4.5 Article

International research collaboration: is Africa different? A cross-country panel data analysis

Journal

SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 128, Issue 4, Pages 2145-2174

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04659-9

Keywords

International research collaboration; Barriers; Africa; Poisson pseudo maximum likelihood

Ask authors/readers for more resources

International research collaboration is important for the development of national scientific systems. In Africa, where resources for research and development are limited, IRC can be an opportunity to strengthen scientific capabilities and contribute to socioeconomic development.
International research collaboration (IRC) has been relevant for the development of national scientific systems. In Africa, given the limited resources devoted to research and development (R&D) activities and the crucial role that scientific knowledge generated through research activities can have in socioeconomic development, IRC may be an opportunity to strengthen scientific capabilities. While geographical, economic, political/governance, cultural, intellectual and excellence distance hampers IRC in other regions, we argue that economic and excellence distances actuate differently in Africa. We explored the impact of the variables above in addition to the information and communication technologies (ICTs), and social distances on the IRC of these countries. Using panel data for 54 African economies, our results show that economic distance fosters IRC while governance and excellence distances are non-significant. Past collaborations (one out of two proxies for social distance) and speaking the same language have the highest effect on IRC, and ICTs distance the lowest. The results have implications for science policy in Africa. For instance, we argue that science policies need to be adapted to each environment as the scientific landscape in each country is unique.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available