Retrieved from Pittsburgh: https://​www.​rand.​
org/​conte​nt/​dam/​rand/​pubs/​monog​raph_​repor​ts/​2005/​MR1357.​0.​pdf.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of interna-
tional collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​
2005.​08.​002
Wong, P. X., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evi-
dence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11187-​005-​2000-1
Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collabo-
ration profiles of the top of science five producers. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627–657. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1023/a:​10056​32319​799

13