an international research network

International Research Network

•  Educational System
•  Education & Science
•  Society

Global Collaborations: QS World University Rankings on International Research Network - Jan. 31, 2023

The International Research Network category of the QS World University Rankings evaluates universities based on the breadth and quality of their international research collaborations. This category measures an institution's global impact and its commitment to advancing knowledge through international cooperation.

According to the rankings data as of January 31, 2023, three universities secured the top position with an index score of 100 in the International Research Network category:

Harvard University UCL (University College London) University of Oxford These universities have established strong research networks across international borders, fostering collaborations with institutions worldwide and contributing to global research initiatives.

The QS World University Rankings on International Research Network recognize universities that actively engage in international research partnerships, facilitating the exchange of ideas and expertise on a global scale.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Glob Oncol

Understanding the Value of International Research Networks: An Evaluation of the International Cancer Screening Network of the US National Cancer Institute

Amanda l. vogel.

1 Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD

Douglas M. Puricelli Perin

2 National Institutes of Health Library, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

Stephen H. Taplin

3 National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988.

ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications.

A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors.

Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks.

INTRODUCTION

International research networks and consortia are accelerating advances in cancer science by facilitating international knowledge sharing, data harmonization and integration, and research collaboration. Through these approaches, these organizations are enhancing research rigor, enabling discoveries around rare events, and producing knowledge about the influence of multilevel interacting variables on health outcomes (eg, genetic, behavioral, community, and health system factors). 1 - 5

Given these potential outcomes, new international networks and consortia continue to form, taking on new subjects and themes. 6 , 7 However, these large research collaborations also require unique investments in the leadership, management, and conduct of the science—for example, leading development of a shared scientific vision and goals, facilitating communication, coordinating workflow, and establishing interoperability of data systems. 8 These processes are critical to achieving scientific goals and also require additional investments of both financial and human resources. 9 , 10

It is important to evaluate the outcomes and impacts of networks and consortia to better understand the added value of these approaches, in light of the resources required for their successful implementation. In 2018 to 2019, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the US National Institutes of Health evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN). An NCI-supported international research network, the ICSN has been in continuous operation since 1988, making it one of the longest-standing international research networks. Evaluation findings are reported here, and implications are discussed for understanding the value of longstanding international research networks.

The ICSN aims to reduce the global burden of cancer by advancing research that improves the reach and effectiveness of cancer screening. 11 It pursues this aim by facilitating international knowledge sharing and research collaboration. The core activities of the ICSN are a biennial international scientific meeting and international scientific working groups. The ICSN is led and administered by the NCI. Biennial meetings and working groups are chaired by volunteer ICSN members.

The first ICSN meeting, held in 1988, was attended by an invited group of 24 cancer screening researchers from 11 countries who convened to discuss the potential for cross-national efforts to assess screening mammography diffusion and effectiveness. 11 Since then, the ICSN has grown into a global cancer screening research network. The 2019 biennial scientific meeting was attended by 311 individuals from 37 countries.

ICSN biennial meetings are open to the cancer screening community and provide a forum for scientific discussion and dissemination of the most current cancer screening research methods and findings. Content emphasizes evaluating the effectiveness of screening for cancer sites where screening has been documented to reduce mortality (breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung).

ICSN scientific working groups identify key scientific priority areas in cancer screening and conduct international collaborative research on these topics. Currently active working groups are conducting research on international mammography screening skills, failures in the cervical cancer screening process, longitudinal adherence to fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening, and overdiagnosis. Former ICSN working groups have conducted research on screening participation rates, health communication, performance evaluation, quality assurance, and other key topics. For a list of working group publications, see Appendix Table A1 .

Study Design

In 2018, the US NCI evaluated the ICSN to assess the outcomes and impacts of this long-running international research network. Research questions were:

• What are ICSN participants’ professional experiences and interests in the cancer screening field? and
• ○ Participants’ knowledge of cancer screening research and implementation;
• ○ Knowledge sharing, networking, and collaboration in the cancer screening field;
• ○ Participants’ professional activities in cancer screening;
• ○ Training and career development for the cancer screening community;
• ○ Cancer screening research and evaluation; and
• ○ Cancer screening implementation and policy?

The study design included a survey of ICSN participants and a bibliometric analysis of ICSN-produced publications. The survey was fielded in the spring of 2018 to 665 individuals who had participated in the 2015 and/or 2017 ICSN biennial meetings and/or who had subscribed to the ICSN listserv. The survey invitation was sent via e-mail and included an embedded link to the online self-administered survey. To incentivize participation, five survey respondents were randomly selected to receive a US$100 gift card.

The survey instrument included 43 questions (Data Supplement) in two sections. Section 1 addressed respondents’ professional experiences and interests in cancer screening and their attendance at ICSN meetings. Section 2 addressed the remaining research questions. The survey instrument was developed on the basis of formative interviews conducted by one of the coauthors (A.L.V.) with 14 current and former members of the ICSN Steering Committee. In addition, members of the ICSN Steering Committee and the ICSN directors at the NCI (coauthors S.H.T. and D.M.P.P.) reviewed drafts of the instrument. It was then pretested with global health professionals and finalized. Quantitative responses were analyzed in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and qualitative responses were analyzed in Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). The National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research Protections approved this study.

The bibliometric analysis addressed the impact of ICSN on international research collaboration and dissemination of knowledge in cancer screening. Bibliometric analyses examined coauthor country affiliations and coauthorship networks of ICSN-produced publications and citing publications. The base set of ICSN-produced publications was composed of articles attributed to the ICSN or an ICSN working group in the coauthor list or the acknowledgments section. Web of Science was used to identify citing articles through 2018. Income levels for coauthors’ countries were classified on the basis of the Atlas method defined by the World Bank. 12 The Science of Science Tool was used to analyze coauthor data, and Gephi was used to draw coauthorship networks.

ICSN Participants’ Professional Experiences and Interests

A total of 265 individuals completed the first part of the survey (39.8% response rate), and 243 individuals completed the full survey (36.5% response rate). Just under half had 10 or fewer years of experience in the cancer screening field (46.5%), and the remaining respondents had 11 or more years of experience ( Table 1 ). Most respondents expressed interest in breast (74.3%), bowel/colorectal (61.9%), and/or cervical cancers (57.4%). They worked primarily at academic institutions (37.4%) and government institutions (33.6%). Approximately two-thirds (64.5%) spent more than 25% of their work time conducting cancer screening research, and approximately a third spent more than 25% of their work time on policy development or advocacy (35.1%) or quality assurance (31.3%), respectively.

Respondents’ Professional Experiences and Interests

When asked what country they worked in, primarily, respondents named 95 countries in all seven world regions. 12 Just more than one third worked primarily in Europe and Central Asia (39.6%) or North America (36.2%), respectively, and the remaining quarter (24.2%) were from the other five world regions combined. Approximately one third (32.5%) spent more than 25% of their work time focused on cancer screening in lower-resource settings in their home country or elsewhere. Approximately three quarters (72.5%) did most of their cancer screening work in the context of organized screening programs.

All respondents had participated in one or more ICSN biennial meetings. Most (83.0%) attended the 2015 and/or 2017 meeting. Approximately one quarter (26.4%) participated in the 2012 meeting, and approximately one third (32.5%) participated in prior meetings, where attendance was capped (2010) or by invitation only (2008 and earlier).

