Hind Achachi, Zakia AmorUniversité Ibn Tofail, B.P 242, Kénitra(Maroc)hindachachi@gmail.com, amor@univ-ibntofail.ma

Corinne-Colette Dahel-MekhanchaUniversité Frères Mentouri, Constantine, INATAA, ALNUTS, Route de Aïn El Bey, 25000 Constantine, (Algerie)corinne.dahel@umc.edu.dz

Mohammed Cherraj, Hamid BouabidUniversité Mohammed V de Rabat, Avenue Ibn Batouta, BP:1014 RP, (Maroc)mcherraj@yahoo.fr, h.bouabid@hotmail.com

Sandra SelmanovicAnglia Ruskin University, East Road, CB1 1PT, Cambridge, (United Kingdom)Sandra.Selmanovic@anglia.ac.uk

Vincent Larivière Université de Montréal, Montréal, (Canada)vincent.lariviere@umontreal.ca

Correspondence to: h.bouabid@hotmail.com

Abstract: This article examines the factors affecting researchers’ collaborative behavior, based on the results of a survey of 285 researchers from three universities in Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia). For each country, results indicate that the majority of researchers prefer to collaborate (in order of preference) with their peers in their own research group, with foreign partners, and with national collaborators from other universities. European partners are preferred in terms of foreign collaboration, followed by researchers from other Maghreb countries. While researchers from the United States of America (USA) and the other Arab countries do not appear to be the preferred partners for Algerian researchers, those from Morocco and Tunisia favor collaboration with their peers from these countries. Results also show that scientific collaboration is mainly developed through personal contacts, and that cooperation agreements between institutions do not seem to stimulate researchers to intensify their scientific collaboration. Finally, over two-thirds of the respondents considered tools such as Skype and social media to be key factors for building and enhancing collaboration, and experienced researchers use these tools more extensively. This article highlights the need for an increased coherence between researchers' expectations and their universities’ scientific collaboration policies.

Keywords: Collaboration, Maghreb, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Science policy.

Résumé: Le présent article met en exergue, à travers une enquête réalisée auprès de 285 chercheurs appartenant à trois universités du Maroc, d’Algérie et de Tunisie, les différents facteurs qui influencent la collaboration entre les chercheurs maghrébins. Les résultats indiquent que la majorité des chercheurs, dans chacun de ces trois pays, collaborent

Factors affecting researchers’ collaborative patterns: a case study

from Maghreb universities

Les facteurs affectant les pratiques de collaboration des chercheurs: Une

étude de cas des universités maghrébines

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

principalement avec les membres de leur laboratoire, suivis par les partenaires étrangers puis par les collaborateurs nationaux affiliés à d’autres universités. En termes de collaboration avec les partenaires étrangers, l’Europe constitue le premier choix, suivie par les autres pays du Maghreb. Alors que les États-Unis et les pays arabes ne semblent pas être les partenaires privilégiés par les chercheurs algériens, ceux du Maroc et de la Tunisie favorisent la collaboration avec ces pays. Les résultats montrent également que la collaboration scientifique est principalement basée sur les contacts personnels, et que les accords de coopération entre les institutions ne semblent pas fournir aux chercheurs une plateforme qui permet d’intensifier la collaboration scientifique. Enfin, des outils tels que Skype et les médias sociaux ont été considérés par plus des deux tiers des répondants comme un facteur clé dans la construction et l'amélioration de la collaboration, et que les chercheurs expérimentés utilisent ces outils plus largement. Cet article permet aussi de mettre en avant l’importance de la cohérence entre les attentes des chercheurs et les politiques de collaboration des universités et pays.

Mots clés: Collaboration, Maghreb, Algérie, Maroc, Tunisie, politique scientifique.

