Brazilian South-South Scientific Collaboration and The Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

We look at Brazilian collaboration in Scientific papers based on SciVal and Incites regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. Data were collected from InCites® and SciVal® (2012-2021). Groups of Global South countries were formed (ASEAN, Asia, Africa, BRICS, Caribbean, Central and Latin America). Analyses included Cluster (Author position, impact/citations, open access, journal quartil), principal component, path and analysis of variance to see the effect of region and SDGs in Brazilian publishing. Scopus data were analysed in Vosviewer® for creating country networks through publication, citation and bibliographic coupling, as well as keyword analysis. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) dominates all Brazilian scientific collaborations with the various country groups. While gender equality shows greater importance in ASEAN and African countries, Life Below Water (SDG14), on Land (SDG15), and Climate Action (SDG13), are important in all regions. SDGs 1, 8, 10, 12, and 16 show less importance in this collaboration overall. Brazil is relatively more active in Zero Hunger (SDG2) and Life on Land (SDG15) than worldwide. Brazil South-South collaboration in published documents shows higher impact than North South in some areas. Collaboration priorities vary by region and triangulation with countries is high depending on language and region.

Key words
ASEAN; Latin America; Africa; Impact; Assessment

INTRODUCTION

International collaboration is critical for the growth of scientific and technological research to meet the United Nations´ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (Fonseca et al. 2016). According to Rennkamp & Boulle (2018), knowledge emerges through the interaction of the various actors within networks through creation, adoption and transfer. The development of intellectual capital (Bratianu 2018) is fundamental to achieving these goals, including cooperation between all levels of implementation (Fonseca et al. 2020). The development and implementation of SDG targets need an alliance between science and policy (Leach et al. 2012). Science is at service to society (Griggs et al. 2014) as an advisor through mediating targets and producing knowledge. Decisions around complex issues such as water scarcity, ocean health, ecosystems and food security must be evidence-based (Glaser 2012) with relevant indicators (Hák et al. 2016). Therefore, science becomes a fundamental part of attaining the SDGs (Imaz & Sheinbaum 2017).

Luo et al. (2013) show that international partnerships often encounter barriers such as resource, capacity, political and cultural differences which affect the motivations, balance of benefits, regulation of research, and ultimately outcomes of these programs. This makes relationships between collaborating regions in research important for attaining the goals. While North-South collaboration (NSC) may generate perverse effects in reinforcing the power asymmetry between northern and southern institutions, South-South Collaboration (SSC) is thought to incorporate more solidarity, complementarity and lack of hierarchy (Abdenur & Fonseca 2013). On the other hand, van der Veken et al. (2017) state that SS relations are more competition than collaboration.

Bibliometric analysis has been used to map educational questions related to the SDGs (Prieto-Jiménez et al. 2021). According to Severino et al. (2021) the number and quality of publications is one proxy that can be used to infer efforts made to attain SDGs. Keyword network analysis has been used to support the identification of overarching areas in need of integrated implementation to support the ultimate goal of sustainable development (Lim et al. 2018), social network analysis has been employed to understand the structure of water-energy-food nexus governance (Kurian et al. 2018), and to compare SDG network compositions for different country income levels (Lusseau & Mancini 2019).

In the present paper, we characterise South-South Cooperation in scientific collaboration between Brazil and other developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. It is understood that this type of partnership should enrich all the actors involved, not only in the academic-scientific aspect but also in the exchange of cultural, ethical and social values. Furthermore, we recognise that the expansion of scientific knowledge is more than ever a global undertaking, which must go beyond the countries of the North, recognising that there are different problems in different societies and that, to solve them, the participation of different perspectives is essential and complementary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected in two databases – InCites® based on the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) and SciVal® based on Scopus (Elsevier) from 2012-2021. Groups of Global South countries were formed (ASEAN, Asia, Africa, BRICS, Caribbean, Central America and Latin America). The scientific international collaboration of these groups with Brazil was studied by Sustainable Development Goal as follows:

SDG1: no poverty;

SDG2: zero hunger;

SDG3: good health and well-being;

SDG4: quality education;

SDG5: gender equality;

SDG6: clean water and sanitation;

SDG7: affordable and clean energy;

SDG8: decent work and economic growth;

SDG9: industry, innovation and infrastructure;

SDG10: reduced inequalities;

SDG11: sustainable cities and communities;

SDG12: responsible consumption and production;

SDG13: climate action;

SDG14: life below water;

SDG15: life on land;

SDG16: peace, justice, and strong institutions; and

SDG17: partnerships for the goals (not analysed).

Countries were also joined into two groups (Global North (N_) and Global South (S_)) in accordance with the United Nations Finance Center for South-South Cooperation¹.

