pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06330 · v1 · pith:WQOBQUE7new · submitted 2026-06-04 · 💻 cs.DL

Evolution of bilateral and multilateral collaboration of EU-14 countries across disciplines, 2010-2024

Myroslava Hladchenko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 22:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL
keywords research collaborationbilateral collaborationmultilateral collaborationEU countriesOpenAlexRelative Intensity of Collaborationdisciplinesinternational research
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multilateral collaboration among EU-14 countries rose across disciplines from 2010 to 2024 while bilateral rates stayed stable.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines changes in how nine EU-14 countries formed bilateral and multilateral research partnerships both inside Europe and worldwide in six disciplines from 2010 to 2024. It reports that multilateral collaboration increased markedly in every field, most steeply in medicine and at the highest levels in physics and astronomy, with bilateral collaboration holding steady and focused mainly on other EU-14 nations plus the USA, UK, and China. The Relative Intensity of Collaboration showed parallel growth, stronger for multilateral ties. These patterns suggest a shift toward large international teams for complex global challenges. Post-Brexit collaboration with the UK showed little change, but multilateral work with Russia in physics declined after 2022.

Core claim

Multilateral collaboration rates increased significantly across all disciplines, with the highest increase observed in medicine and the highest overall rates maintained in physics & astronomy. The same trend across disciplines was observed for the Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC). Bilateral collaboration rates remained relatively stable and predominantly concentrated within EU-14 countries, followed by the USA, the UK, and China. RIC has increased for both bilateral and multilateral collaboration, with stronger growth in multilateral collaboration. Multilateral RIC fell below the expected level most frequently with South Korea, India, and China. Across both collaboration types, incr

What carries the argument

Bilateral versus multilateral collaboration rates tracked through OpenAlex publication records, along with the Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC) that measures deviation from expected collaboration levels based on publication volumes.

If this is right

  • Multilateral RIC increased more strongly than bilateral RIC.
  • Multilateral collaboration with South Korea, India, and China fell below expected levels most often.
  • Growth in collaboration rates generally corresponded with growth in RIC values.
  • No substantial shifts occurred in collaboration rates or RIC with the UK after Brexit.
  • A drop in multilateral collaboration with Russia in physics and astronomy aligned with its 2022 suspension from Horizon Europe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The rise points to greater dependence on large-scale consortia for fields requiring heavy infrastructure and addressing worldwide issues.
  • Discipline-specific patterns may reflect differences in research scale and funding mechanisms across fields.
  • Further work could test whether similar trends hold when including more countries or using alternative data sources.

Load-bearing premise

OpenAlex data accurately records country affiliations and authorship without systematic gaps or errors that would skew counts of bilateral versus multilateral collaborations or RIC calculations over time and disciplines.

What would settle it

Re-running the analysis on the same years and countries with data from Scopus or Web of Science and finding no significant increase in multilateral collaboration rates would challenge the main finding.

read the original abstract

This study explores the evolution of bilateral and multilateral research collaboration of nine EU-14 member states, both within Europe and globally, across six disciplines, between 2010 and 2024, using OpenAlex data. Results indicate that bilateral collaboration rates remained relatively stable and predominantly concentrated within EU-14 countries, followed by the USA, the UK, and China. Multilateral collaboration rates increased significantly across all disciplines, with the highest increase observed in medicine and the highest overall rates maintained in physics & astronomy. The same trend across disciplines was observed for the Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC). This reflects the growing importance of large-scale international research consortia in infrastructure-intensive fields that address global scientific challenges. RIC has increased for both bilateral and multilateral collaboration, with stronger growth in multilateral collaboration. Multilateral RIC fell below the expected level most frequently with South Korea, India, and China. Across both collaboration types, increases in collaboration rates were generally associated with increases in RIC. No substantial changes in collaboration rates or RIC with the UK were observed following Brexit. A decline in multilateral collaboration with Russia in physics and astronomy coincided with its suspension from Horizon Europe in 2022, while the collaboration rate in medicine increased.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the evolution of bilateral and multilateral research collaborations among nine EU-14 countries across six disciplines from 2010 to 2024 using OpenAlex data. It reports that bilateral rates remained relatively stable and concentrated within EU-14, the USA, the UK, and China, while multilateral rates increased significantly in all disciplines (largest increase in medicine; highest overall rates in physics & astronomy). The same pattern holds for the Relative Intensity of Collaboration (RIC). Increases in rates were generally associated with increases in RIC; multilateral RIC fell below expected levels most often with South Korea, India, and China. No substantial post-Brexit changes with the UK are observed, while a decline in multilateral collaboration with Russia in physics & astronomy coincides with its 2022 suspension from Horizon Europe.