IntroductionCollaboration is often seen as a key driver for developing countries’ scientific capacity (Harris 2004, Wagner 2001). Scientific collaboration has been highly correlated with research productivity (Melin 2000, Lee and Bozeman 2005, Haslam et al. 2008, Defazio et al. 2009, Abramo et al. 2011, Bouabid 2014). Furthermore, Helga et al. (2009) and Lebeau et al.(2008) demonstrate a positive impact of international and inter-sectorial collaboration (government, industry, and university) on researchers’ scientific impact, while Larivière, Gingras, Sugimoto, and Tsou (2015) show that collaboration has, since the beginning of the 20th

century, been associated with higher scientific impact. A recent survey on science and technology collaboration conducted by Gaillard et al. (2013) in the Euro-Mediterranean region showed that scientists aspiring to greater international recognition are more involved in international collaboration. Similarly, a study conducted by Sooryamoorthy (2015) in South Africa revealed that collaboration made possible by information technologies contributes significantly to research productivity. Due to this positive relationship between collaboration, productivity, and scientific impact, many funding agencies and research managers encourage open, multidisciplinary, and internationally collaborative science and technology research.

Despite many quantitative analyses of researchers’ collaboration patterns, few studies focus on the factors affecting this behavior at a micro-level and on the reasons on which it is based. While several researchers have conducted quantitative analyses of collaboration in Africa (e.g. Bouabid (2014) in Morocco, Adams et al. (2014) in the entire African continent, Boshoff (2010) in the Southern African Development Community, Onyanche and Maluleka (2011) in sub-Saharan Africa, and Megnigbeto (2013) in West Africa), qualitative issues and patterns of scientific collaboration in Africa have rarely been addressed (Boshoff, 2009, Sooryamoorthy, 2015), and typically focus on European countries and on the USA.

While Maghreb1 countries may be peripheral actors in the science system, they have - particularly Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia - adopted a strategy for economic development 1The Maghreb referred to in this article is limited to Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Data availability and the low levels of research outputs did not allow for the inclusion of Libya and Mauritania, the two other members of the Arab Maghreb Union. The latter, created in 1989, is an agreement between the respective five heads of state aiming to coordinate and harmonize their socio-economic and developmental policies (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, n.d.).

51525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596

12345

largely built on science and technology, which seems to have worked well. As shown in Table 1, the scientific output of those three countries - measured by the number of papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database - increased steadily over the last decade, with a 161% growth rate from the period of 2000-2004 to 2009-2013. One can see that this growth is far greater than the average world increase over the same period (68%).

Table 1. Number of papers and growth rate of Maghreb countries in the Web of Science database

All papersInternational collaboration

National papers

All papersInternational collaboration

National papers

All papersInternational collaboration

National papers

Algeria 2,681 1,573 1,108 9,146 5,418 3,728 241% 244% 236%

Morocco 5,245 3,020 2,225 7,434 4,598 2,836 42% 52% 27%

Tunisia 3,872 1,903 1,969 14,155 7,342 6,813 266% 286% 246%

Total Maghreb 11,798 6,496 5,302 30,735 17,358 13,377 161% 167% 152%

World 5,064,488 1,627,053 3,437,435 8,514,053 3,398,369 5,115,684 68% 109% 49%

% Maghreb / World

0.23% 0.40% 0.15% 0.36% 0.51% 0.26% - - -

Country

2000-2004 2009-2013 Growth rate

International collaboration activities are also contributing to this growth, as exemplified by the growth rate of papers authored through international collaboration (167%). Indeed, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia have been active in the 7th R&D Framework Program (FP) of the European Union (EU). More specifically, the number of projects they participated in increased between FP6 and FP7, reaching 74 projects for Morocco, 66 for Tunisia, and 21 for Algeria (European Commission a, b, and c, accessed June 26 , 2015). The number of involved institutions also increased with 57 participations for Morocco, 69 for Tunisia, and 21 for Algeria (EC, a, b, and c). Figure 1 provides general statistics on the three countries’ economic and scientific capacities. Given that their population of researchers exceeds 87,100 academic staff, Maghreb countries have great potential for future scientific collaborations.

979899

100101102103104105

106107108109110111112113114115116117118

Figure 1: Characteristics of the scientific workforce of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia

Despite these increases in scientific collaboration, few studies (e.g. Shrum, Genuth, and Chompalov 2007) have attempted to gain a better understanding of the factors affecting researchers’ collaboration behavior. This paper aims to contribute to this literature by exploring Maghreb researchers’ behavioral patterns and preferences in regard to scientific collaboration, as well as analyzing factors that encourage or impede collaborative work. Bibliometric analysis is used in conjunction with a survey to achieve these objectives.

