Average Number Of Coauthors Research Articles

Collaboration and topic switches in science

Collaboration is a key driver of science and innovation. Mainly motivated by the need to leverage different capacities and expertise to solve a scientific problem, collaboration is also an excellent source of information about the future behavior of scholars. In particular, it allows us to infer the likelihood that scientists choose future research directions via the intertwined mechanisms of selection and social influence. Here we thoroughly investigate the interplay between collaboration and topic switches. We find that the probability for a scholar to start working on a new topic increases with the number of previous collaborators, with a pattern showing that the effects of individual collaborators are not independent. The higher the productivity and the impact of authors, the more likely their coworkers will start working on new topics. The average number of coauthors per paper is also inversely related to the topic switch probability, suggesting a dilution of this effect as the number of collaborators increases.

Contributions from Türkiye to the international emergency medicine literature during the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the bibliometric contributions made from Türkiye to the international scientific literature in the field of Emergency Medicine during the 2020-2021 period, which covered the COVID-19 pandemic period. Materials and Methods: The present study included a total of 872 studies in Emergency Medicine WoS Indexes between 2020-2021. The study data were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database of Thomson Reuters – Clarivate Analytics, and the review included publications in the "Emergency Medicine" category from Turkey that spanned the pandemic period between the years 2019-2020. Results: 78.1% of the aforementioned studies were included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and 88.2% were original research papers. A total of 2930 researchers were involved in the 872 publications in the scope of the study. The average number of co-authors per publication was 5.2, where the average number of publications per author was 0.3. As regards the scope of the publications, the main topic was "SARS-Cov-2 and pandemic". The aforementioned main theme was associated with general emergency medicine practices, COVID-19 pneumonia, and high-mortality emergency cases. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first that investigated the studies from Türkiye that contributed to the international literature in the field of emergency medicine during the pandemic period and provided valuable data reflecting the scientific productivity of the researchers, who continued their research in the field of emergency medicine, during the pandemic period.

Co-authorship network structure analysis

The analysis of networks of collaboration between scientists reveals features of academic communities that help in understanding the specifics of collaborative scientific work and identifying the notable researchers. In these networks, the set of nodes consists of authors and there exists a link between two authors if they have coauthored one or more papers. This article presents an analysis of the co-authorship network based on bibliometric data retrieved from the distributed economic database. Here we use the simple network model without taking into account the strength of collaborative ties. The data were analyzed using statistical techniques in order to get such parameters as the number of papers per author, the number of authors per paper, the average number of coauthors per author and collaboration indices. We show that the largest component occupies near 90 % of the network and the node degree distribution follows a power-law. The study of typical distances between nodes and the degree of clustering makes it possible to classify the network as a ‘small world’ network.

Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles (RPSA) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries

The purpose of this study is to present a new scientometric model for measuring individual scientific performance in Scopus article publications in the field of Business, Management, and Accounting (BMA). With the help of this model, the study also compares the publication performance of the top 50 researchers according to SciVal in the field of BMA, in each of the Central European V4 countries (Czech Republic; Hungary; Poland; Slovakia). To analyze the scientific excellence of a total of top 200 researchers in the countries studied, we collected and analyzed the data of a total of 1844 partially redundant and a total of 1492 cleansed BMA publications. In the scope of the study, we determined the quality of the journals using SCImago, the individual contributions to the journal articles, and the number of citations using Scopus data. A comparison of individual performance, as shown by published journal articles, can be made based on the qualities of the journals, the determination of the aggregated co-authorship ratios, and the number of citations received. The performance of BMA researchers in Hungary lags behind the average of V4s in terms of quantity, but in terms of quality it reaches this average. As for BMA journal articles, the average number of co-authors is between two and three; concerning Q4 to Q2 publications, this number typically increases. In fact, in the case of these Q journals multiple co-authorship results in higher citations, but it is not the case concerning Q1 journals.