Impacts of ICSN Participation on Knowledge Acquisition

Respondents were asked whether participating in the ICSN had helped to advance their knowledge of a range of professional activities in cancer screening ( Table 2 ). Three quarters (75.7%) agreed that participating had helped to advance their knowledge regarding conducting cancer screening research, and approximately half agreed that participating had helped to advance their knowledge regarding conducting quality assurance (56.8%), engaging in policy development or advocacy (56%), managing cancer screening implementation (47.7%), and developing and/or testing new technologies/tests for cancer screening (47.7%). Only approximately a fifth (22.2%) agreed that participating had helped to advance their knowledge regarding delivering cancer screening services, as a clinician.

ICSN Contribution to Advancing Participants’ Knowledge

Responses to an open-ended question about whether participating in the ICSN had advanced their knowledge in other topic areas highlighted four key topics: cancer risk, including risk prediction modeling; risks of screening, including overdiagnosis and adverse events; principles of and key issues in screening for specific cancer sites, including those within and outside of one’s area(s) of expertise; and knowledge of the range of screening practices internationally.

Impact of ICSN on International Knowledge Sharing, Networking, and Collaboration

Most respondents agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among diverse participants, including individuals engaged in cancer screening research and implementation (79.9%), living and working on different continents (74.0%), focused on different cancer sites (73.7%), and working in both high- and low-resource settings (62.2%). In addition, approximately three quarters (74.9%) of respondents agreed that ICSN has helped to form new international collaborations among cancer screening researchers, and approximately half (56.4%) agreed that ICSN had helped to form new international collaborations among cancer screening implementers ( Table 3 ).

Benefits of ICSN for Knowledge Sharing, Networking, and Collaboration in the Cancer Screening Field

Most respondents also reported that participating in the ICSN produced benefits for them, personally, regarding knowledge sharing, networking, and collaboration ( Table 4 ). They reported that participating had provided opportunities to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (70.4%) and to form new collaborations related to cancer screening implementation (58.0%) and/or research (57.6%). Less than one fifth (18.1%) reported that participating had helped them to secure technical assistance for screening implementation.

Personal Benefits of ICSN Participation for Knowledge Sharing, Networking, and Collaboration

Impact of ICSN on Training and Career Development

Approximately two-thirds of respondents agreed that ICSN has helped to advance the career development of current cancer screening experts (66.6%) and train the next generation of cancer screening experts (62.2%). In addition, approximately half of respondents (51.4%) reported that participating in the ICSN had advanced their own career development.

Impact of ICSN on Cancer Screening Research and Implementation

Approximately three quarters of respondents agreed that ICSN has helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), and nearly as many respondents (68.7%) reported that their own participation in the ICSN had informed advances in screening research or evaluation approaches and/or methods they used in their own work ( Table 5 ).

Benefits of ICSN for Cancer Screening Research and Implementation

Focusing on screening implementation, most respondents agreed that the ICSN had helped to advance effective practices in cancer screening (71.2%) and cancer screening policies (60.9%). In addition, approximately half of respondents reported that their participation in the ICSN had informed advances in screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their own work settings. In an overall assessment of the value of the ICSN, nearly three quarters of respondents agreed that the ICSN had helped to shape the field of cancer screening (73.6%).

In open-ended comments, respondents attributed key successes of the ICSN—around facilitating knowledge acquisition, networking, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research and implementation—in part to the design of the ICSN, including the network’s specialized focus on screening only, and the diversity of ICSN participants. In particular, they highlighted the value of including individuals from all over the world whose interests spanned cancer sites and whose professional activities, as a group, focused on both research and implementation. They also described how these characteristics enabled dissemination of effective policies and practices for cancer screening ( Table 6 ).

Characteristics of ICSN That Facilitate Knowledge Sharing, Networking, Collaboration, and Advancement of Cancer Screening Policies and Practices: Qualitative Responses

Bibliometric analyses identified 20 publications produced by ICSN scientific working groups and the ICSN leadership group (Appendix Table A1 ). These publications included a total of 75 coauthors located in 23 countries. This included 21 high-income countries (HICs) as well as two lower-middle income countries, both of which were included in only one of the 20 publications ( Fig 1 ).

Countries represented among coauthors of International Cancer Screening Network–produced publications, by number of publications.

These 20 publications were cited in 589 other publications, which together had more than 2,000 coauthors located in 57 countries. These included 39 HICs and 18 low- and middle-income countries, of which 14 were upper-middle–income countries and four were lower-middle–income countries. Of these 589 citing publications, 16 were other ICSN publications. Figure 2 shows the 30 countries that were represented in five or more citing publications. The remaining 27 countries were represented in fewer than five publications each.

Countries represented among coauthors of citing publications, by number of citing publications. A cutoff point of five or more citing articles was used for this figure. As such, the figure does not represent all 589 citing publications and all 57 countries represented among coauthors of these citing publications.

The coauthorship network diagram for ICSN publications depicts collaboration patterns among countries represented by coauthors of the 20 ICSN publications, in conjunction with country income categories ( Fig 3 ). It highlights the relative frequency of coauthorships among represented countries, ranging from one to 11 coauthored articles. The countries in the top half of this distribution are: the United States, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, and Canada ( Fig 3 ).

Each circle in the network graphic represents a country represented among the coauthors of the 20 International Cancer Screening Network publications. The size of a circle is proportional to the number of publications in which the country is represented. The color of a circle represents the country’s income level (World Bank Atlas method of classification). The lines connecting the circles represent coauthorships, with a gray line representing one coauthorship and a dark blue line representing 11 coauthorships, which was the maximum number found. The color gradient between gray and dark blue represents the range from one to 11 coauthorships.

The coauthorship network diagram for citing publications likewise highlights collaboration patterns, this time among countries represented among citing publication coauthors ( Fig 4 ). It shows a range of one to 12 coauthored articles. The countries in the top half of this distribution include, once again, the United States, the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada, as well as the United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, Spain, France, Germany, China, and Sweden. In the citing articles’ network map, collaborations across country income levels are now visible.

Each circle in the network graphic represents a country represented among the coauthors of the 589 citing publications. The size of a circle is proportional to the number of publications in which that country is represented. The color of a circle represent the country’s income level (World Bank Atlas method of classification). The lines connecting the circles represent coauthorships, with a gray line representing one coauthorship and a dark blue line representing 12 coauthorships, which was the maximum number found. The color gradient between gray and dark blue represents the range from one to 12 coauthorships.

The current evaluation of the ICSN provided an opportunity to assess a 30-year-old international research group for participants, the science, and translational applications. In doing so, it addressed the question: what is the value of longstanding investments in international research collaboration?

Findings reflect ICSN participants’ strong professional focus on cancer screening research, as expected given the research focus of the network ( Table 1 ). They also document that participants vary in their research, evaluation, and implementation activities, cancer sites of interest, and country locations—enriching the knowledge exchange that occurs via the ICSN ( Table 1 ).

Survey results documented the contributions of the ICSN to knowledge acquisition, with particularly strong agreement that ICSN advanced participants’ knowledge of conducting cancer screening research, conducting quality assurance, and engaging in policy development or advocacy ( Table 2 ). Topics on which respondents were less likely to agree that ICSN advanced their knowledge were those that focused on screening implementation, technology development, education of target populations, and delivery of clinical services. This pattern generally aligns with reported professional time spent on these activities and reflects the research focus of the network ( Table 1 ).