Significance. If the OpenAlex affiliation data are accurate and consistent, the work supplies a large-scale, discipline-stratified description of the shift toward multilateral consortia over a 15-year window. The straightforward tabulation of observed versus volume-derived expected counts, the cross-discipline comparison, and the explicit tracking of RIC provide a clear empirical baseline that can inform policy discussions on infrastructure-intensive fields and global challenges. The absence of fitted models or free parameters keeps the claims directly falsifiable against future data releases.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Data] Abstract and Data section: the abstract and methods description provide no validation of OpenAlex country-affiliation parsing (manual spot-checks, comparison to Scopus/Web of Science, or sensitivity tests for multi-affiliation papers), yet every bilateral/multilateral count and every RIC value rests on the assumption that distinct country affiliations are extracted without systematic, discipline-dependent, or time-varying error.
  2. [Results] Results (Brexit and Russia paragraphs): the statements that 'no substantial changes' occurred with the UK after Brexit and that a decline with Russia 'coincided' with the 2022 suspension are presented without any statistical test, confidence interval, or comparison to a counterfactual trend derived from the same RIC or rate series.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify the exact list of the nine EU-14 countries analyzed and the precise definition used for 'multilateral' (number of distinct countries).
  2. [Tables/Figures] Table or figure captions should state the exact threshold (if any) applied to classify a paper as bilateral versus multilateral and how fractional counting or whole-counting was handled for multi-country papers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Data] Abstract and Data section: the abstract and methods description provide no validation of OpenAlex country-affiliation parsing (manual spot-checks, comparison to Scopus/Web of Science, or sensitivity tests for multi-affiliation papers), yet every bilateral/multilateral count and every RIC value rests on the assumption that distinct country affiliations are extracted without systematic, discipline-dependent, or time-varying error.

    Authors: We agree that explicit discussion of OpenAlex affiliation accuracy would strengthen the paper. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Data section that (i) cites existing independent validations of OpenAlex country-level affiliation parsing, (ii) reports the proportion of multi-affiliation records in our sample, and (iii) notes that any residual parsing error is expected to be small and non-systematic across the disciplines and years examined. We will also add a brief sensitivity statement in the Limitations subsection. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (Brexit and Russia paragraphs): the statements that 'no substantial changes' occurred with the UK after Brexit and that a decline with Russia 'coincided' with the 2022 suspension are presented without any statistical test, confidence interval, or comparison to a counterfactual trend derived from the same RIC or rate series.

    Authors: The two statements are descriptive observations drawn directly from the plotted time series. Because the study is intentionally model-free and exploratory, we did not conduct formal hypothesis tests. In the revision we will (a) qualify the language to read “no visually substantial changes” and “a decline … that coincides with”, (b) add 95 % confidence bands to the relevant RIC and rate panels for the UK and Russia series, and (c) insert a short sentence noting that a formal counterfactual analysis lies outside the present descriptive scope. These additions address the concern while preserving the paper’s non-parametric character. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct empirical tabulation of counts and ratios from OpenAlex data

full rationale

The paper performs straightforward counting of bilateral and multilateral co-authorships from OpenAlex records, computes rates as proportions of total publications, and derives RIC as observed collaboration intensity normalized by expected values based on publication volumes. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes are invoked that reduce any reported trend or 'prediction' back to the input data by construction. The central results are descriptive statistics and time-series comparisons; they do not rely on any load-bearing self-referential step or uniqueness theorem. The data-quality assumption (accurate affiliation parsing) is an external validity concern, not a circularity issue within the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the domain assumption that OpenAlex supplies complete and unbiased country-level authorship data and on standard bibliometric definitions of collaboration types; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption OpenAlex provides accurate and comprehensive coverage of publications and country affiliations across the studied disciplines and time period.
    Used as the sole data source for all counts and RIC calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5745 in / 1250 out tokens · 21378 ms · 2026-06-27T22:29:48.450079+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, J., Gurney, K., & Marshall, S. (2007). Patterns of international collaboration for the UK and leading partners. Leeds: Evidence Ltd. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. Adams, J., & Gurney, K. A. (2018). Bilateral and multilateral coauthorship and citation impact: Patterns in UK and US international collaborati...