Ten years of ranavirus research (2010–2019): an analysis of global research trends

Ranaviruses are large nucleocytoplasmic DNA viruses that infect ectothermic vertebrates. Here we report the results of a scientometric analysis of the field of ranavirology for the last 10 years. Using bibliometric tools we analyse trends, identify top publications and journals, and visualise the ranavirus collaboration landscape. The Web of Science core collection contains 545 ranavirus-related publications from 2010 to 2019, with more publications produced every year and a total of 6830 citations. Research output is primarily driven by the United States and People’s Republic of China, who together account for more than 60% of ranavirus publications. We also observed a positive correlation between the average number of co-authors on ranavirus publications and the year of publication, indicating that overall collaboration is increasing. A keyword analysis of ranavirus publications from 2010 to 2019 reveals several areas of research interest including; ecology, immunology, virology/molecular biology, genetics, ichthyology, and herpetology. While ranavirus research is conducted globally, relatively few publications have co-authors from both European and Asian countries, possibly because closer countries (geographical distance) are more likely to share co-authors. To this end, efforts should be made to foster collaborations across geopolitical and cultural boundaries, especially between countries with shared research interests as ultimately, understanding global pathogens, like ranaviruses, will require global collaboration.

The dissemination of tourism scientific research in Latin American journals. A bibliometric study

ABSTRACT The current importance of tourism in Latin American countries highlights the need to review tourism research in this region. This article analyzes the contributions made by researchers affiliated to Latin American institutions in academic journals specialized in tourism and published in Latin America. Seven main journals published in Portuguese and Spanish over the last 13 years (2006–2018) are analysed. The analysis identifies institutions and authors that have made substantial efforts in research and dissemination in tourism in journals from the region. The article presents not only a ranking of institutions and authors, but also the geographical scope of their research, average number of co-authors per article, and a temporal evolution of their publications in tourism research. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are made regarding tourism research in Latin American journals.

Biblioranking fundamental physics

We propose measures of the impact of research that improve on existing ones such as counting of number of papers, citations and $h$-index. Since different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and of references we replace citations with individual citations, shared among co-authors. Next, we improve on citation counting applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among papers. Being time-ordered, this reduces to a weighted counting of citation descendants that we call PaperRank. Similarly, we compute an AuthorRank applying the PageRank algorithm to citations among authors. These metrics quantify the impact of an author or paper taking into account the impact of those authors that cite it. Finally, we show how self- and circular- citations can be eliminated by defining a closed market of citation-coins. We apply these metrics to the InSpire database that covers fundamental physics, ranking papers, authors, journals, institutes, towns, countries, continents, genders, for all-time and in recent time periods.

The impact of transnational co-authorship on the scientific quality of academic researchers-Case Studies: Slovenia, Poland and Romania

Abstract The aim of this article is to contribute to the discussion about whether the scientific impact of an academic researcher (measured through bibliometrics indices as Hirsch score, citation scores or quantitative data about publications) can be accounted for by the presence of co-authors and the characteristics of the personal networks they are embedded in. With my study, I intend to demonstrate that there is statistical evidence between international co-authorship, measured through the number and the characteristics of international co-authors and the scientific impact of the researcher. Recent studies using bibliometrics and scientometrics approach shows that papers published with international co-authors may result in a higher citation rate than the ones written in a purely national manner (with national co-authors) (Glanzel & Schubert, 2001; Schmoch & Schubert, 2008). In the literature that addresses these issues, the main focus is put on international co-authorship, but my opinion is that the concept has undergone a series of methodological changes. I address these changes as a trend towards a transnational perspective. I explored the personal networks of university researchers, from three academic communities in the field of sociology. I analyzed the data using hierarchical regression models. This article is based on secondary data analysis starting from the data Hâncean used in 2016 (Hâncean & Perc, 2016). The data provided attribute and relational data for the focal nodes and their corresponding alters from Web of Science platform. Given the theoretical framework proposed by previous research (Adams, 2012; Hâncean & Perc, 2014; Glanzel & Schubert, 2004), I expected the scientific impact of an author to be positively influenced by the impact of the personal network he is embedded in. After running the analysis, the presence of transnational co-authors has a moderate impact on the citation distribution, especially for the Romania case. The biggest impact on the citation distribution, for all academic communities I included in the analysis, are the number of publications and the average number of co-authors’ citations. The description and the exploration of the data in all three communities of academic sociologists (Romania, Poland and Slovenia) will be used later in order to show new ways in which knowledge is transferred through the lens of a transnational perspective.

Antipodean agricultural and resource economics at 60: Trends in topics, authorship and collaboration

This study presents results of an analysis of 1060 academic articles published in the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics and the Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics from 1957 to 2015. Trends in research topics over time identified by the study include a decline in research on agricultural topics offset by growth in publications related to natural resources, the environment, trade, food and international development. Other trends include an increase in the average number of co‐authors on each paper, a gradual increase in authorship by females, changes in the shares of top contributing institutions, increases in collaboration between institutions and a steady increase in the number of authors from outside Australia or New Zealand.