There was strong agreement that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking across diverse participants and helped to form new international collaborations among screening researchers and implementers ( Table 3 ). This was corroborated by reported personal benefits of ICSN participation ( Table 4 ). Although few respondents reported that ICSN participation helped them secure technical assistance, nearly three quarters reported that it helped them contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others ( Table 4 ). This may reflect the fact that most participants in the survey were located in HICs ( Table 1 ).

There was strong agreement that the ICSN has helped to advance cancer screening research and evaluation, shape the field of cancer screening, advance effective screening implementation, and advance effective screening policies ( Table 5 ). Reported personal benefits of participation, and benefits of participation to one’s work setting, reinforced these findings ( Table 5 ). The network diagram for citing publications also highlights the influence of the ICSN on the field of cancer screening, as evidenced by citations of ICSN publications in nearly 600 publications with coauthors from 57 countries—many more than the 23 countries represented by coauthors of ICSN publications ( Figs 3 and ​ and4 4 ).

Bibliometrics showed that the ICSN working groups and leadership group produced 20 publications. This modest number reflects the fact that publications are only one component of ICSN’s activities. In addition, many of these publications report on complex multinational comparative research requiring years to implement. The citing publication data show that ICSN publications, although few in number, have had an important influence on the field in both HICs and low- and middle-income countries ( Fig 4 ). Furthermore, ICSN may have benefits beyond those addressed in this evaluation. For example, participants may have developed research questions, study designs, and/or publications that were inspired by topics, methods, or questions they learned about via ICSN.

Qualitative findings attributed the effectiveness of the ICSN to the combination of its specific focus on cancer screening and the diversity of participants’ professional experiences and knowledge within this field—across cancer screening sites, countries, high- and low-resource settings, and both research and implementation ( Table 6 ). Participants emphasized that this research exchange helped to create evidence-informed practice and policy.

A key limitation of this evaluation was that the sampling frame excluded individuals who have not attended ICSN, who may have different perceptions of the network’s value. In addition, bibliometrics documented, to some extent, the impact of the ICSN on the screening literature but cannot measure impact on cancer screening implementation. Finally, this evaluation lacked a comparison group.

Future evaluations of other research networks and consortia might answer questions such as: How do these groups influence translational outcomes, and what outcomes do they influence? How do voluntary networks, funded networks, and funded portfolios of investigator-driven research compare in their influence on the science and translational applications? And how do varied approaches to the leadership, management, and administration of these groups, as well as varied scientific goals (eg, basic, translational), influence outcomes?

Recent scientific trends are amplifying the potential of international research consortia and networks to advance screening research. We are therefore likely to see an increase in these approaches. Evaluation of these initiatives is essential to fully understand their value. Findings from this evaluation suggest the potential for longstanding international research networks to contribute to knowledge sharing and collaboration and advancement of research methods and findings, related policies and practices, and fields of science.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank members of the International Cancer Screening Network Steering Committee for their participation in formative interviews that contributed to survey development and for their review of the draft survey instrument. Our thanks also go to Paul Doria-Rose, PhD, who reviewed an earlier draft of this manuscript, and Jordan Freeman, MPH, who programmed the survey instrument and maintained the dataset.

International Cancer Screening Network Working Group and Leadership Group Publications (alphabetical order by first author)

Presented at the International Cancer Screening Network 2019 Biennial Meeting, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, June 3-5, 2019; the Evaluation 2018 Conference, Cleveland, OH, October 28-November 3, 2018; and the World Cancer Congress 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 1-4, 2018.

Supported in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conception and design : Amanda L. Vogel, Douglas M. Puricelli Perin, Stephen H. Taplin

Collection and assembly of data: Amanda L. Vogel, Douglas M. Puricelli Perin, Stephen H. Taplin

Data analysis and interpretation: All authors

Manuscript writing: All authors

Final approval of manuscript: All authors

Accountable for all aspects of the work: All authors

AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jgo/site/misc/authors.html .

No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 17 October 2012

Collaborations

The rise of research networks

• Jonathan Adams 1  

Nature volume  490 ,  pages 335–336 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

278 Citations

86 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Developing world
• Institutions
• Research management

New collaboration patterns are changing the global balance of science. Established superpowers need to keep up or be left behind, says Jonathan Adams.

A fundamental shift is taking place in the geography of science. Networks of research collaboration are expanding in every region of the globe. The established science superpowers of the United States and Europe have dominated the research world since 1945. Yet this Atlantic axis is unlikely to be the main focus of research by 2045, or perhaps even by 2020.

New regional networks are reinforcing the competence and capacity of emerging research economies, and changing the global balance of research activity. This may well reveal different ways of approaching challenges, and solutions that are different to those of Western institutions. If the science superpowers are to avoid being left behind, they will need to step out of their comfort zones to keep up with the dynamism of the new players in this shifting landscape.

Collaboration is normally a good thing from a wider public perspective. Knowledge is better transferred and combined by collaboration, and co-authored papers tend to be cited more frequently 1 . But could increased global collaboration mean a blending of objectives that risks leaving bland priorities?

Co-authorship is a valid proxy for collaboration because few scientists surrender credit for their papers lightly, so we can assume that sharing of authorship reflects a tangible engagement. Such publication data are readily available, cover many countries and research disciplines to a good depth, and have reasonable consistency across decades.

Changes in the balance of research done by the lone scientist and that done by teams can be seen in co-authorship data 2 . Co-authorship has been increasing inexorably 3 , 4 . Recently it has exploded.

An issue of Nature today has a similar number of Letters to one from 60 years ago, but at least four times more authors 5 . Similar observations have been documented from clinical science to law. In the early 1980s, papers with more than 100 authors were rare. By 1990, the annual tally with that number exceeded 500 — and it has kept growing. The first paper with 1,000 authors was published in 2004; a paper with 3,000 authors came in 2008. By last year, a total of 120 physics papers had more than 1,000 authors and 44 had more than 3,000 (ref. 6 ). Many of these are from collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland.

This upwards trend in multi-authorship will continue through shared global priorities in health, energy, climate and social structures, propelled in part by international agencies such as the World Health Organization. Some of this growth will not be true collaboration but will come from independent contributions to joint efforts, usually in the form of data, that involve only weak intellectual interaction.

Blurred borders

Papers with hundreds of co-authors contribute to the apparent pervasiveness of collaboration between countries. For example, every country in Europe co-authors with every other country in the region. For the United Kingdom and Germany, this collaboration is relatively intense and represents many individual links. In 2011, the two countries had around 10,000 joint publications in journals indexed on Thomson Reuters' Web of Science — double the total in 2003 and about 10% of each country's total output. Malta, by contrast, shares only 50 papers per year with the United Kingdom, but that represents more than 25% of its total publication output. Consequently, distinguishing Malta's own science performance is already impossible. This blurring of national distinctiveness could be a growing issue.

According to data from Web of Science, the United States currently collaborates on 3–4% of its papers with each of China (now its most frequent partner, with 19,141 papers in 2011), the United Kingdom (19,090) and Germany (16,753). These totals have all roughly doubled in the past decade and have increased by half as a percentage of US total output. No country shared more than 1,000 papers in 1989 with any partner. US collaboration with Asia is rising steeply, as is collaboration between countries in western Europe. There is no reason to suppose that this will not continue.