Data and methodsBibliometric analysis is commonly used to study collaborative patterns of researchers (Melin and Persson 1996, Glänzel and Schubert 2005), despite some criticisms about its shortcomings (e.g., Katz and Martin 1997; Laudel 2002). Bibliometric databases such as WoS have their own disadvantages (Roland 2007; Leydesdorff 2008). In addition, African countries often report their findings in local outlets and therefore may not be included in the analyses of international bibliometric databases (Pouris and Ho 2014). Nevertheless, it is useful to use data stemming from WoS, given that researchers from Maghreb countries are incentivized to publish in journals indexed in WoS. To compensate for the aforementioned shortcomings of bibliometric analysis, and to focus on behavioral patterns of research collaboration, this paper also draws on the results of a questionnaire that was sent via email to researchers associated with three large-size universities in Mahgreb: Frères Mentouri of Constantine in Algeria, Mohammed V of Rabat in Morocco, and Tunis Elmanar in Tunisia. Libya and Mauritania were excluded due to their low research output; only 62 articles from Mauritania and 431 from Libya were found in the WoS database for the 2010-2012 period, compared to 8,554 from Tunisia, 5,348 from Algeria, and 4,453 from Morocco.

The survey was completed between September and mid-December 2014, with two reminders sent, and covered the following elements:

119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149

Researcher background:o Age;o Gender;o Professional position;o Scientific field.

Scientific activitieso Number of papers published during the last five years (in WoS or Scopus);o Number of co-authors (either in WOS and Scopus);o Degree of preference in collaborating;o Basis for collaboration with foreign partners;o Preferred foreign partners;o Assessment of the drivers promoting collaboration and obstacles that limit it;o Assessment of research collaboration results in terms of productivity and

impact;o Assessment of the collaborators’ influence on the article topic.

Table 2. Breakdown of survey respondents by discipline and university

DisciplineUniversity Mohammed V

of Rabat (Morocco)University Frères Mentouri of

Constantine 1 (Algeria)University of Tunis

El Manar (Tunisia)Biology 15% 63% 17%Chemistry 15% 5% 8%Environment 1% 7% 3%Geology 7% 0% 2%Comp. Sci. 8% 0% 10%Eng. & Tech 4% 15% 15%Math. 4% 0% 6%Med. & Health 13% 1% 2%Physics 31% 4% 12%Soc. Sci. Hum 1% 3% 24%

Total respondents 72 including 15 by women 73 including 51 by women 140 including 59 by women

The original questionnaire, in French, can be found in the Appendix. A group of 20 researchers responded to this questionnaire as a pilot operation, which allowed to perform refinements. Then a sample of researchers was built for each of the three universities. The Response rate was 61% at the University Frères Mentouri, 65% at the University Mohammed V of Rabat, and 80% at Tunis Elmanar University. Overall, 285 survey responses were collected.

150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168

169170171172173174175176177178

Results and DiscussionAge, gender and scientific fieldFigure 2 shows that over two-thirds of the respondents were aged between 41 and 60-years old, with almost one-third being between the age of 51 and 60. Men represented slightly more than half of the respondents (56%).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

30-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 > 61

% o

f res

pond

ents

Age class

Figure 2. Percentage of survey respondents, by age group

All scientific disciplines are represented in this survey, albeit to a different extent. More than a quarter of the respondents are biologists, followed by physicists, social scientists, and engineers. Very few researchers were from the environmental sciences, geology, mathematics, and medicine & health sciences (Figure 3).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 3. Percentage of survey respondents, by discipline

Output by age group Based on Table 3, a majority of respondents produced fewer than five papers in the last five years. As one might expect, the percentage of researchers in each of the paper-classes is inversely proportional to the number of produced papers. More specifically, almost half of researchers (47%), regardless of their age, published fewer than five papers in the last five years in journals indexed by WoS or Scopus. Only 20% have published between six and ten papers. Another major finding from Table 3 is that researchers aged between 41 and 60 years

179180181182183

184185186187188189190191

192193194195196197198199200201

published a higher number of indexed papers and are more productive than those from other age groups; this is consistent with the most recent research on the relationship between age and scientific output (Gingras et al. 2008).