Researchers' Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century.

Debates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning (“salami slicing”), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.

Influence of a National Cancer Institute transdisciplinary research and training initiative on trainees' transdisciplinary research competencies and scholarly productivity.

Over the past several decades, there has been burgeoning interest and investment in large transdisciplinary (TD) team science initiatives that aim to address complex societal problems. Despite this trend, TD training opportunities in the health sciences remain limited, and evaluations of these opportunities are even more uncommon due to funding constraints. We had the unique opportunity to conduct an exploratory study to examine the potential outcomes and impacts of TD training in a National Cancer Institute-supported initiative for TD research and training-the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer I (TREC I) initiative. This study used a retrospective mixed-methods approach leveraging secondary analysis of existing data sources to learn about TREC trainees' experiences with TREC training, TD research competencies, changes in scholarly productivity, and the associations among these domains. Results indicated that, on average, TREC trainees were satisfied with their TREC mentoring experiences and believed that TREC training processes were effective, in general. Participation in TREC training was associated with TD research competencies, including TD research orientation, positive general attitude toward TD training, development of scientific skills for TD research, and intrapersonal/interpersonal competencies for collaboration. There was also a significant increase in trainees' scholarly productivity from before to after starting in TREC training, as indicated by average annual number of publications and presentations and average number of coauthors per publication. Perceived effectiveness of TREC training was positively correlated with change in average annual number of research presentations from before to after starting in TREC training (r = 0.65, p < 0.05, N = 12), as well as TD research orientation (r = 0.36, p < 0.05), general attitude toward TD training (0.39, p < 0.05), scientific skills for TD research (r = 0.45-0.48, p < 0.05), and perceived collaborative productivity at one's TREC center (r = 0.47, p < 0.01). Finally, a significant positive correlation was observed between multi-mentoring experiences and both TD research orientation (r = 0.58, p < 0.05) and perceived collaborative productivity at one's TREC center (r = 0.44, p < 0.05). This exploratory study had methodological constraints including the absence of a comparison group and cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data related to TD research competencies. Despite these limitations, the study provided an opportunity to use existing data sources to explore potential outcomes and impacts of TD training and inform development of future rigorous evaluations of TD training. Overall, findings suggest that TD training in the context of a TD research initiative can provide satisfying training opportunities that support the development of TD research competencies and promote scholarly productivity.

Assessing the Value of Team Science: A Study Comparing Center- and Investigator-Initiated Grants

Large cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research. This paper reports on a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted to compare bibliometric indicators of scientific collaboration, productivity, and impact of center-based transdisciplinary team science initiatives and traditional investigator-initiated grants in the same field. All grants began between 1994 and 2004 and up to 10 years of publication data were collected for each grant. Publication information was compiled and analyzed during the spring and summer of 2010. Following an initial lag period, the transdisciplinary research center grants had higher overall publication rates than the investigator-initiated R01 (NIH Research Project Grant Program) grants. There were relatively uniform publication rates across the research center grants compared to dramatically dispersed publication rates among the R01 grants. On average, publications produced by the research center grants had greater numbers of coauthors but similar journal impact factors compared with publications produced by the R01 grants. The lag in productivity among the transdisciplinary center grants was offset by their overall higher publication rates and average number of coauthors per publication, relative to investigator-initiated grants, over the 10-year comparison period. The findings suggest that transdisciplinary center grants create benefits for both scientific productivity and collaboration.

Proposal of an individual scientometric index with emphasis on ponderation of the effective contribution of the first author: h-fac índex

In the individual assessment of a scientific performance, five scientometric indices have been used most: the h-index, the index g, the h-major index, the contemporary h-index and the normalized h-index. We propose an alternative index ("Index h-fac"), which considers positively the participation of the first author and that, by having a dynamic characteristic, continuously monitors his/her performance and is easily adaptable to particular or individual situations from different research groups. Results from the geometric mean between the original h-index as proposed by Hirsh and a correction factor ("fac", "first author commitment") and, in turn, this value is divided by the mean interval (in years) of all studies. The index emphasizes two scores (X and Y). These scores X and Y were obtained by asking to all 83 cardiovascular surgeons from Southern Brazil (Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul) and Specialists, how they realistically estimated, in percentage, their effective contribution in each published paper in which they appeared as first author. Of the total, 80 (96.4%) responded. The average obtained was 78.0% and on this basis, the X score was established as 0.75 and the score Y as 0.25. The new index also considers the total number of citations as first author and as co-author, the average number of coauthors per publication and the total number of papers published. Theoretical examples are presented, discussing the main advantages of application. Serial evaluations in real world situations should be instituted to confirm the diagnostic and prognostic utility of this new index.