China's rapid growth since 2000 is leading to closer research collaboration with Japan (up fourfold since 1999), Taiwan (up eightfold), South Korea (up tenfold), Australia (more than tenfold) and with every other research-active country in the Asia-Pacific region.

The rapid growth of each nation's research base and regional links, driven by relatively strong economies investing in innovation, will undoubtedly produce a regional research labour force to be reckoned with by 2020. Already, cutting-edge technology can be sourced from research developments in South Korea as well as those in Germany.

India has a growing research network with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, although it is not as frequent a collaborator with China as one might expect 7 . In the Middle East, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a strong research partnership that is drawing in neighbours including Tunisia and Algeria. The annual tally of joint Egyptian–Saudi Arabian papers has risen tenfold in the past decade and is accelerating. Less than 5% of these papers have a co-author from the United States, the biggest partner outside the region for both countries.

Latin America has an emerging research network focused around Brazil, which — despite language differences — has doubled its collaboration with Argentina, Chile and Mexico in the past five years. By contrast, Africa has three distinct networks: in southern Africa, in French-speaking countries in West Africa and in English-speaking nations in East Africa.

These clusters indicate that proximity is just one of several factors in networks. Nigeria, for example, collaborates not with its neighbours in West Africa but with co-linguists in East Africa. This mirrors a global tendency to use paths of least resistance to partnership, rather than routes that might provide other strategic gains. Such language links have historically benefited the United Kingdom through alliances with Commonwealth countries that speak English and have adopted similar research structures. The United Kingdom cannot rely on this to continue.

This growth of regional collaboration has many implications. It amplifies the development of emergent research economies. Researchers in Asia, for example, do not need recognition from European and US authors if their research is being cited and used by partners within the region. In the short term, students will recognize attractive opportunities closer to home, with fewer alienating cultural challenges than many European campuses have offered.

Singapore, for example, is already reaping the benefits of a 1998 policy change to attract foreign students. Students from China, India and the ten countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) now comprise about 20% of Singapore's university intake — around 11,000 full-time students — with another 20,000 part-time students in other colleges. Students from those countries choose Singapore for its proximity, its lower cost of living compared with Europe and the United States and its generous government scholarships. Job opportunities are excellent: bursary holders sign a bond to work in Singapore for a fixed period after graduation and the government helps them to find a job that fits their skills 8 .

All of this means that the significance of Western research economies as preferred partners for research could dwindle. To meet this challenge, these economies need to do much more than just take fees from immigrant postgraduate students.

The maverick and the marginal may find a highly collaborative world a difficult place to flourish.

The United States and the United Kingdom must build new networks by actively exporting students to burgeoning science centres such as China and India. Researchers must stop expecting scientists from the new powerhouses to come to them, and should visit collaborators to experience different approaches — and be ready to learn, not just to teach. Travelling recently in the Pacific basin, I encountered many university leaders trying to increase collaboration with Europe, but finding it difficult to identify responsive contacts, despite having excellent facilities and staff to offer.

In short, countries in science's old guard must drop their patrician tendencies, open up clear communication channels and join in with new alliances as equal participants before they find themselves the supplicants.

Collaboration between the public and private sectors has become more apparent because of government interest in exploiting research for economic competitiveness. Some data show that industrial investment in research seems to be dropping — perhaps a reaction to the recession, but the trend seems to be long term, at least in the United Kingdom 9 . Governments need to develop an industrial policy that complements science policy. Incentives for collaborative innovation investment that draws directly on the science base would be a good start.

Patrician to participant

So what are the costs and benefits of collaboration? It provides access to resources, including funding, facilities and ideas. It will be essential for grand challenges in physics, environment and health to have large, international teams supported by major facilities and rich data, which encourage the rapid spread of knowledge.

Collaborative papers tend to get cited more often. For example, those published jointly by UK and US authors are cited on average more often than either nation domestically. It also works at the institutional level, so Harvard University gets a boost from collaborative papers with the University of Cambridge, and even in Nature the US–UK co-papers get relatively more citations 1 . And it follows through to industrial collaboration: when the University of Oxford collaborates with GlaxoSmithKline, for example, the papers are cited roughly four times as often as the world average for their field.

Research networks are a tool of international diplomacy. Germany exports excellent research equipment within its partnerships. China expands its cultural influence through the regional programmes it funds.

As for costs, collaboration takes time and travel and means a shared agenda. Of wider concern as teams proliferate is that individuals could end up working only on topics that peer consensus defines as the most interesting. The diversity of choice and opportunity may be diminished. The risk is that international, national and institutional agendas may become driven by the same bland establishment consensus.

This global tendency for convergence became obvious in 1997 when Tony Blair, then UK prime minister, adopted the same technology priorities set out by Bill Clinton and Al Gore in their 1992 presidential campaign, including biotechnology, health and environment. By 2000, the UK regional development agencies had supported the same missions rather than choose those that played to regional university strengths 10 . Leading research universities in North America, Europe and Asia identify strategic missions in similar areas.

It is difficult to go your own way in a village, even one that is global. But the success of science has been the crossing of separate strands of thought and practice that are more innovative at the edges than at the core. The iconoclastic, the maverick and the marginal may find a highly collaborative world a difficult place to flourish. Research-funding agencies should maintain a balance. Collaborative grand challenges seize headlines, but so do Nobel prizes — and only three people can share one of those.

Adams, J. in International Partnerships of Research Excellence (ed. Roberts, G.) (2006); available at http://go.nature.com/zzwn8z .

Google Scholar  

Whitfield, J. Nature 455 , 720–723 (2008).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Leydesdorff, L. & Wagner, C. S. J. Informetr. 2 , 317–325 (2008).

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, J. Nature 396 , 615–618 (1998).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Greene, M. Nature 450 , 1165 (2007).

King, C. ScienceWatch 23 , 1–2 (2012); available at http://go.nature.com/w3f2jt .

Bound, K. & Thornton, I. Our Frugal Future: Lessons from India's Innovation System (NESTA, 2012).

Ministry of Education, Singapore. Education Statistics Digest (2012); available at http://go.nature.com/8dz3ml .

Universities UK. The Future of Research (Universities UK, 2010).

Evidence. Funding Research Diversity (Universities UK, 2003).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jonathan Adams is director of research evaluation for Evidence, part of Thomson Reuters, in Leeds, UK.,

Jonathan Adams

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Adams .

Related links

Related links in nature research.

Special issue on China

Special issue on Africa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Adams, J. The rise of research networks. Nature 490 , 335–336 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a

Download citation

Published : 17 October 2012

Issue Date : 18 October 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Exploring high scientific productivity in international co-authorship of a small developing country based on collaboration patterns.

• Irena Mitrović
• Marko Mišić
• Jelica Protić

Journal of Big Data (2023)

Assessing cohesion and diversity in the collaboration network of the SALURBAL project

• Sofía Baquero
• Felipe Montes
• Ana V. Diez Roux

Scientific Reports (2023)

Assessing the global ocean science community: understanding international collaboration, concerns and the current state of ocean basin research

• Ross W. K. Potter
• Brodie C. Pearson

npj Ocean Sustainability (2023)

Measuring and characterizing international collaboration patterns in Indian scientific research

• Vivek Kumar Singh
• Hiran H. Lathabai

Scientometrics (2023)

Are the Major Knowledge-producing Countries Converging in Science and Technology Capabilities?