Data included % of documents cited, % top 1% and 10% of citations, citation impact (CI – number of citations per paper), % Hot Papers (top 0.1% of papers by citations for field and age, with papers that are less than two years old), % High (% of papers in top 1% of citations compared with papers in same field and age), Impact Relative to the World (IRW- citation impact/world citation impact), Average Percentile (AP – how a paper performed relative to others in the same field, year and document type. Lower is better), % documents in Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 journals (Quartiles (Q) are calculated from the rank of a Journal Impact Factor relative to the total number of journals in the category), % of documents with industry collaborations, CNCI (Category Normalised Citation Impact -divide the count of citing documents by the expected citation rate for documents with the same document type, year of publication and subject area), JNCI (Journal Normalized Citation Impact -normalizes the citation rate for the journal in which the document is published) , Brazilian author position in the paper (first, last or corresponding), and Type of publication (% Gold, Gold-Hybrid, Green, Open Access, Free to Read, Not OA). The declared funding source was also investigated.

Analyses included Cluster (by Author position, impact/citations, open access, journal quartile), principal component, and analysis of variance to see the effect of region and SDG in Brazilian publishing in SSC. Path Analyses (PROC CALIS) were also carried out by global region collaboration. Data were analysed in SAS v9.4 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Cary, North Carolina).

Collaboration networks were created through defining publications in Scopus of Brazil with the groups (2012-2021). These were then analysed in Vosviewer® version 1.6.18 (van Eck & Waltman 2010) for creating country networks through publication, citation and bibliographic coupling, as well as keyword analysis.

RESULTS

In terms of Brazil-SSC there were 2,030 documents with Central America, 28,428 with South America, 2,457 with the Caribbean, 9,776 with Africa and 24,343 with Asia. In terms of Scientific publications (Figure 1), Clinical & Life Sciences (CLS) and Physics dominate collaboration in all regions. The lowest % of CLS is with BRICS (30.7%) and the highest with ASEAN countries (41.52). With all regions, Arts and Humanities represented less than 1% of publications. Agriculture, Environment & Ecology (AEE) showed a higher % of collaborations with Latin (22.9%) and Central American (23.3%) countries, and lower with Arab (9.7%), ASEAN (11.5%), Asia (12.3%) and BRICS (11.7%) countries. CLS, AEE, Physics and Chemistry accounted for almost 85% of the collaboration. Concerning CNCI, Arts and Humanities had the highest impact (but very few documents), followed by CLS and AEE. BRICS (10.7) and ASEAN (6.2) countries showed the highest impact in CLS and AEE (8.8 and 4.1, respectively). Impact with Central America and the Caribbean was lowest overall.

Figure 1
Percentage of Documents by Brazilian Authors in Global South Collaboration (a) and their Impact (b) by Knowledge Area.

SDG 3 dominates all scientific collaborations of Brazil with the various country groups (Table I and Supplementary Material - Figure S1). While gender equality shows greater importance in ASEAN and African countries, Life below water (14) and on Land (15), as well as climate action (13), are also important in all regions. SDGs 1, 8, 10, 12, and 16 show less importance in this collaboration overall.

Table I
Percentage Publications per SDG and Country Group in Collaboration with Brazil.

	Latin America	ASEAN	BRICS	Africa	Asia
01 No Poverty	0.24	0.53	0.57	0.86	0.31
02 Zero Hunger	4.00	3.81	3.15	4.77	3.53
03 Good Health and Well-being	48.15	52.94	51.63	45.88	49.68
04 Quality Education	1.36	1.26	1.20	1.54	1.15
05 Gender Equality	6.36	8.69	6.47	9.08	6.56
06 Clean Water and Sanitation	3.72	2.09	3.28	3.66	3.02
07 Affordable and Clean Energy	2.81	1.40	2.63	1.26	1.96
08 Decent Work and Economic Growth	0.34	0.30	0.51	0.35	0.40
09 Industry	1.67	1.24	1.80	1.14	1.51
10 Reduced Inequality	0.53	0.44	0.46	0.60	0.39
11 Sustainable Cities and Communities	3.66	2.91	4.23	2.93	3.77
12 Responsible Consumption and Production	1.31	0.82	1.35	1.11	1.31
13 Climate Action	7.16	7.64	7.27	7.57	7.94
14 Life Below Water	9.29	8.12	7.90	9.45	9.37
15 Life on Land	9.16	7.70	7.40	9.52	8.98
16 Peace and Justice Strong Institutions	0.23	0.11	0.15	0.27	0.14

The influence of Global North countries is evident even when only Global South collaborations with Brazil were investigated (Figure 2). This collaboration can help improve impact (Figure 2c).

Figure 2
Geographical distribution (2012 – 2021) of Global South Collaboration Publications with Brazil (a); Number of publications (b); their Impact (c); and Industry Collaborations (d) (InCites®).

With ASEAN countries (Figure 3), most publications have an impact > 1. On the other hand, impact with BRICS, Asia, and the Arab States vary from 0.5 to 4. Collaboration of Brazil with Central America, South America, Africa and the Caribbean are classified by a higher percentage of non-cited documents, and CNCI concentrated in 0.25 to 2.

Figure 3
Number of Papers in Web of Science data base (left column) and Citation Impact by Region (right column) in collaboration with Brazilian authors (2012-2022).