202203204205206

Table 3. Number of publications by age group  0 1-5 6-

1011-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-60 >61 All

30-35(N=36) 0% 72% 14

% 6% 3% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

36-40(N=47) 2% 66% 15

% 11% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

41-50(N=74) 1% 49% 27

% 9% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% 100%

51-60(N=88) 0% 34% 19

% 16% 13% 2% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 7% 100%

>61(N=4_0 0% 45% 28

% 10% 3% 5% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3% 100%

Example of an observation: Among 285 respondents, 36 researchers are aged between 30-35 years and 72 pour cent of them published 1-5 publications.

Preferences for collaboration 57% of respondents indicated that they preferred collaborating with colleagues from their own research group (or laboratory), as shown in Figure 3. This means that researchers tend to work with their own working group, as described by Bozeman and Corley (2004). Jha and Welch (2010) suggested that close personal relationships help build personal goodwill and trust and contribute to greater exchange of information or research ideas between researchers, which might be one factor behind such behavior.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Members of laboratory Researchers from othernational universities

Foreign partners

% o

f res

pond

ents

High preference

Average preference

Low preference

Figure 3. Preferred collaborators, by proximity

While almost all respondents preferred collaborating with European researchers (with an average of 70%), the preference of for Maghreb partners (Fig. 4) is higher for the Tunisian university (54%) and lower for the Moroccan university (32%).

N. publications

Age class

207

208209210211212213214215216217

218219220221222223

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Morocco Algeria Tunisia

% o

f res

pond

ents

Maghreb

Europe

America

Arab countries

Asia

No preference

Figure 4. Preferred foreign collaborators, by region

The preference for collaborating with European partners could be explained partly by geographic proximity (Hoekman et al. 2010, Adams et al. 2011, Scherngell and Yuanjia 2011) and by the active participation of Maghreb researchers in different European funding initiatives such as the R&D Framework Program, which offers grants for research projects. This is coherent with the co-publications of these three countries, as reported in Table 5.

More specifically, among European countries, France is the preferred foreign collaborator in all three Maghreb countries studied in this paper (Table 5). France’s prominence is due to factors such as a common language, as French is the official language in the Maghreb countries’ higher education systems; in addition, their cultural and educational background favors similar approaches in conducting research activities (Bouabid et al. 2013) and collaboration. Finally, the intensity of the collaboration with France may result from their colonial heritage, as all three countries were under French rule for substantial periods of time (1830 to 1962 in Algeria, 1912 to 1956 in Morocco, and 1881 to 1956 in Tunisia).

Several professors completed higher education degrees or Ph.D. theses in European countries (primarily France) and are still performing research with their former host colleagues. A survey on scientific collaboration in Mediterranean countries conducted by Gaillard et al. (2013) concluded that the preferred partners for collaboration for 6% of the respondents are “colleagues from the institutions of the countries where they stayed abroad” (p. 90).

The 2006 Science and Technology Agreement between Morocco and the USA, and the successful US Fulbright program (which improves mobility and research collaboration) may explain why the USA is a major foreign partner for Morocco. Sweileh et al. (2015), who studied the field of “public environmental & occupational health,” concluded that researchers from Arab countries primarily collaborate with researchers from Europe and North America. They suggest this is because major researchers graduated from and were trained in Europe and in the USA and, therefore, have fewer academic and research ties with Asia, Africa, and other regions of the world.

224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258

Table 5. Co-publications by country of the partners (first 15 countries) (number of co-authored papers in WoS during the period of 2011-2013).