• Candelaria Barrios
• Esther Flores
• Marta Ruiz-Martínez

Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Login with Clinika

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

International Research Network - SMO and Home Care Services provider

International Research Network is an SMO and a Home Care Services provider. By utilizing our extensive expertise and our large alliance clinical trial research site network in Europe and North America, we are providing our clients with solutions for expedited patient recruitment and highest quality study delivery.

Our offering – Site management services to pharmaceutical companies and CROs to reduce Study timelines and costs and as an outcome lead to more efficient and accurate trial results.

Our SMO teams keep patients engaged with high retention rates and provide our clients with tailored services to reach the right population.

IRN is the fastest growing Site Alliance Network in Eastern and Central Europe, build on 25 years experience in clinical research.

Achievements

- Top recruiter status for > 60 clinical multicenter trials - Ensuring activation of all sites on average within 30 days of approval - Consistent achievement of DBL within less than 4 weeks from LPLV - 95% of the recruitment targets reached on time

Audits / Inspections

- more than 50 audits/inspections - 3 FDA inspected sites, NAI letters

Therapeutic areas

We are proud to be able to bring a depth of knowledge to our clients’ studies based on experience across a wide range of therapeutic areas. Our clinical trial experience enables us to work with our clients at any stage of drug development from Phase I through Phase IV for traditional as well as highly innovative clinical programs. The listed number of trials is a provisional representation of our experience. For case studies and more detailed information about our track record of experience in clinical research, please contact our business development department: [email protected]

Benefits of SMO

- Shorter study timelines, lower costs and elevated quality metrics. - Faster patient recruitment - Improved data and query management - Better focus for research teams and decreased burden for the PI - Audit Readiness from Start to the End of the Clinical Trial

Site Network

IRN was established to address the high need for patient sourcing techniques and having behind Comac Medical’s 25 years of experience, rapidly became the fastest growing Patient-Centered Site Alliance Network in Eastern and Central Europe.

Since its establishment the company already operates in more than 700 partnering institutions, with more that 2000 partnering investigators, in 18 countries in Central and Eastern Europe and North America, with access to more than 8 million patients on file.

The headquarter is located in Sofia, Bulgaria. IRN has also offices and it’s own trained and experienced local staff in Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech R., Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, N. Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and North America.

Services Provided By IRN

Feasibility & Site selection

Conducting clinical trials is inherently complex, and engaging ...

Study management

Our Clinical Site Managers will support your trial ...

Site Augmentation

Our unique study delivery model to support Sponsors ...

Home Care Services

With clinical trial nurses and physicians covering CEE, ...

Regulatory consulting

Full strategic and operational support from our Regulatory ...

Patient recruitment & retention activities

With our patient-centric approach of work we help ...

partnering institutions

partnering investigators

million patients on file

countries in Europe and North America

completed clinical trials

What Is New At IRN

IRN has signed a Master Service Agreement with one of the biggest private networks of hospitals in Poland.

One of the IRN alliance sites became Hospital of the Year for 2017 in Bulgaria

Understanding the Value of International Research Networks: An Evaluation of the International Cancer Screening Network of the US National Cancer Institute

Affiliations.

• 1 Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD.
• 2 National Institutes of Health Library, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
• 3 National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
• PMID: 31600086
• PMCID: PMC6825249
• DOI: 10.1200/JGO.19.00197

Purpose: International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988.

Methods: ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications.

Results: A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors.

Conclusion: Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks.

Publication types

• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
• Early Detection of Cancer*
• National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
• United States

Grants and funding

• HHSN261200800001E/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States

The integration of African countries in international research networks

• Published: 02 March 2022
• Volume 127 , pages 1995–2021, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Elizabeth S. Vieira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2240-110X 1 , 2 &
• Jorge Cerdeira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2539-0557 3 , 4 , 5  

492 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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 collaboration (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. Nevertheless, 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Jorge Cerdeira, João Mesquita & Elizabeth S. Vieira

International research collaboration in Africa: a bibliometric and thematic analysis

Elizabeth S. Vieira

Stocktaking scientific publication on bi-regional collaboration between Europe 28 and Latin America and the Caribbean

Simone Belli & Joan Baltà

Authors calculations looking at the publications indexed in the WoS.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) database.

Edges representing less than 27 co_pub are not represented.

Adams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490 (7420), 335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/490335a

Article   Google Scholar  

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/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/33178-wd-stisa-english_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

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

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 technical 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.

Google Scholar  

Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 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:1022374703178

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 feedback effects at work? Journal of Business Research, 67 (5), 825–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.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. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 69–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010512628145

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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 European 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 output 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 economic growth in South Africa: An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) application. Scientometrics, 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/bf02018100

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 collaboration. 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/PhysRevE.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.021544898

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. Scientometrics, 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 science: 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 Information 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 Psychology, 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/BF02130461

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.jengtecman.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

UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030 . Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report .

Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries? Retrieved from Pittsburgh: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1357.0.pdf .

Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international 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: Evidence 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: Collaboration profiles of the top of science five producers. Scientometrics, 47 (3), 627–657. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005632319799

Download references

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 Ministério 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.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

LAQV/REQUIMTE, Departamento de Ciências dos Computadores, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre, 4169-007, Porto, Portugal

Escola de Economia e Gestão, Universidade do Minho, Rua Bairro do Sol 4, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

Jorge Cerdeira

Instituto de Sociologia, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade do Porto, Via Panorâmica, 4150-564, Porto, Portugal

CEOS.PP, Centro de Estudos Organizacionais e Sociais, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Rua Jaime Lopes Amorim, 4465-004, São Mamede de Infesta, Portugal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth S. Vieira .

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 4364 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vieira, E.S., Cerdeira, J. The integration of African countries in international research networks. Scientometrics 127 , 1995–2021 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04297-7

Download citation

Received : 07 September 2021

Accepted : 04 February 2022

Published : 02 March 2022

Issue Date : April 2022

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

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• International research collaboration
• Integration

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

International Research Network (IRN)

An international cooperation tool shared by the CNRS, dedicated to strengthening research partnerships.

need to find a French cnrs collaborator? email us at Fainstitute.arizona.edu 

1. What is an International Research Network?  

The purpose of an International Research Network is to structure an international scientific community around a common theme or research infrastructure. It promotes the organization of international workshops and seminars, as well as thematic schools organized by network partners in France and abroad. It brings together, for a duration of five years, researchers from one or more French laboratories, including at least one from the CNRS, and several international partner laboratories.

2. Who are International Research Networkintended for?  

International Research Networks are intended for personnel conducting research in a CNRS unit and their scientific partners in France and abroad.

3. How to propose an International Research Network?  

Applications should be submitted to the CNRS scientific Institute in charge of the applicant’s unit. It is recommended that candidates contact the international relations correspondents within their institute as early as possible to find out the specific procedures for submitting a project. For interdisciplinary projects, the various Institutes concerned can be informed.

4. How are International Research Network evaluated?  

Proposals for International Research Networks are evaluated by peer reviews within the CNRS scientific Institutes based on the following criteria: scientific value of the project, interest of the international collaboration, scientific quality and complementarity of teams, past relations, balance of participation in scientific activity, participation of young researchers, ethics, and financial justification. Special attention will be given to the identification of targeted objectives relating to the expected impact beyond the scientific activity itself (for example, preparation of a joint response to calls for proposals, promotion of joint programming, insertion into multilateral networks, and organization of the activity around a research infrastructure).