A Bibliometric Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the Economic and Medical Literature: 1976-2006

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) presenting a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratio is frequently used to determine ''value for money'' in health care. Despite the proliferation of CEA research, there has been no detailed study focusing on the bibliometric properties of this literature. To describe and analyze trends in publications and coauthorship in the CEA literature from 1976 to 2006 and to identify the most prolific authors and research groups conducting CEAs. The authors used the Tufts Medical Center Registry of original CEAs published through 2006 (www.cearegistry.org). For each article, they recorded the year of publication, the journal title, and the number of contributing authors and their names. Authors were assigned credit based on their weighted contribution to the study (1 credit point for the first and last authors, (1/2) point for the second author, and ( 1)=(n) credit points for all other authors, where n reflects the number of coauthors). Approximately 1400 CEAs presenting a cost/QALY ratio were published in 420 journals through 2006. The mean number of contributing authors was 4.7 +/- 2.4. Medical journals were characterized by a higher number of coauthors, as compared with the economic and health policy journals: 4.8 +/- 2.4 v. 4.2 +/- 2.0, P < 0.001. The lowest average number of coauthors was in Medical Decision Making (3.6) and the highest in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (8.2). The most prolific authors were affiliated with Harvard and Tufts Universities and their affiliated hospitals. The authors identified 4 major research groups that contributed substantially to the field of cost-effectiveness analysis but did not find any substantial academic relationships across these groups. The CEA literature continues to proliferate. Coauthorship trends appear to follow the rapid increase in the mean number of authors found in other publication types.

Ten Simple Rules for a Successful Collaboration

Scientific research has always been a collaborative undertaking, and this is particularly true today. For example, between 1981 and 2001, the average number of coauthors on a paper for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A rose from 3.9 to 8.4 [1]. Why the increase? Biology has always been considered the study of living systems; many of us now think of it as the study of complex systems. Understanding this complexity requires experts in many different domains. In short, these days success in being a biologist depends more on one's ability to collaborate than ever before. The Medical Research Centers in the United Kingdom figured this out long ago, and the new Janelia Farm research campus of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the United States has got the idea, as it strongly promotes intra- and inter-institutional collaborations [2]. Given that collaboration is crucial, how do you go about picking the right collaborators, and how can you best make the collaboration work? Here are ten simple rules based on our experience that we hope will help. Additional suggestions can be found in the references [3,4]. Above all, keep in mind that these rules are for both you and your collaborators. Always remember to treat your collaborators as you would want to be treated yourself—empathy is key.

Patterns of authorship among chairmen of departments of medicine.

This study examines changes in the authorship patterns of chairmen of medicine departments from 1979 through 1990, a time when criteria for authorship were widely debated among medical journal editors. Chairmen were selected to be studied because, due to their leadership position and stature, they are likely to "set the example" for many scholars in the academic medicine community. Computerized literature searches were conducted for all 233 persons who were chairmen during at least one year of the 12-year study period (1979-1990) to determine the average number of publications per chairman per year, the average number of coauthors per article published, the location of the chairman on the published list of authors, and other pertinent data required for a thorough analysis of authorship practices. Statistical methods included repeated-measure analysis, sensitivity analyses, and the use of linear models to analyze trends over time. Among all the chairmen, there was no statistically significant decrease in the average number of articles per year for which the chairmen were last authors, and there was a significant increase in the average number of coauthors per year on published articles. However, factors such as length of chairmanship, frequency of publication, and academic position (i.e., chair, pre-chair, or post-chair) were found to influence patterns of authorship; for example, the 61 individuals who were chairmen for ten years or more had a significant decrease in the number of last-author articles, whereas the 172 individuals who were chairmen for fewer than ten years had a significant increase. Changes in the definition of authorship by medical journal editors did not seem to be important influences on the authorship patterns of the chairmen, since the chairmen did not significantly decrease the number of articles for which they were the last authors, and they significantly increased the number of coauthors of their articles.