Country Algeria Morocco TunisiaN. Rank N. Rank N. Rank

France 2124 1 1616 1 2720 1Saudi Arabia 302 2 210 331 4

Spain 201 3 714 2 451 2United States 190 4 478 3 274 5

Morocco 137 5 - - 147 9Italy 131 6 447 5 341 3

Germany 130 7 455 4 141 10United

Kingdom119 8 378 6 151 8

Belgium 119 9 92 165 7Turkey 114 10 303 10 100 15Tunisia 103 11 147 - -Canada 91 12 365 7 216 6India 61 13 82 52

Czech Republic 49 14 284 18Switzerland 46 15 300 11 106 12

China 42 315 9 71South Africa 41 293 15 21

Japan 34 297 13 105 13Netherlands 31 295 14 47

Portugal 30 364 8 118 11Sweden 13 299 12 36Algeria - - 137 103 14

Rationale for collaboration In Maghreb, scientific collaboration (particularly with foreign partners) is mainly built through personal contacts (78% in Morocco, 64% in Algeria, and 69% in Tunisia), as shown in Figure 5. This supports the idea that scientific collaboration is mostly based on individual initiative, as pointed out by Bordons et al. (2013). Collaboration through cooperative projects and research programs is also seen as important - though to a lesser extent - in building collaborative partnerships (58% in Morocco, 30% in Algeria, and 47% in Tunisia).

259260

261262263264265266267268269

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Morocco Algeria Tunisia

% o

f res

pond

ents

Personalcontacts

Cooperationprojects andprograms

Cooperationagreements withyour university

Proximityresearch topics

Figure 5. Basis for collaboration with foreign partners

In addition to the rationale for collaboration outlined above, a scientific collaboration policy should be a strong driver to strengthen collaboration among researchers. Cooperation agreements (or conventions) are a key component for implementing such a policy. These frameworks may be set at a national institutional level.

Unexpectedly, cooperation agreements by institutions do not seem to provide a stimulus for scientific collaboration between researchers, as it is the basis for only 19% of the respondents (Fig. 5). It may be explained to a large extent by the lack of clear policies around such scientific cooperation (fields, countries, institutions, funding, etc.) within the universities. These arrangements are general frameworks for cooperation rather than specific agreements with fixed targets, time frames, scientific fields, financial support or co-funding, monitoring committee, intellectual property requirements, etc.

Factors improving collaborationWhen asked about the factors promoting scientific collaboration, almost 92% of respondents indicated that affinity between researchers is a strong incentive to build and improve collaboration. Almost all respondents (95%) recognized the positive role that online tools (such as Skype, social media, etc.) play building and enhancing collaboration, while only 2% did not. The higher rates are observed for researchers between 36 and 60 years old (Fig. 6).

270271272

273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

30-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 > 61

% o

f res

pond

ents

Yes

Neutral

No

Figure 6. Use of virtual tools to improve collaboration versus age

Around 40% of respondents indicated that their collaborators influenced the topic of their research (Figure 7). However, Tunisians from the Elmanar University are less influenced (with 44% of respondents saying 'No') than their counterparts from Morocco (only 31% of respondents saying 'No').

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Morocco Algeria Tunisia

% o

f res

pond

ents

Yes

Neutral

No

Figure 7. Influence of collaborators on research topics.

Regardless of the country, Figure 8 shows that the respondents largely agree on the positive effects of collaboration, such as an easier access to high-impact journals, and the enhancement of their scientific reputation.

293

294295296297298299300301

302303304305306307

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tunisia Algeria Morocco

% o

f res

pond

ents

Tunisia Algeria Morocco

Yes

Neutral

No

Figure 8. Collaboration with researchers having a higher number of publications

1) allows access to high-impact journals (left panel), 2) enhances scientific reputation

Several researchers mentioned that, while collaboration with colleagues from the same group (unit, laboratory, center, etc.) is frequent and vital as seen in Figure 3, international visibility, reputation, and publishing in well-known journals are believed to be mostly driven by and more likely to be acquired through collaboration with foreign partners. Melin (2000) found that contribution from different researchers increases the research quality. The model used by Rubi-Barcelo (2012) allows for identifying conditions under which very similar researchers organize themselves in unequal and hierarchical scientific collaboration networks. He added that the findings follow the core-periphery structure attributed to most scientific collaboration projects.

ConclusionThis article examines several factors affecting researchers’ collaborative behavior, based on a survey of 285 researchers in three universities in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia from various disciplines. Results are split: 55% of the respondents indicated that they prefer to collaborate with their own colleagues (laboratory, research center, etc.) while 47% prefer collaboration with foreign partners. In line with Waast (2010), the survey results indicate that researchers prefer collaborating with their European peers (70% of respondents on average). This preference for collaborating with Maghreb partners is higher in Tunisia (54%) and lower in Morocco (32%). The higher preference for collaborating with European partners could be explained partly by geographic proximity and the active participation of Maghreb researchers in different European funding initiatives such as the R&D Framework Program that offers grants for research projects.