5. What are the outlines of the institutional formalization of International Research Network?  

Once selected, International Research Networks are the subject of institutional letters of commitment from the French and foreign institutions willing to support them, in particular by granting additional funds in accordance with the internal evaluation and selection procedures specific to each institution.

6. How are International Research Network financed?  

In addition to the resources directly provided by the participating teams, International Research Networks receive funds earmarked explicitly by the CNRS for international mobility between the laboratories involved and for setting up international workshops and seminars, working meetings, and thematic schools organized by the partners, for a total amount comprised between €50,000-€75,000 over the duration of the project. Managed by the CNRS laboratory overseeing the International Research Network (lead laboratory), the CNRS funds are allocated by annual installments depending on the initial project, scientific assessments, and annual financial reports issued by the lead laboratory and members of the International Research Network.

More information and points of contact are available on the CNRS's international webpage http://international.cnrs.fr  

European Research and International Cooperation Department CNRS-Campus Gérard Mégie 3, rue Michel-Ange 75794 Paris Cedex 16

See the original call for proposal on the CNRS website

• Message from the Chair
• Strategic Plan 2020-2024
• Course Directors
• Administration
• Employee Support Resources
• Faculty Practice Sites
• Faculty Career Development Conference Report 2021-2022
• Endocrinology and Metabolism
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• General, Geriatric and Hospital Medicine
• Hematology and Oncology
• Infectious Diseases
• Nephrology and Hypertension
• Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine
• Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology
• Grand Rounds Current Schedule
• Grand Rounds Archive
• Life on Long Island
• General Medicine and Geriatrics
• Hospice and Palliative Medicine
• Investigators/Labs
• Latest Research
• Past Projects
• Research Resources
• Pub Med Publications
• Research Seminar Archives
• About Giving
• Patient Care
• Department of Medicine
• The Department of Medicine News and Events

International Research Network for NOD2 Associated Diseases (IRNNOD2AD)

Nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-containing protein 2 (NOD2) associated  diseases are a rapidly expanding group of inflammatory conditions including Crohn’s disease (CD), Blau syndrome (BS), and Yao syndrome (YAOS). While these disorders share some overlapping clinical manifestations, their clinical features, treatments, and outcomes are distinct. Among these conditions, YAOS has been recently characterized and involves multi-organ systems, which can easily lead to misdiagnosis and confusion with systemic autoimmune and other systemic auto-inflammatory diseases. YAOS does not seem uncommon. To raise more awareness and further our understanding of NOD2-associated diseases, especially YAOS and BS, the International Research Network for NOD2 Associated Diseases (IRNNOD2AD) has been formed under the leadership of Dr. Qingping Yao, Stony Brook University. The network consists of multi-disciplinary world-renowned clinicians/researchers and research scientists with interest in studying these diseases. The first meeting was held virtually on December 8, 2021, with the purpose of setting the long-term objectives of the network. The initial goals discussed and prioritized by the network members are the following:

1) Broadcasting relevant knowledge about the group of diseases in the medical community and the public to meet the needs of patients. 2) Publishing position papers or developing consensus guidelines for YAOS and BS. 3) Creating collaborations among clinicians, researchers/scientists, and patients to advance basic, translational and clinical research of these diseases. 4) Generating research ideas for future grant funding opportunities.

The ultimate objective of the network is to provide easily accessible, multi-disciplinary, standardized, and high-quality information that would accelerate research discoveries, improve diagnosis, and offer effective care for patients.

Upper panelists: from left to right

Dr. Ruth Napier, Research Scientist, Oregon Health & Science University, US Dr. Qingping Yao, Rheumatologist, Stony Brook University, US. Dr. John Davis, Rheumatologist, Mayo Clinic, US Dr. Garabet Yeretssian, Research Scientist, NY, US

Mid panelists: from left to right

Dr. Min Shen, Rheumatologist, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, China Dr. Naotomo Kambe, Dermatologist, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan Dr. Christine McDonald, Research Scientist, Cleveland Clinic, US Dr. Brianne Navetta-Modrov, Allergist/Immunologist, Stony Brook University, US

Lower panelists: from left to right Dr. Karoline Krause, Dermatologist/Allergist, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany Dr. Bo Shen, gastroenterologist, Columbia University, US Dr. Lawrence Afrin, Hematologist/Oncologist, AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, US

Climate Risks and Financial Institutions (2023-2024)

Climate change can potentially affect financial institutions through two main risks: physical and transition. Physical risks can be acute (i.e., driven by events such cyclones, hurricanes, floods, or other severe weather events) or chronic (i.e., associated with longer-term shifts in climate patterns, such as sustained higher temperatures, sea level rise, or changing precipitation patterns). Transition risks are associated with unexpected changes in strategies, policies, investments, and market preferences during the transition to a low-carbon economy. The initiative intends to assess the effect of these risks on financial institutions by looking at historical episodes where either physical risks or policy\preference shifts have been linked to the performance of these institutions, including losses on their assets. The initiative may also take a forward-looking approach by investigating the potential implications of future physical and transition risks on financial institutions.

Non-Bank Financial Intermediation and Liquidity (2023-2024)

This initiative intends to assess the importance and dynamics of flows to non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs). The initiative proposes exploring a number of hypotheses around two types of developments associated with NBFIs: 1) structural shifts in the NBFI sector, (e.g. rapid growth of investment funds), 2) reactions to domestic or global shocks (e.g. COVID, monetary tightening, liquidity shock). The objective of this project is to test whether differences across NBFIs and in contrast to banks, have implications for the cross-border flow of capital, and financial stability in general. The analysis can employ data at various levels of granularity, from the country level assessment of different NBFI types (for example investment funds, pension funds, insurance, etc) to the fund-security level data on portfolio allocation.

Low Interest Rates and International Banking (2020-2022)

The purpose of this IBRN initiative is to enhance our insights on the consequences of low or even negative interest rates for banks, both from a domestic and from an international perspective. We use confidential and publicly available data for a large set of countries that have experienced historically low nominal and real interest rates in recent years and examine their impact on bank profitability, bank funding and lending as well cross-border banking flows. These consequences are of interest for monetary policy as well as micro- and macroprudential supervision since they can affect the transmission of monetary policy and the viability of bank business models. List of Publications

International Banking: Integration or Fragmentation? (2020-2022)

The purpose of this IBRN initiative is to examine the role of international trade and non-financial foreign direct investment (FDI) in driving international banking activities. Foreign-trade and FDI events can change the demand for banking services and the risk profiles of non-financial borrowers. The initiative considers how banks respond to such changes through their supply of services. The identification of these events relies on the study of episodes when changes in restrictions on foreign trade and FDI took place, including changes to cross-country bilateral or multilateral agreements, as well as more restrictive trade or investment regimes. List of Publications

Complexity in International Banking: Patterns and Implications for Risk (2018-2021)

The IBRN initiative on complexity and risk aims to put together a comprehensive set of variables to assess the complexity of banks' activities and its adjustment along the extensive margin. Complexity can be measured by the opacity of banks' balance sheets, the number of entities and the composition of its businesses as well as its geographic reach. Building on this set of variables, the initiative also tries to assess the impact of complexity and changes thereof on bank risk. List of Publications

The Interaction between Macroprudential Policy and Monetary Policy (2018-20)

The IBRN initiative on the interaction between macroprudential policy and monetary policy aims to examine the policy interaction and transmission from three different perspectives. The outward perspective examines whether the transmission of monetary policy through foreign lending from one country to another depends on the receiving country's macroprudential policy. The inward perspective asks whether the transmission of foreign monetary policy on domestic lending depends on domestic macroprudential policy. An examination of domestic interactions and transmission aims to assess the domestic transmission of macroprudential policies when they interact with monetary policy. List of Publications

The international transmission of monetary policy: Financial linkages and domestic policy responses (2016-17)

This project of the IBRN investigates the impact of conventional and unconventional monetary policy actions on (domestic and international) bank lending, using each country team’s individual bank-level data set. Country teams provide evidence from the point of view of the base country and from the recipient country. In this sense, the project will examine outward and inward transmission. Researchers focus on the period from 2000 through 2015, capturing a number of distinct monetary policy regimes.