Brazil is a major author in collaboration (around 40% as first, last or corresponding author) with the Caribbean and South America (Table II), around 30% with Central America, and 20% with the other country groups. With worldwide collaborations, Brazil is a major author in over 80% of its collaborative works.

Table II
Percentage of Brazilians by Collaboration Author Type by Regional Group.

	% First	% Last	% Corresp
Africa	22.40d	22.30de	22.28de
Arab	20.70d	24.96cde	22.07de
ASEAN	14.54e	17.68e	17.02e
Asia	18.84de	24.61cde	19.42e
Brazil with world	82.39a	73.85a	80.99a
BRICS	20.74d	24.71cde	21.98de
Caribbean	42.05b	29.51cd	41.90b
Central America	28.46c	31.25c	26.49d
South America	39.24b	39.34b	36.47c

• Numbers in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different using SNK (P<0.05).

In terms of publications by SDG (Table III), Brazilian authors are more prominent in Affordable Energy (7), Clean Water (6) and Industry (9), with around 40% of major authorship. Lower percentages (<30%) are seen for No Poverty (1), Gender Equality (5) and Peace (16).

Table III
Percentage of Brazilians by Author Type by SDG.

	% First	% Last	% Corresp
01 No Poverty	24.87cd	21.71e	24.81de
02 Zero Hunger	32.24abcd	31.45bcde	32.47abcde
03 Good Health and Well-being	26.87bcd	27.45cde	28.55cde
04 Quality Education	27.11bcd	31.01bcde	29.06cde
05 Gender Equality	22.70d	22.91de	24.68e
06 Clean Water and Sanitation	38.28abc	41.38ab	37.42ab
07 Affordable and Clean Energy	41.11a	45.48a	41.00a
08 Decent Work and Economic Growth	37.47abcd	25.80de	31.94ab
09 Industry	38.49abc	38.51abc	37.74ab
10 Reduced Inequality	31.24abcd	26.20de	32.11abcde
11 Sustainable Cities and Communities	30.16abcd	34.85bcd	31.06bcde
12 Responsible Consumption and Production	36.68ab	41.89ab	38.01abc
13 Climate Action	30.52abcd	31.99bcde	31.03bcde
14 Life Below Water	31.85abcd	32.59bcde	32.26abcde
15 Life on Land	34.03abcd	33.05bcde	34.78abcd
16 Peace and Justice Strong Institutions	29.48cd	26.10de	27.49bcde

• Numbers in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different using SNK (P<0.05).

Higher percentages of Brazilian authors (Figure 4) tend to publish more in Q3 and Q4 journals, with lower impact (CNCI, % High, % Hot, IRW, AP) and lower industry collaboration.

Figure 4
Overall Factor Analysis for papers published by Brazilian authors in South-South Collaboration (abbreviations in text).

A lower percentage of documented cited (Table IVa) was seen with quality education (SDG4), reduced inequality (SDG 10) and peace (SDG 16). These were accompanied by a lower percentage of papers that were highly cited, with industry collaborations and published in Q1 journals. The opposite can be seen for Good Health (SDG 3), Gender Equality (SDG 5) and No Poverty (SDG 1).

Table IV
Collaborations and Impact by SDG (A) and Country Group (B) in Collaboration with Brazilian Authors.

SDG	% Docs Cited	CNCI	% Top 1%	% Industry	% High	JNCI	%OA	% Gold	%Q1
01 No Poverty	82.63bc	3.99b	17.18a	2.83bcd	10.12ab	1.65bcd	77.82a	37.77a	59.89a
02 Zero Hunger	89.18ab	2.65bc	8.11b	1.98bcd	7.71bc	1.94ab	55.68cd	27.33bcd	56.58a
03 Good Health and Well-being	89.58a	3.95b	7.54bc	8.78a	7.35bc	1.94ab	64.60bc	26.87bcd	54.11a
04 Quality Education	76.49d	2.50bc	8.40b	1.36cd	5.53c	1.34de	65.77bc	32.89ab	45.62b
05 Gender Equality	89.05ab	7.57a	14.92a	7.74a	12.30a	2.10a	71.17ab	27.58bcd	57.13a
06 Clean Water and Sanitation	90.73a	1.76c	3.68bc	2.23bcd	5.31c	1.85ab	40.33ef	18.66efg	54.90a
07 Affordable and Clean Energy	88.46ab	1.58bc	2.15c	3.45bcd	3.94cd	1.31e	35.68f	14.41g	59.38a
08 Decent Work and Economic Growth	81.46cd	2.54bc	8.54b	5.19b	7.68bc	1.43cde	45.34ef	15.12g	58.62a
09 Industry	80.65cd	1.61c	3.54bc	3.20bcd	4.15cd	1.30e	44.18ef	14.95g	53.72a
10 Reduced Inequality	76.59d	2.50bc	7.09bc	3.49bcd	5.44c	1.31e	70.76ab	31.56bc	40.72bc
11 Sustainable Cities and Communities	86.74	2.66bc	5.15bc	3.18bcd	5.92c	1.71bc	48.41de	22.04defg	57.44a
12 Responsible Consumption and Production	89.01ab	1.72c	3.15bc	3.84bcd	5.18c	1.64bcd	41.37ef	17.12fg	57.73a
13 Climate Action	88.73ab	2.59bc	6.41bc	4.98bc	7.17bc	1.75bc	56.21cd	23.74def	62.35a
14 Life Below Water	89.69a	2.82bc	7.03bc	2.62bcd	7.44bc	1.80ab	56.06cd	25.01bde	56.92a
15 Life on Land	88.63ab	2.80bc	7.56bc	2.91bcd	7.33bc	1.72bc	56.60cd	23.99def	56.18a
16 Peace and Justice Strong Institutions	67.37e	2.03c	7.51bc	0.44d	1.69d	1.41cde	66.80bc	20.58defg	37.16c