Almost 92% of respondents declare that the affinity between researchers is a major factor for stronger collaboration. 95% of the respondents considered virtual tools such as Skype, social media, etc. as another key factor in building and enhancing collaboration.

In Maghreb, scientific collaboration, particularly with foreign partners, is mainly built through personal contacts (78% in the Moroccan university, 64% in the Algerian university, and 69% in the Tunisian university), which supports the finding that scientific collaboration is mostly based on individual initiative as pointed out by previous studies (e.g., Bordons et al. 2013).

308309310311312

313314315316317318319320321

322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343

This paper advocates for a stronger convergence between researchers’ expectations and universities’ collaboration agreements and the development of a 'legal' framework enhancing scientific collaboration. Scientific collaboration is very profitable; 59% of respondents agree about the importance of collaboration for highly productive researchers, mostly for increasing access to high-impact journals (58%) and for the positive impact it has on their scientific reputation (64%). While collaboration with colleagues (e.g., research unit, laboratory, center, etc.) is frequent, international visibility, reputation and publishing in well-known journals are believed to be strongly enhanced by collaboration with foreign partners. The latter finding follows the core-periphery structure attributed to most scientific collaboration networks.

AcknowledgmentsThis study is supported by the Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie - Bureau Maghreb (AUF-BM). The authors would like to thank Ms. Christina Robalo-Cordeiro, Director of AUF-BM, for her kind help, as well as Vincent Larivière (Université de Montréal) and anonymous referees for their useful comments and suggestions.

ReferencesAbramo, Giovani., D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea. 2011. “Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics”. Scientometrics87 (3): 499–514.

Adams Jonathan., Gurney Karen., Hook Daniel., Leydesdorff Loet. 2014. “International collaboration clusters in Africa”. Scientometrics 98 (1):547–556.

Andrade, Helga Bermeo., López, Ernesto de los Reyes, Martín, Tomas Bonovia. 2009. “Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the academic research groups scientific quality”. Research Evaluation 18(4): 301–311.doi:10.3152/095820209X451041.Bordons Maria., Aparicio Javier., Costas Rodrigo. 2013. “Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field”. Scientometrics 96 (2): 443-466.

Boshoff, Nelius. 2009. “Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa”. Scientometrics 81(2): 413-434.

Boshoff, Nelius. 2010. “South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)” .Scientometrics 84(2):481.

Bouabid Hamid., Dalimi M., Cherraj Mohammed. 2013. “Intermediate-class university ranking system: application to Maghreb universities”. 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Conference. Vienna. Volume II, 885- 895.

Bouabid, Hamid. 2014. “Science and technology metrics for research policy evaluation: some insights from a Moroccan experience”. Scientometrics101:899-915.

Bozeman, Barry., Corley, Elisabeth. 2004. “Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital” . Research Policy33 (4): 599-616. doi:10.1016/j.respo.2004.01.008.

Defazio, Daniel., Lockett, Andy.,Wright, Mike. 2009. “Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientificproductivity: Evidence from the EU framework program”. Research Policy 38 (2): 293–305.

344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393

European Commission (a). http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=morocco (accessed June 26th 2015).European Commission (b). http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/statistics_tunisia.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none (accessed June 26th 2015).

European Commission (c). http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=algeria (accessed June 26th 2015).

Gaillard A. M., Canesse A. A., Gaillard Jacques., Arvanitis Rigas.2013.“Euro-Mediterranean science and technology collaborations: a questionnaire survey, Options Méditerranèennes”.CIHEAM 71.

Glänzel, Wolfgang., Schubert, András. 2005. “Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship”. Chap.11 in Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht (NL): Kluwer Academic Publishers.Harris, Eva. 2004. “Building scientific capacity in developing countries”. EMBO reports 5(1): 7-11.

Haslam, Nick., Ban, Lauren., Kaufmann, Leah., Loughnan, Stephen., Peters, Kim., Whelan, Jennifer., et al. 2008. “What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology”. Scientometrics76(1): 169–185.