Cross-Border Prudential Policy Spillovers: How Much? How Important? (2014-16)

The IBRN’s second research topic explores the changing scale, type, and location of banking activity stemming from shifts in micro- and macroprudential regulatory policy. The initiative considers how bank lending responds to prudential policies implemented in home and foreign markets. Researchers examine evidence on the inward transmission of policy changes to the domestic economy as well as outward spillovers to foreign economies.

International Banking and Liquidity Risk Transmission: Lessons from across Countries (2013)

Activities of international banks have been at the core of discussions on the causes and effects of the international financial crisis. Yet we know little about the actual magnitudes of and mechanisms of liquidity shocks transmitted through international banks, including the reasons for heterogeneity in transmission. The IBRN’s first joint research initiative is based on empirical studies conducted in eleven countries to explore liquidity risk transmission.

Macroprudential Database

The instruments covered include different types of prudential regulations: capital requirements, concentration limits, interbank exposure limits, loan-to-value ratio limits, and changes in reserve requirements. To construct this database, the IBRN and IMF collaboratively worked with regulatory sources in the individual countries, and extended and utilized the Global Macro Prudential Instruments (GMPI) survey which the IMF conducted in 2013. Stress tests, which may give incentives for banks to adjust their foreign exposures, are not covered in this project. Changes in reserve requirements are included since they are sometimes used explicitly by countries for prudential purposes, instead of as monetary policy instruments. The current version of the database covers the period between 2000 and 2018.

For an overview, see Eugenio Cerrutti, Ricardo Correa, Elisabetta Fiorentino, and Esther Segalla, “ Changes in Prudential Policy Instruments—A New Cross-Country Database ,” International Journal of Central Banking 11, no. 2 (2017).

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Participants.

Central banks and institutions with teams currently participating in the IBRN include:

The International Banking Research Network (IBRN) brings together central bank researchers from around the world to analyze issues pertaining to global banks.

IBRN Newsletter

Portal access.

The IBRN director is Linda Goldberg , a senior vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Steering Committee includes Banque de France's Matthieu Bussière , Norges Bank's Kasper Roszbach , Livio Stracca , and Diana Bonfim . For questions or information, please contact us at [email protected] .

INTERNATIONAL BANKING RESEARCH NETWORK

CONTACT US     TERMS OF USE

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

International Research and education Network Connections (IRNC)

View guidelines, important information for proposers.

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Supports networking infrastructure and services for international research and education; experimental deployment of new capabilities using testbeds; and broadening impact and participation through data network-centric activities.

The International Research and education Network Connections (IRNC) Base program supports high-performance network connectivity required by international science and engineering research and education collaborations involving the NSF research community. High-performance network connections and infrastructure funded by this program are intended to support science and engineering research and education applications, and preference will be given to solutions that provide the best economy of scale and demonstrate the ability to support the largest communities of interest with the broadest services. Funded projects will assist the U.S. research and education community by enabling state-of-the-art international network services and access to increased collaboration and data services. NSF expects to make 3 to 10 awards in production R&E network infrastructure; 1 to 3 awards in international testbeds; and 1 award in Engagement.

Program contacts

Awards made through this program, organization(s).

• Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)
• Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (CISE/OAC)

CityIndustries is an international research network –– it gathers scholars from various countries and disciplines, such as Social and Cultural Anthropology, Sociology, Human Geography, Political Sciences and Urban Planning.

Main Event: Programm: Symposium "City / Energy Relations in Transformation"

Call for Papers: Symposium "City / Energy Relations in Transformation"

ETROD-Online dialogue with Christiane Schürkmann: "Undergrounds of Disposal. Sociogeological Processes in Nuclear Waste Management"

Contested connections, guest lecture by kim fortun (university of california, irvine) on „late industrial ethnography redoubled – from politics to methods and back“, cross-sectoral project: "monomore", talk: "feminist speculations and interventions: potentials to transgress prevailing epistemic regimes".

International Research Network on Infants and Child Protection Systems

• ABOUT THE NETWORK

RECENT POSTS

Decision-making special interest group

Pre-EUSARF network meeting minutes have now been posted

In-person or via Zoom: An open invitation to individuals interested in learning more about the network

Network meeting - final agenda.

Final Reminder - EUSARF-IRNICP Pre-Meeting

Reminder: Please register for the IRNICP pre-EUSARF conference

Network Meeting Invitation and Questionnaire

Carer's perspective on infants in out-of-home care, announcements.

• EUSARF pre-conference meeting minutes are now available
• International Research Network on Infants and Child Protection Systems meeting in conjunction with EUSARF - 2023
• Network Meeting to be held at the University of Sussex in conjunction with EUSARF meeting in September, 2023

PUBLICATIONS

* To see the full list of publications, click on the link to any listed publication.

• On Causal Inference and the Limits of Disproportionality as a Construct: The Case of Foster Care Placement
• A Systems Model of Repeat Court-Ordered Removals: Responding to Child Protection Challenges Using a Systems Approach
• Discussion of the Knowns and Unknowns of Child Protection During Pregnancy in Australia
• A longitudinal investigation of infants and out-of-home care
• Infants, Toddlers and Child Protection, International Perspectives: Reasons for removal
• Women and infants in care proceedings in England
• The Changing Face of Foster Care
• Infant Deaths From Medical Causes After a Maltreatment Report
• Vivamus vestibulum nulla
• Integer vitae libero ac risus e
• Vestibulum commo
• Cras iaculis ultricies

Copyrights © 2021 irnicp.org All rights reserved

International Research Network on Postcolonial Print Cultures

funded by the CNRS, brings together scholars working in the fields of postcolonial studies and literatures, book history, print and material cultures and digital humanities. We are interested in the production, circulation, and consumption of print as an agent in social, cultural, and political life, and look at the practices, institutions, and networks that have shaped writing, reading and publishing in colonial and postcolonial contexts.

The initial network was founded in 2017 when an international group, co-convened by Neelam Srivastava, Newcastle U. and Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, NYU, hosted, for 3 years, a series of events which set the parameters for a new field of enquiry.

In 2023, the network was restarted by Laetitia Zecchini , with funding from the CNRS for a period of 5 years, expanding and consolidating the group through institution-based collaborations between eight academic institutions: CNRS (France), the University of Chicago, Newcastle University, University of the Witwatersrand, NYU and NYU Abu Dhabi, Jadavpur University and the Center for Studies in Social Sciences (Kolkata).