Country	% Docs Cited	CNCI	% Top 1%	% Industry	JNCI	%High	%OA	% Gold	%Q1
Africa	87.28a	3.62a	10.06bc	5.34a	1.96a	8.29bc	67.39a	23.17bc	62.23a
Arab	89.67a	4.16a	13.71a	6.50a	2.05a	11.34a	63.98ab	26.43bc	64.06a
Asean	90.34a	3.86a	11.44ab	4.69ab	2.04a	10.38ab	66.97a	22.60bc	66.76a
Asia	88.96a	3.11a	9.01bc	4.52ab	1.90a	7.76c	59.46ab	22.89bc	64.64a
BRICS	88.75a	3.26a	9.44bc	4.48ab	1.86a	8.41bc	58.41b	20.81cd	65.10a
Brazil with world	77.27b	0.88b	0.93d	0.76c	1.02d	0.96e	47.90c	33.63a	34.50d
Caribbean	79.54b	3.46a	6.48c	2.11c	1.40c	6.61c	46.16c	20.79cd	41.24c
Central America	85.49a	3.08a	7.97cd	4.49ab	1.64b	7.00c	55.98b	22.45bc	49.91b
South America	81.40b	1.87b	3.67d	2.42bc	1.35c	3.27d	56.12b	27.91b	48.92b
World with World	78.18b	1.00b	1.01d	1.09c	1.14d	1.10e	38.12d	16.58d	45.42bc

• Numbers in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different using SNK (P<0.05).

There was lower industry collaboration with South American and Caribbean countries (Table IVb), accompanied by lower impact. These countries tended to publish in journals with lower JNCI. There were higher citation rates with Asian, ASEAN, Arab and BRICS countries. Collaboration with Africa saw a higher % of papers in the Top 1%, more industry collaboration and a higher % of papers in open access (see also Tables SIa and SIb).

Different publication concentration and impact is seen depending on SDG and country region (Table SII). SDG3 is the most prevalent in all regions. Nevertheless, it is higher with Arab countries than with Central & North America and Africa. Zero Hunger (SDG2) is higher with Africa (double World mean). Life on Land (15) and Life below Water are also higher than World Mean, especially with Africa and South America. Climate Action is also above world mean as expected, except for Caribbean and Arab countries. SDGs 1, 8, 10, and 16 are less than 1% of all collaborations. Impacts were higher for SDGs 1 to 5 and lower with the Caribbean and South American countries. Comparing NSC and SSC (Table SIII and Figure S1), some differences are seen for indicators in different SDGs such as authorship (SDGs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14), Open Access (be it Gold, hybrid or green: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 9, 10, 12, 14), and journal quartile (1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16). Only SDGs 3, 5 and 11 showed differences in CNCI, with higher values for SSC. SSC had relatively less industry collaboration in SDGs 2, 3 and 6 and less hot papers in SDGs 2 and 4.

Brazil is relatively more active in SDGs such as Zero Hunger (SDG2) and Life on Land (SDG15) than worldwide. SDGs 6 and 12 are approximately 50% above the world mean. Most others are close to the world mean, with only SDG7 slightly below the mean (0.75).

There are similar patterns for the clusters of groups of countries by SDG (Figure S2), as seen earlier (Table IV). Collaborations with Central and South America as well as Latin America tend to have a lower impact. The BRICS and Africa change cluster depending on the SDG. SDG1 and SDG5 they are in the low impact group, while for SDG6, only Africa is in the low impact group.

On the other hand, looking at clusters of collaboration by country group (Figure S3), there are changes in regional focus (Table SI). Brazil shows a high impact in gender equality (SDG5) with almost all regions (lowest with South America). Other SDGs where Brazil strongly impact collaboration are No Poverty (SDG1) and Good Health (SDG3). With Africa, Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG8) also has a high impact. The impact is generally poor for all SDGs with South America and the Caribbean, although the Caribbean shows a higher impact for Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11). Central America shows a higher impact for Peace (SDG16).

High participation of the United States can be seen in all maps (Figure 6). Mexico strongly influences Central America and The Caribbean, while China is seen in ASEAN and Asian groups as expected. Africa has a varied collaboration base, with a dominance of South Africa. Brazil´s collaboration with South America, Argentina, Chile and Colombia are highlighted, along with the USA, Spain, the UK and France. With BRICS, as expected, China and India are prevalent.

