Scientific collaboration at regional and international levels has increased manifolds during the last 2 decades. The South Asian region, comprising of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, habitats a significant part of the world population, and is emerging as a major knowledge producer. These South Asian countries are not only connected through shared history, language and culture, but also through an intergovernmental organization called South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). This article attempts to measure and characterize the research collaboration in the SAARC countries during 2001–2019. The research publication data for analysis is obtained from the Web of Science database. Different kinds of collaboration- inter, mixed, intra and domestic- among the SAARC countries are measured and analyzed through a computational analysis. Results indicate that SAARC countries collaborate more with countries outside the region than within the region. The within region collaboration has grown in volume but is still less than 1% of the total research output from the region. The collaboration is also found to vary across subject areas, with Social Science & Mathematics having higher proportion of international collaboration, Medical Science & Physics having higher mixed-collaboration, and Social Science & Environment Science having higher intra collaboration. Major implications of the results are discussed. 

The shift from ‘trust-based funding’ to ‘performance-based funding’ is one of the factors that has forced institutions to strive for continuous improvement of performance. Several studies have established the importance of collaboration in enhancing the performance of paired institutions. However, identification of suitable institutions for collaboration is sometimes difficult and therefore institutional collaboration recommendation systems can be vital. Currently, there are no well-developed institutional collaboration recommendation systems. In order to bridge this gap, we design a framework that recognizes the thematic strengths and core competencies of institutions, which can in turn be used for collaboration recommendations. The framework, based on NLP and network analysis techniques, is capable of determining the strengths of an institution in different thematic areas within a field and thereby determining the core competency and potential core competency areas of that institution. It makes use of recently proposed expertise indices such as x and x(g) indices for determination of core and potential core competency areas and can toss two kinds of recommendations: (i) for enhancement of strength of strong areas or core competency areas of an institution and (ii) for complementing the potentially strong areas or potential core competency areas of an institution. A major advantage of the system is that it can help to determine and improve the research portfolio of an institution within a field through suitable collaboration, which may lead to the overall improvement of the performance of the institution in that field. The framework is demonstrated by analyzing the performance of 195 Indian institutions in the field of ‘Computer Science’. Upon validation using standard metrics for novelty, coverage and diversity of recommendation systems, the framework is found to be of sufficient coverage and capable of tossing novel and diverse recommendations. The article thus presents an institutional collaboration recommendation system which can be used by institutions to identify potential collaborators. 

Power Laws are a characteristic distribution found in both natural as well as in man-made systems. Previous studies have shown that citations to scientific articles follow a power law, i.e., the number of papers having a certain level of citation x are proportional to x raised to some negative power. However, the distributional character of altmetrics (such as reads, likes, mentions, etc.) has not been studied in much detail, particularly with respect to existence of power law behaviours. This article, therefore, attempts to do an empirical analysis of altmetric mention data of a large set of scholarly articles to see if they exhibit power law. The individual and the composite data series of ‘mentions’ on the various platforms are fit to a power law distribution, and the parameters and goodness of fit are determined, both using least squares regression as well as the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) approach. We also explore the fit of the mention data to other distribution families like the Log-normal and exponential distributions. Results obtained confirm the existence of power law behaviour in social media mentions to scholarly articles. The Log-normal distribution also looks plausible but is not found to be statistically significant, and the exponential distribution does not show a good fit. Major implications of power law in altmetrics are given and interesting research questions are posed in pursuit of enhancing the reliability of altmetrics for research evaluation purposes. 

ResearchGate has emerged as a popular professional network for scientists and researchers in a very short span. Similar to Google Scholar, the ResearchGate indexing uses an automatic crawling algorithm that extracts bibliographic data, citations, and other information about scholarly articles from various sources. However, it has been observed that the two platforms often show different publication and citation data for the same institutions, journals, and authors. While several previous studies analysed different aspects of ResearchGate and Google Scholar, the quantum of differences in publications, citations, and metrics between the two and the probable reasons for the same are not explored much. This article, therefore, attempts to bridge this research gap by analysing and measuring the differences in publications, citations, and different metrics of the two platforms for a large data set of highly cited authors. The results indicate that there are significantly high differences in publications and citations for the same authors captured by the two platforms, with Google Scholar having higher counts for a vast majority of the cases. The different metrics computed by the two platforms also differ in their values, showing different degrees of correlation. The coverage policy, indexing errors, author attribution mechanism, and strategy to deal with predatory publishing are found to be the main probable reasons for the differences in the two platforms.