The network has also received additional funding from the University of Chicago Center in Paris (2023-25), and from PSL via the EUR Translitterae (2023-24).

Over the 2023-2027 period, the network will hold yearly conferences in Paris, Calcutta, Chicago, Johannesburg and Newcastle, with a series of more localized workshops , and a bi-monthly seminar .

ASU hosts gathering to advance planetary sustainability through education research networks

Launch of g-forces signals international effort to reimagine role of education in sustainable futures.

Representatives of 10 sustainability-oriented research networks joined faculty of Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College this month to formally launch AccelNet-Design: Global Futures Oriented Research Collective on Education for Sustainability, known as G-FORCES. Photo courtesy the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College

Representatives of 10 sustainability-oriented research networks recently joined faculty of Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College (MLFTC) to formally launch an international effort aimed at developing strategic linkages to rearticulate the role of education in sustainable futures. 

The in-person meeting, held in March, was the inaugural gathering of AccelNet-Design: Global Futures Oriented Research Collective on Education for Sustainability , known as G-FORCES, a project funded by the National Science Foundation to bring together international sustainability-oriented research networks from the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities to transform education and galvanize a cultural shift toward more sustainable global futures.

"This project reflects ASU’s interdisciplinary efforts to address planetary sustainability challenges,” said Iveta Silova , MLFTC professor and associate dean of global engagement.

“By integrating diverse fields of study and fostering international collaboration, we are able to leverage the strengths and insights of network partners in ways that effectively integrate different knowledge ecosystems, bridge the research-practice divide and prioritize education for planetary well-being and ecological justice.”

G-FORCES aims to rearticulate the role of education in advancing planetary sustainability in both formal and non-formal lifelong learning settings. The project is led by Silova in collaboration with Professor Gustavo Fischman and Associate Professor Andrea Weinberg , and it aligns with ASU’s support of sustainability research and education.

MLFTC is contributing through the expansion of educational offerings, such as an environmental education certificate program, the Learning Futures Collaborative Education for Planetary Futures and the  Regional Center of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development , among others.

Education for planetary futures

The three-day conference started with a public event — Learning, Unlearning, and Relearning: Education for Planetary Futures ( watch the recorded video ) — that challenged underlying assumptions about education, knowledge production and social change. The discussion shifted attention from lessons learned, a topic that has occupied the attention of education policymakers and practitioners for decades, to what should be unlearned. It was co-sponsored by the Education for Planetary Futures collaborative.

“ASU is committed to a future in which we not only survive but we thrive, and in order to do so, we need the outcomes and lessons of the G-FORCES project,” said Sally Morton , executive vice president and professor with ASU Knowledge Enterprise.  

“We can no longer be siloed in single disciplines, producing papers that are not disseminated widely and whose results and implications are not translated into action in partnership with industry, academia, government and community partners.” 

During the conference, representatives from participating networks and organizations strengthened their relational ties, developed a shared vision and brainstormed ideas for co-designing operational mechanisms for collaboration. The project’s five primary goals are:

• Identify and assess capabilities, capacities and resources across networks.
• Convene diverse representatives of transdisciplinary research networks to identify gaps, synergies and opportunities for inclusive, innovative and collaborative knowledge production and exchange.
• Co-design and activate new operational links across established research communities for sharing capabilities, capacities and resources, with explicit attention to broadening participation, perspectives and approaches.
• Create new connections and opportunities for leadership among diverse international scholars, policymakers and practitioners in accelerating education transformation for planetary sustainability within policy, pedagogy and curricula.
• Generate ideas and opportunities for supporting early-career and underrepresented researchers through effective integration into crucial research networks across national and international contexts, particularly those from the Global South.

“First and foremost, this is about building relationships and meeting with purpose as we consider what education sustainability could look like through this interdisciplinary effort, and how evidence-based research can be best utilized to support teacher preparation and effective pedagogy,” said Charlotte Holland , professor at Dublin City University (DCU). Holland represented the Regional Centre of Expertise in Education for Sustainable Development for the greater Dublin region. DCU is also a member of ASU’s Transatlantic Higher Education Partnership .

Radhika Iyengar, education director at the Earth Institute at Columbia University, represented multiple networks, including the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Mission 4.7.  She said that networks are an important part of driving systemic change in sustainability.

“What makes this particular network distinct is that it allows for a convergence of networks that can expand and amplify efforts that are taking place around the world,” she said. “G-FORCES builds on our collective knowledge and allows us to have a more cohesive voice in articulating interdisciplinary areas of sustainability that relate to education.”

Power through partnerships

“We are grateful for the many contributions of the G-FORCES network partners and their dedication to building and strengthening inclusive and equitable collaborations,” Weinberg said.

Rajul “Raj” Pandya , executive director of MLFTC’s Global Futures Education Lab and Fulton Presidential Professor of Practice, joined Silova and Weinberg to guide some of the group discussions. Community participation and partnerships are key, he said, to building robust educational systems, creating resources, offering opportunities and nurturing sustainability leaders.

Fischman concurred, adding that “our vision for a sustainable future is based on the belief that education is the foundation upon which we can build a more informed, engaged and resilient global community.”

Participants of G-FORCES include the following organizations:

• The Brazilian National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Education .
• The Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network .
• Climate-U: Transforming Universities for a Changing Climate .
• Learning Planet Alliance .
• Mathematics of Planet Earth .
• Regional Centre of Expertise in Education for Sustainable Development - Dublin and the RCE - Greater Phoenix .
• Sustainable Development Solutions Network .
• Monitoring and Evaluating Climate Communication and Education .
• Underwriters Laboratory Research Institutes .
• UNESCO Bridges Sustainability Science Coalition .

More Environment and sustainability

Starbucks partnership offers new global experiences for students to study coffee, sustainability in Costa Rica

Before her trip to Hacienda Alsacia, Starbucks' first and only company-owned-and-operated coffee farm, Katie Hogan thought she knew a lot about coffee. A graduate student in Arizona State University…

ASU helps document history, implement new technologies for 100-year-old botanical garden

Earth Day is every day for the Boyce Thompson Arboretum, but this year is especially significant as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. Arizona State University is working with the arboretum on…

US-ASEAN Center hosts tour centering environmental biotechnology program

As Arizona State University kicked off this year’s U.S.-ASEAN Science, Technology, and Innovation Cooperation, or STIC, Program study tour, the room was filled with quiet anticipation — each of the…

• E-mail the Help Desk
• User's Guide for H-Announce

ICERI2024 (17th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation)

You are invited to participate at ICERI2024 (17th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation) that will be held on the 11th, 12th and 13th of November 2024 in Seville  (Spain).

This conference will be the best opportunity to present and share your experiences in the fields of Education, Research and Innovation in a multicultural and enriching atmosphere.

Every year, ICERI brings together over 800 delegates from 80 different countries.

There will be 3 presentation formats: Oral, Poster or Virtual. 

The deadline for abstracts submission is July 11th, 2024 (included)

Abstracts should be submitted on-line at  https://iated.org/iceri/online_submission

For more information about the conference and its venue, you can visit the website  https://iated.org/iceri

email:  [email protected] Technical Secretariat

Tel.: (+34) 96 344 62 37