Figure 5
Relative Activity Chart (a) (SciVal 2021-2022)² and Web of Science Documents (b) (InCites®) for Brazil (2012-2022) by Sustainable Development Goal.

Figure 6
Heat map for number of documents in collaboration by countries that publish with Brazil together with global south country groups.

CNPq, CAPES and FAPESP are responsible for over 81% of the declared financing by Brazilian agencies (Table SIV), of which 78% are in Latin America, followed by Asia Pacific and Africa. Collaborative funding with BRICS is relatively low. CNCI differs by agency and region (Table SV), with FAPDF having the highest impact in BRICS countries (16.64). The highest impact overall was seen with ASEAN or African countries.

Looking at international funding for Brazilian papers in collaboration (Figure 7), once again, the USA is prominent, along with the European Union (Table V), Germany and Russia. Much funding comes from agencies involved with Energy, Nuclear and Atomic Research, such as the US Department of Energy, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Centro de Aplicaciones Tecnológicas y Desarrollo Nuclear, Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Institutul de Fizică Atomică among others.

Figure 7
Heat map for countries funding Brazilian research with different global south country groups.

Table V
Number of publications funded by private entities, philanthropical and the European community.

	BRICS	South America	Asia	Asean	Africa	Carib & Central America	Arab
Private	1193	644	1797	709	1394	1439	566
Europe	9167	8842	9155	5367	4494	4291	6600
Phil	3665	3122	3428	2912	2176	2168	3238

Private funding included that from pharmaceutical companies such as Pfzier, Astra Zenica, Glaxo Smith, Merck, Sanofi and Novartis. This was a higher percentage for collaborations with African (2.4% of total papers financed) rather than South American (0.5%) and Arab (0.6%) countries. Philanthropic foundations are also active, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Alfred P Slone, Eunice Kennedy, among others. The Leverhulme Trust had the highest number of publications financed. In relative terms, philanthropical aid was higher in ASEAN and African countries (around 3.8% of the total) vs Latin America (2.4%).

Medicine and Physics & Astronomy were the two largest knowledge areas in most regions, except South and Central America and Africa, where Agriculture was also significant (Figure 8).

Figure 8
Areas of research receiving non-Brazilian financing in collaboration with Global South country groups.

Three major clusters for collaboration were seen in South American collaboration (Figure 9). Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Colombia have the strongest links (in blue). There is a group of Spanish-speaking countries linked through Spain (green) and the third group of mainly English (or another language) speaking countries (red). Major topics studied are health, animal production and biodiversity (Figure 9). With ASEAN countries, there are 6 clusters with higher triangulation with countries outside the region. In Central America, there is a very clear division between health and biodiversity. Brazil tends to cite its own papers and shows high bibliographic coupling.

Figure 9
Bibliographic mapping networks of Brazilian publications with different south-south country groups: Column a) Collaboration countries; b) Themes; c) Citation countries; d) Bibliographic coupling countries.

In south-south collaboration, more papers led to lower citation impact but higher in NSC (Table VI and Figure S4). A higher percentage of Brazilian authors as corresponding author led to a lower % of papers in Q1 journals, especially in NSC. % Industry also reduced the % papers in Gold Open Access journals.

Table VI
Significant paths for South-South (a) and North-South (b) Collaborations with Brazilian scientists.

Path			Estimate	SE	t Value	Pr > |t|
South-South Collaboration
WoS	to	%Industry	-0.26	0.07	-4.03	<.0001
WoS	to	%Corresp	0.34	0.06	5.49	<.0001
WoS	to	Citation_Impact	-0.44	0.11	-3.93	<.0001
%Industry	to	Citation_Impact	0.56	0.04	12.60	<.0001
%Industry	to	%Docs_Cited	0.44	0.06	7.74	<.0001
%Industry	to	%Q1	0.19	0.04	4.70	<.0001
%Industry	to	%Gold	-0.43	0.06	-7.52	<.0001
Times_Cited	to	Citation_Impact	0.25	0.11	2.24	0.03
%Corresp	to	%Q1	-0.09	0.04	-2.13	0.03
%Q1	to	PTop10%	0.71	0.03	20.31	<.0001
%Q1	to	Citation_Impact	0.24	0.05	4.96	<.0001
%Q1	To/from	%OA	0.79	0.03	31.03	<.0001
%Q1	To/from	%Hybrid	0.56	0.04	12.53	<.0001
%Q1	to	%Hot	0.39	0.06	6.51	<.0001
%Q1	to	%High	0.58	0.05	12.36	<.0001
%High	to	CNCI	0.15	0.01	11.72	<.0001
%Hot	to	CNCI	0.03	0.01	3.80	0.00
%Q1	to	CNCI	-0.05	0.01	-3.96	<.0001
%Hybrid	to	CNCI	0.12	0.01	10.49	<.0001
Citation_Impact	to	CNCI	0.95	0.01	127.60	<.0001
%Top10%	to	CNCI	-0.04	0.01	-4.45	<.0001
North South Collaboration
WoS	to	%Industry	-0.16	0.07	-2.45	0.01
WoS	to	Citation_Impact	0.22	0.16	1.38	0.17
WoS	to	%Corresp	0.29	0.06	4.78	<.0001
%Industry	to	Citation_Impact	0.62	0.04	15.46	<.0001
%Industry	to	%Docs_Cited	0.33	0.06	5.39	<.0001
%Industry	to	%Q1	0.06	0.04	1.65	0.10
%Industry	to	%Gold	-0.43	0.06	-7.83	<.0001
Times_Cited	to	Citation_Impact	-0.41	0.16	-2.55	0.01
%Corresp	to	%Q1	-0.15	0.04	-4.05	<.0001
%Q1	to	PTo%10%	0.36	0.06	6.04	<.0001
%Q1	to	Citation_Impact	0.09	0.05	1.88	0.06
North South Collaboration
%Q1	To/from	%OA	0.80	0.02	36.96	<.0001
%Q1	To/from	%Hybrid	0.76	0.03	27.78	<.0001
%Q1	to	%Hot	0.22	0.07	3.32	0.00
%Q1	to	%High	0.19	0.07	2.82	0.00
%High	to	CNCI	0.18	0.01	13.25	<.0001
%Hot	to	CNCI	0.06	0.01	7.86	<.0001
%Q1	to	CNCI	-0.05	0.01	-4.02	<.0001
%Hybrid	to	CNCI	0.09	0.01	7.50	<.0001
Citation_Impact	to	CNCI	0.97	0.00	195.80	<.0001
%Top10%	to	CNCI	-0.07	0.01	-8.43	<.0001