Helga, Bermeo Andrade., Ernesto, de Los Reyes López., Tomas, Bonavia Martin. 2009. “Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the academic research groups’ scientific quality”. Research Evaluation 18(4): 301–311.Hoekman, Jarno., Frenken, Koen., Tijssen, Robert. J. W.2010. “Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe”. Research Policy 39(5): 662-673.

Jha, Yamini.,Welch ,Eric. W. 2010. “Relational mechanisms governing multifaceted collaborative behavior of academic scientists in six fields of science and engineering”.Research Policy 39: 1174-1184.

Katz, J. Sylvan., Martin, Ben. R. 1997. “What is research collaboration?”.ResearchPolicy 26(1) : 1–18.Larivière, Vincent., Gingras,Yves., Sugimoto, Cassidi R.,Tsou, Andrew.2015. “Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900”.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(7):1323-1332.doi: 10.1002/asi.23266

Laudel, Grit. 2002. “What do we measure by co-authorships?”.Research Evaluation 11(1):3–15. doi: 10.3152/147154402781776961.

Lebeau, Louis-Michel., Laframboise, Marie Claude., Larivière, Vincent., Gingras, Yves. 2008. “The effect of university–industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: The Canadian case, 1980–2005”. Research Evaluation 17(3): 227-232.Lee, Sooho, & Bozeman, Barry. 2005. “The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity”. Social Studies of Science 35(1) : 673–702.

394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433

434435436437438439440441442

Leydesdorff, Loet. 2008. “Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluation”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2): 278–287. doi: 10.1002/asi.20743.

Megnigbeto, Eustache. 2013. “International collaboration in scientific publishing: the case of West Africa (2001–2010)”.Scientometric 96:761-783.

Melin, G., Persson, O. 1996. “Studying research collaboration using co-authorships”. Scientometrics 36(3) :363–377.

Melin, G. 2000. “Pragmatism and self-organization Research collaboration on the individual level”. Research Policy 29: 31-40.

Onyancha, Omwoyo. Bosire., Maluleka, JanResenga. 2011. “Knowledge production through collaborative research in sub-Saharan Africa: how much do countries contribute to each other's knowledge output and citation impact?”.Scientometrics 87(2): 315-336.

Pouris, Anastassios. Ho, Yuh Shan. 2012. “Research Emphasis and Collaboration in Africa”. Scientometrics 98: 2169–2184. Roland, Erne. 2007. “On the use and abuse of bibliometric indicators: A critique of Hix’s global ranking of political departments”. European Political Science 6(3): 306–314.

Rubi-Barcelo, Antoni.2012. “Core/periphery scientific collaboration networks among very similar researchers”. Theory Decision 72: 463-483.Scherngell, Tomas., Yuanjia, Hu. 2011. “Collaborative Knowledge Production in China: Regional Evidence from a Gravity Model Approach”. Regional Studies 45(6): 755-772.

Shrum, Wesley., Genuth, Joel., Chompalov, Ivan. 2007. “Structures of scientific collaboration”. MIT Press.

Sooryamoorthy,Radhamany. 2015.“Producing information: communication and collaboration in the South African scientific community”. Information, Communication & Society 19(2). doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1047392.

Stvilia, Besiki., Hinnant, Charles., Schindler, Katy., Worrall, Adam., Burnett, Gary., Burnett, Kathleen., et al. 2011. “Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab”., Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(2) :270-283.

Sweileh,Waleed.,Zyoud, Sa’ed H., W Al-Jabi,Samah. Sawalha, Ansam F. 2015. “Public, environmental, and occupational health research activity in Arab countries: bibliometric, citation, and collaboration analysis”. Archive of Public Health73(1) .United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, n.d..2015. Arab Maghreb Union. [Online] Available at: http://www.uneca.org/pages/uma-arab-maghreb-union.

Van Rijnsoever, Frank. J., Hessels, Laurens. K., Vandeberg, Rens. L. J. 2008. “A resource-based view on theinteractions of university researchers”. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.

Waast, Roland. 2010. “Research in Arab Countries (North Africa and West Asia)”. Science, Technology & Society15 (2): 187–231.

