Validity and bias of indicators of international collaboration: A theoretical analysis with an empirical study of Ukraine-Russia-United States and China-United States
{"title":"Validity and bias of indicators of international collaboration: A theoretical analysis with an empirical study of Ukraine-Russia-United States and China-United States","authors":"Lawrence Smolinsky , Seungwon Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We examine three indicators that give a relative measure of collaborations between countries and introduce a fourth indicator. Of the three established indicators, the Asymmetric Observed to Expected Ratio (AOER-indicator) and the symmetric Observed to Expected Ratio (OER-indicator) have received criticism for some specific theoretical situations. The AOER fails as both a meaningful statistic and an indicator. The OER is a meaningful statistic but fails as an indicator. The Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC-indicator) is relatively recent measure that is a meaningful standard statistic and passes Rousseau's criterion for an indicator. The new indicator is the Odds Ratio of Collaboration (ORC-indicator). It is a symmetric and meaningful standard statistic that passes Rousseau's criterion for an indicator. We give interpretations for all four indicators to give a systematic comparison that recommends the RIC and ORC. We then compare them in analyzing some specific dynamic developments over a 20-year period: The Ukraine-Russia-United States relationship and the China-United States relationship. We believe the analysis illustrates the value of the RIC, the inadequacies of the AOER, and is interesting analysis of its own accord.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000014/pdfft?md5=8614819ffa8bfa67186cf5d23b440dd5&pid=1-s2.0-S1751157724000014-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We examine three indicators that give a relative measure of collaborations between countries and introduce a fourth indicator. Of the three established indicators, the Asymmetric Observed to Expected Ratio (AOER-indicator) and the symmetric Observed to Expected Ratio (OER-indicator) have received criticism for some specific theoretical situations. The AOER fails as both a meaningful statistic and an indicator. The OER is a meaningful statistic but fails as an indicator. The Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC-indicator) is relatively recent measure that is a meaningful standard statistic and passes Rousseau's criterion for an indicator. The new indicator is the Odds Ratio of Collaboration (ORC-indicator). It is a symmetric and meaningful standard statistic that passes Rousseau's criterion for an indicator. We give interpretations for all four indicators to give a systematic comparison that recommends the RIC and ORC. We then compare them in analyzing some specific dynamic developments over a 20-year period: The Ukraine-Russia-United States relationship and the China-United States relationship. We believe the analysis illustrates the value of the RIC, the inadequacies of the AOER, and is interesting analysis of its own accord.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.