DISCUSSION

Creating international research networks can cross borders and open supposedly sealed entities. These networks can create connections between disciplines, institutions and nations and create productive contacts between people who have little or nothing to do with each other. Proximity (both geographically and scientifically) may mean that groups share the same information within the inner circle and uniform ways of thinking. At the same time, external influences generate new ideas (Buccieri et al. 2020).

The triangulation of SSC with NCS, as seen here, has been also seen with African studies (Boshoff 2010). This author emphasises that guidelines for successful North-South collaborations should be extended to include South-South collaborations that comprise highly unequal partners. The more people exchange ideas, the more the country benefits through increased interactions. The more open a country is to this exchange, the more scientifically important and influential it becomes (Kong et al. 2021). By internationalising research, scientists can access an additional funding source, not only financial but also laboratory equipment and consumables, access to the best research groups, join the “club”, learn complementary skill sets, access to local knowledge, online data collection and access.

The “one size fits all” funding approach seems to reflect the conflation in much of the literature on research policy between academic and scientific research (Donovan 2005). Jeffrey (2003) argues that trends toward increasing interdisciplinary research reflect the complexity of modern problems and how funding bodies wish to see these problems tackled. This should be the basis for setting national priorities and attaining the goals. Themes relevant to several SDGs are either poorly researched or lack impact.

In the construction of partnerships, where the necessary structural conditions for developing the proposed activities are not yet sufficient, it is a sine qua non to include national and international institutions that can share the costs of projects. While SDG3 (Good health and well-being) was found to have a higher share of synergies with other SDGs in most of the countries and the world population (Pradhan et al. 2017) the concentration of Brazilian production (50%) on this SDG may reflect the need for directed actions on other important SDGs. Interdisciplinary teams are important for solving complex problems (Mosquera 2020) such as SDGs. Few research calls in Brazil are directly linked to SDG challenges or benchmarked through goal attainment. Several authors call for new frameworks for strengthening stakeholder participation and structuring knowledge for policy-makers (Yillia 2016, Maes et al. 2019, McCollum et al. 2018).

The training of Brazilian human resources must be an essential component of cooperation. The search for partners must consider their areas of excellence and the existence of common research topics. Scientific and technical human capital (S&T human capital) is the sum of scientific, technical and social knowledge, skills and resources embodied in a particular individual (Bozeman et al. 2001). It includes human capital endowments, such as formal education and training, and social relations and network ties that bind scientists and science users together as a knowledge value collective (Bozeman & Corley 2004).

In asymmetric SSC relationships, where excellence may be mainly in Brazil, the partnership should go beyond the transfer of knowledge and other aspects of solidary cooperation. This type of partnership should make clear the scientific and technological stimuli for Brazil, in addition to the benefits arising from the coexistence of international students and researchers with Brazilians.

Sachs et al. (2019) introduce six SDG transformations as modular building blocks of SDG achievement: (1) education, gender and inequality; (2) health, well-being and demography; (3) energy decarbonisation and sustainable industry; (4) sustainable food, land, water and oceans; (5) sustainable cities and communities; and (6) digital revolution for sustainable development. The relationship between SDGs is important, as some are interdependent and other have conflicting results. For example, it may be difficult to balance balancing economic development, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion for human well-being (Ibisch et al. 2016). According to Pradhan et al. (2017), SDG 1 (No poverty) has a synergetic (progress in one goal favours progress in another) relationship with most of the other goals. SDGs 8 (Decent work and economic growth), 9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure), 12 (Responsible consumption and production), and 15 (Life on land) on the other hand, are associated with a high fraction of trade-offs across SDGs (progress in one goal hinders progress in another).