443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492

Wagner, Caroline. S., Brahmakulam, Irene., Jackson, Brian., Wong, Anny., Yoda, Tatsurà. 2001. “Science and technology collaboration: Building capability in developing countries”. RAND Corporation Report MR-1357.0-WB.

493494495496

Appendix: Questionnaire used for the survey

Identité de l’Enseignant chercheur1- Tranche d’âge :

30-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 >61Sexe : Masculin Féminin

2- Grade: Professeur de l’Enseignement Supérieur Professeur Habilité Professeur Assistant Professeur Professeur des Universités Maitre de Conférences Autre

3- Spécialité Biologie Ingénierie et Technologies Chimie Mathématiques Environnement Médecine et Santé Géologie Physique Informatique SHS

Activités de recherche1- Combien d’articles vous avez publiés durant ces cinq dernières années (Revues

indexées à Web of Science ou Scopus ?Aucun 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-3536-40 41-50 51-60 >61

2- Pour un article en collaboration, combien avez-vous de co-auteurs :Aucun 1 2 3 4 5 6 +6

3- Est ce que vous faites partie d’un laboratoire de recherche accrédité au sein de votre Université ? 

Oui Non4- Combien votre structure de recherche comprend de membres ?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 10

5- Ordonner de 1 (grande préférence) à 3 (faible préférence) votre collaboration avec:a. Les membres de votre laboratoire 1 2 3b. Des Enseignants-Chercheurs d’autres

institutions de votre pays  1 2 3

c. Des partenaires étrangers  1 2 36- La collaboration avec les partenaires étrangers est établie sur la base de :

Connaissance personnelle; Projets et programmes de coopération ;

Le questionnaire ci-après, rentre dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche sur l’analyse des différents déterminants, des opportunités et des contraintes de la collaboration scientifique au Maghreb (Maroc, Algérie et Tunisie). Celui-ci permettra d’apprécier l’aspect qualitatif de l’analyse.Le questionnaire ne devra pas prendre plus de 3 minutes, du fait de la présence des champs actifs où vous avez juste à cocher des cases ou sélectionner à partir des listes de choix. C'est plus facile, pratique et rapide.Mes sincères remerciements d'avance pour votre contribution.

497498499500501502503504505

506

Accords de Coopération entre votre Université ; Proximité des sujets de recherche.Autre 7- Est-ce que la collaboration avec des chercheurs d'autres pays entraine généralement la

mise en place d’un projet de coopération formel et formalisé : Oui Neutre Non8- Est-ce que vos projets de coopération (formels et formalisés) entrainent généralement

la création d’un réseau de collaboration entre chercheurs : Oui Neutre Non

9- Est que vous préférez travailler avec des partenaires étrangers du : Maghreb Pays Arabes Europe Asie Amérique Autre Pas de préférence

10- Est-ce que le choix des sujets de vos articles est influencé par les collaborateurs : Oui Neutre Non

11- Est-ce que pour vous :a- L’affinité entre les différents chercheurs favorise la collaboration :

Oui Neutre Nonb- La proximité géographique estimportante pour la collaboration :

Oui Neutre Nonc- L’appui financier est important pour la collaboration :

Oui Neutre Nond- Les problèmes administratifs et le manque de ressources matériels sont des obstacles à la

collaboration : Oui Neutre None- Les manifestations scientifiques (conférence, congrès, séminaire, workshop, etc) sont un

outil pour l’élargissement de mon réseau : Oui Neutre Non

f- L’utilisation d’outils virtuels (Skype, réseaux sociaux etc…) favorisent la collaboration : Oui Neutre Non

g- La collaboration avec des chercheurs ayant un nombre de publications élevés dans des revues indexées me permet d’avoir une bonne réputation dans mon domaine :

Oui Neutre Nonh- La collaboration avec des chercheurs ayant un nombre de publications élevés dans des

revues indexées me permet l'accès à des revues scientifiques de qualité : Oui Neutre Non

i- La compétence et le sérieuxsont des facteurs importants qui déterminent mes pratiques de collaboration :

Oui Neutre Nonj- La multidisciplinarité est déterminante pour ma collaboration :

Oui Neutre Non507