    2007

  2. [2]

    Adams, J., & Szomszor, M. (2022). A converging glob al research system. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 715 –

    2022

  3. [3]

    Adams, J., & Szomszor, M. (2024). National research impact is driven by global collaboration, not rising performance. Scientometrics, 129, 2883–2896. Adams, J., & Gurney, K. (2018). Bilateral and multilateral collaboration. Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2023). Global trends in international research collaboration, 1980–2021. Journal of Data and Informat...

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758-1770. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2011, July). Multiple dimensions of journal specificity: Why journals can’t be assigned to disciplines. ...

    2006

  5. [5]

    Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Zacca-González, G., Vargas-Quesada, B., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2016). Benchmarking scientific performance… Scientometrics, 106(3), 1239–1264. Choi, M., Lee, H., & Zoo, H. (2021). Scientific collaboration between Australia and South Korea. Scientometrics, 126(1), 683–706. Coccia, M., & Bozeman, B. (2016). Allometric models… Sciento...

    2016

  6. [6]

    Special Report 15/2022

    https://metaror.org/article/the-relative-intensity-of-bilateral-and-multilateral-co- authorship-with-russia-since-1995/ European Court of Auditors (2022). Special Report 15/2022. Fuchs, J. W., Sivertsen, G., & Rousseau, R. (2021). Measuring the relative intensity of collaboration. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8673–8682. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, ...

    1995

  7. [7]

    ( 2026a) Bilateral and multilateral international scientific collaboration of EU member states: OpenAlex vs Scopus (2000-2024) Hladchenko, M

    Emerging and establish ed topics in drone research: Citation impact and knowledge flows across China, the United States, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia (2020–2025) Hladchenko, M. ( 2026a) Bilateral and multilateral international scientific collaboration of EU member states: OpenAlex vs Scopus (2000-2024) Hladchenko, M. (2026 b). Evolving Scientific Collabora...

    2020

  8. [8]

    shrinking world

    China rel eases 12 th five-year plan for national strategic emerging industry . China Briefing https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-releases-12th-five-year-plan-for-national-strategic-emerging- industries/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Scien...

    work page arXiv 1992

  9. [9]

    Top 10 increases in collaboration rate, 2010-2024 Type Discipline Country 2010 (%) 2024 (%) Δ (pp) Δ (%) 95% CI lower 95% CI upper p_value significant Multilateral collaboration Engineering China 13,5 28,4 14,9 110,7 13,5 16,3 < 0.001 TRUE Multilateral collaboration Physics & astronomy China 19,5 32,3 12,8 65,5 11,4 14,2 < 0.001 TRUE Bilateral collaborati...

    2010

  10. [10]

    Top 10 increases in RIC, 2010-2024 Type Discipline Country 2010 (%) 2024 (%) Δ (RIC) Δ (%) 95% CI lower 95% CI upper p_value Significant Multilateral Engineering Switzerland 1,6 2,9 1,2 76,4 1 1,5 < 0.001 TRUE collaboration Multilateral collaboration Computer science Switzerland 1,5 2,6 1 67 0,8 1,3 < 0.001 TRUE Multilateral collaboration Medicine Japan 0...

    2010

  11. [11]

    Top 10 decreases in RIC, 2010-2024 Multilateral collaboration Physics & astronomy India 1,7 1,0 -0,7 -39,4 -0,87928 -0,45294 < 0.001 TRUE Bilateral collaboration Computer science Russia 0,9 0,5 -0,4 -44,1 -0,59317 -0,16683 < 0.001 TRUE Multilateral collaboration Physics & astronomy China 1,0 0,8 -0,2 -22,5 -0,44817 -0,02183 0.03 TRUE Bilateral collaborati...

    2010