Leal Filho et al. (2022) note that five SDGs have deteriorated since 2015: SDG2, SDG11, SDG13, SDG15, and SDG16, while SDG3, SDG7, SDG9, SDG14, and SDG17 have shown substantial progress. SDGs 1, 8, 10, 12, and 16 in Brazilian collaboration are less well developed. According to Swain (2018) and Bali-Swain & Yang-Wallentin (2020), developing countries should focus on their economic and social factors, even though environmental policies remain significant for sustainable development. The authors highlight that developed countries should focus on social and environmental factors. This difference in policy is also the underlying thread seen in the differences between NSC and SSC. In the present paper, we see different research profiles depending on partnerships.

According to Cooke (2005), open innovation on a global basis to overcome inherent knowledge asymmetries and overturn the imbalance in an evolutionary process over time. Kim (2006) states that the symmetrical type of international research collaboration has intensified while the dominance of the asymmetrical type has declined. Based on the number of participating countries, we can see that multilateral papers written by researchers from three or more countries have increased considerably during the last two decades, as seen here. Research shows that knowledge asymmetries can be overcome by tapping into the regional knowledge capabilities and systemic innovation strengths of accomplished regional and local clusters. These regional knowledge capabilities help metamorphose macro-processes operating through globalisation (Cooke 2005). Luo et al. (2013) show that international partnerships often encounter barriers such as resource, capacity, political and cultural differences, which affect the motivations, balance of benefits, regulation of research, and ultimately, outcomes of these programs. Results here show that SSC can be beneficial to Brazilian science. There is the benefit of opening gateways to other international partnerships, network creation and emphasis on regional priorities.

South-South Cooperation is one of the aspects of this mission as it is characterised as a scientific collaboration between Brazil and other developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. It is understood that this type of partnership enriches all the actors involved, not only in the academic-scientific aspect but also in the exchange of cultural, ethical and social values. Furthermore, we recognise that expanding scientific knowledge is more than ever a global undertaking, which must go beyond the countries of the North, recognising that there are different problems in different societies and that, to solve them, the participation of different perspectives is essential and complementary. Contrary to Molosi-France & Makoni (2020), SSC can be equally impactful as NSC. This may be because the selection of partners was better with SSC or because of the triangulation that exists with Global North Countries. 54% international collaboration of Brazil is NSC and 46% SSC.

CONCLUSIONS

SDGs can be useful in constructing a research and financing agenda for Brazilian research in scientific collaboration and for the solution of problems. Collaboration priorities can vary by Brazilian region. Brazil South-South collaboration in published documents shows a higher impact than NSC in some areas. Brazilian SSC shows triangulation with countries in the Global North and depends on language, financing and region. As such, the choice of partnerships is important to increase the impact of the research produced. The search for partners must consider their areas of excellence and the existence of common research topics. In asymmetric relationships, where excellence is mainly in Brazil, the partnership should go beyond knowledge transfer and other aspects of solidary cooperation. This type of partnership should make clear the scientific and technological stimuli for Brazil, in addition to the benefits arising from the coexistence of international students and researchers with Brazilians.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil; and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Table SI-SV.

Table SI-SV.

Figure S1-S4.

• 1
  http://www.fc-ssc.org/en/partnership_program/south_south_countries
• 2
  2 The Relative Activity Index is defined as the share of a Country’s Scholarly Output in a SDG relative to the worldwide share of Scholarly Output in that same SDG.

REFERENCES

• ABDENUR AE & DA FONSECA JMEM. 2013. The north’s growing role in south-south cooperation: Keeping the foothold. Third World Quarterly 34(8): 1475-1491.
• BALI SWAIN R & YANG-WALLENTIN F. 2020. Achieving sustainable development goals: predicaments and strategies. Int J Sust Devel & World Ecol 27(2): 6-106.
• BOSHOFF N. 2010. South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Scientometrics 84(2): 481-503.
• BOZEMAN B & CORLEY E. 2004. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res Pol 33(4): 599-616.
• BOZEMAN B ET AL. 2001. Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. Int J Tech Manag 22: 716-740.
• BRATIANU C. 2018. Intellectual capital research and practice: 7 myths and one golden rule. Manag Mark Chall Knowl Soc 13: 859-879.
• BUCCIERI D, JAVALGI RG & CAVUSGIL E. 2020. International new venture performance: Role of international entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous innovation, and dynamic marketing capabilities. Intern Bus Rev 29(2): 101639.
• COOKE P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring’ Globalisation 2’—A new model of industry organisation. Res Pol 34(8): 1128-1149.
• DONOVAN C. 2005. The governance of social science and everyday epistemology. Public Admin 83: 597-615.
• FONSECA BPF, FERNANDES E & FONSECA MVA. 2016. Collaboration in science and technology organisations of the public sector: A network perspective. Sci Pub Pol: scw013.
• FONSECA LM, DOMINGUES JP & DIMA AM. 2020. Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability 12(8): 3359.
• GLASER G. 2012. Base sustainable development goals on science. Nature 491: 35.
• GRIGGS D, SMITH MS, ROCKSTRÖM J, ÖHMAN MC, GAFFNEY O, GLASER G, KANIE N, NOBLE I, STEFFEN W & SHYAMSUNDAR P. 2014. An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecol Soc 19(4): 49.
• HÁK T, JANOUŠKOVÁ S & MOLDAN B. 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol indicat 60: 565-573.
• IBISCH PL, HOFFMANN MT, KREFT S, PE’ER G, KATI V, BIBER-FREUDENBERGER L, DELLASALA DA, VALE MM, HOBSON PR & SELVA N. 2016. A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status. Science 354(6318): 1423-1427.
• IMAZ M & SHEINBAUM C. 2017. Science and technology in the framework of the sustainable development goals. World J Sci Tech Sust Devel 14: 1-17.
• JEFFREY P. 2003. Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Stud Sci 33(4): 539-562.
• KONG Q, PENG D, NI Y, JIANG X & WANG Z. 2021. Trade openness and economic growth quality of China: Empirical analysis using ARDL model. Finan Res Let 38: 101488.
• KURIAN M, PORTNEY KE, RAPPOLD G, HANNIBAL B & GEBRECHORKOS SH. 2018. Governance of water-energy-food nexus: a social network analysis approach to understanding agency behaviour. In: Hülsmann S & Ardakanian R (Eds), Managing Water, Soil and Waste Resources to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham., p. 125-147.
• LEACH M ET AL. 2012. Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecol Soc 17(2): 11.
• LEAL FILHO W ET AL. 2022. An assessment of requirements in investments, new technologies, and infrastructures to achieve the SDGs. Environ Sci Eur 34: 58.
• LIM M, SØGAARD JØRGENSEN P & WYBORN C. 2018. Reframing the sustainable development goals to achieve sustainable development in the Anthropocene—a systems approach. Ecol Soc 23.
• LUO A, OMOLL, KL, DIANIS N & WOLBACH T. 2013. Collaboration between Developed and Developing Countries Offers Opportunities to Amplify Global Health Research. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/102597
  » https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/102597
• LUSSEAU D & MANCINI F. 2019. Income-based variation in Sustainable Development Goal interaction networks. Nat Sustain 2: 242.
• MAES MJA, JONES KE, TOLEDANO MB & MILLIGAN B. 2019. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between urban ecosystems and the sustainable development goals. Environ Sci Pol 93: 181-188.
• MCCOLLUM DL ET AL. 2018. Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy inter-linkages. Environ Res Lett 13: 033006.
• MOLOSI-FRANCE K & MAKONI S. 2020. A partnership of un-equals: global South-North research collaborations in higher education institutions. Modern Africa: Pol Hist Soc, 8(2): 9-24.
• MOSQUERA L. 2020. Enhancing Educational Cooperation through Science Diplomacy: A Case Study of Colombian Police Academy, In Research and Information System for Developing Countries (Coord.), Southern Perspectives on Science Diplomacy, RIS: New Delhi, p. 33-37.
• PRADHAN P, COSTA L, RYBSKI D, LUCHT W & KROPP JP. 2017. A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5(11): 1169-1179.
• PRIETO-JIMÉNEZ E, LÓPEZ-CATALÁN L, LÓPEZ-CATALÁN B & DOMÍNGUEZ-FERNÁNDEZ G. 2021. Sustainable development goals and education: A bibliometric mapping analysis. Sustainability 13(4): 2126.
• RENNKAMP B & BOULLE M. 2018. Novel shapes of South-South collaboration: emerging knowledge networks on co-benefits of climate and development policies. Climate Devel 10(3): 218-229.
• SACHS JD, SCHMIDT-TRAUB G, MAZZUCATO M, MESSNER D, NAKICENOVIC N & ROCKSTRÖM J. 2019. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain 2: 805-814.
• SEVERINO F, SCOTTI V, ZHANG T, ZHENG Y & DE SILVESTRI A. 2021. A bibliometric analysis of international publications and citation trends of articles in mental health produced by Chinese institutions in mainland China (1990-2019). Glob Mental Health 8: e37
• SWAIN RB. 2018. A critical analysis of the sustainable development goals. In Handbook of sustainability science and research, Springer, Cham., p. 341-355.
• VAN DER VEKEN K, BELAID L, DELVAUX T & DE BROUWERE V. 2017. Research capacity building through North-South-South networking: towards true partnership? An exploratory study of a network for scientific support in the field of sexual and reproductive health. Health Res Policy Sys 15: 39.
• VAN ECK NJ & WALTMAN L. 2010. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping, Scientometrics, 84/2: 523-538.
• YILLIA PT. 2016. Water-Energy-Food nexus: framing the opportunities, challenges and synergies for implementing the SDGs. Österr. Wasser- Abfallwirtsch 68: 86-98.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Dec 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  30 Apr 2023
• Accepted
  30 July 2023