Number Of Co-authors Research Articles

Scientometric Analysis: An Emerging Tool in Veterinary and Animal Scientific Research.

The present study is an evaluation of published papers in the field of scientometrics-bibliometrics in veterinary or animal studies. The objective was the quantitative evaluation of the scientific content and the bibliometric details of papers that had used scientometrics as a methodological approach to assess various topics within the broad field of veterinary or animal studies. For the search of published papers, the Web of Science database was used; the search string {ALL FIELDS = [scientometric* OR bibliometric*]} AND {ALL FIELDS = [veterinary OR animal*]} was employed. In all, 163 papers were evaluated individually. There was a progressive increase in the number of papers published annually (slope 0.314 ± 0.063) which originated from 58 countries, mostly from the United States of America (n = 24) and 306 organizations. The databases employed most frequently for record search were the Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed (in 105, 60 and 21 papers, respectively); the median timespan of the searches was 25 years (interquartile range (IQR): 31) and the median number of records was 1082.5 (IQR: 4708) (min.: 14, max.: 207,894). The papers were published in 106 journals (Animals (n = 21), Scientometrics (n = 8)), classified into 56 Web of Science categories ('veterinary sciences' (n = 26 journals)). Searches related to 88 different topics. There were 517 unique keywords in the papers, among which 'bibliometric(s)' (n = 45) occurred most often. The median number of co-authors per paper was 4 (IQR: 3) (min.: 1, max.: 17), with a total of 689 individual authors. Most papers (n = 110 (67.5%)) were published under open access. The median number of citations received per paper was 4 (IQR: 9) (max.: 68) and the h-index was 21. In multivariable analysis, the higher number of cited references in papers and the inclusion of specific animal species in the record search emerged as significant for the number of citations received per paper yearly.

The multifaceted factors affecting the publication times of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus articles: what has changed in two decades

AbstractExpeditious publication is an important factor when considering publishing ophthalmic research. We investigated the factors associated with shorter publication times in pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus (POS). We analyzed 2487 POS articles from 8 ophthalmology journals publishing POS articles. Time from submission to acceptance, from acceptance to publication, and from submission to publication were calculated for each article. We compared trends over time of factors affecting the publication times from 2002 to 2007 and those from 2014 to 2018. Median peer review durations were 156 days from submission to acceptance; 79 days from acceptance to publication, and 244 days from submission to publication. The American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Strabismus had the shortest submission to publication time. Authors from Africa, East Europe, Central and South America received the fastest processing time in all time categories, although most authors were based in North America and UK. All-time intervals decreased annually, significantly more during the first decade. In the study's second period, more co-authors and affiliated departments correlated with shorter review times. Manuscripts in higher Impact Factor (IF) journals had faster publication times in the first decade. Female senior authors faced longer submission-to-acceptance times in the first decade. This gender gap disappeared in the second period. A general improvement occurred with most journals, specifically those journals with a higher number of co-authors and affiliated departments, indicating an efficient collaborative authorship. Low-income regions benefited from comparatively shorter time intervals. The gender gap in senior authorship diminished over time.

Using citation-based indicators to compare bilateral research collaborations

A standard approach to compare research collaborations between pairs of countries is to look at the citations accrued by all publications with authors from both countries. This approach is often misleading, as aspects only marginally related to the collaboration between the country pairs may bias the result considerably. Among them, the main aspect is the number of co-authors. Publications with many co-authors have on average higher citation impact. If the mix of co-publications between two countries has a high share of such publications, the citation impact will likely be high. Moreover, publications with many co-authors tend to include many countries and are thus only to a limited extent characterising the actual collaboration between the selected pair of countries. The purpose of this study is to develop methods for comparisons of country pairs useful for policy makers, who use SciVal or similar tools. Five methods to compare international collaboration are developed and tested. It is noted that the standard approach for comparisons deviates the most. Fractional methods to calculate the citation impact are recommended, as they allow for the use of citations to all co-publications with a higher weight on the citations to publications in which the country pair dominates. As fractionalisation is laborious to carry out based on SciVal data, a more convenient option is also suggested, which is to use co-publications with maximum 10 co-authors. Elsevier should introduce better methods for comparisons of international collaborations and, until this has been made, help its users understand the limitations of the standard approach featured in SciVal. A by-product of the study is that international co-publications deliver a higher citation impact also when publications with the same number of co-authors are compared.

Determinants of Operations Management Faculty Salary: Is Publishing in “A” Journals the “Bottom Line”?

This study investigates the determinants of salary for operations management scholars. Is it as some opine that the only thing that matters is the publication count in “A” journals? How do the full range of activities: research, teaching, service, and administration, affect salary? The present research seeks to shed light on these questions and is predicated on a data set that consists of the research, teaching, and service outcomes, along with salary, for a full census of operations management faculty at 22 public universities (227 faculty) for base, 9-month salary and a subset of 15 universities (150 faculty) for total annual compensation. The results demonstrate partial support for the hypotheses that only “A” publications are financially rewarded, with publications in Production and Operations Management having the highest correlation with salary. The salary reward for publishing in “A” journals is unaffected by number of coauthors. Publications in other academic journals, top-tier practitioner journals, and top journals in sister-fields, and measures of impact, such as citations, H-index, and research awards provide no additional explanatory value of salary. Likewise, service and teaching awards do not add explanatory value. Female Full Professors are paid roughly $23,000 less in base salary than their male counterparts. Non-publishing factors that significantly contribute to salary include changing university affiliations (only for Associate and Full Professors), taking on administrative duties, as well as certain qualitative measures such as achieving Fellow status at the Production and Operations Management Society.

Trends in female authorship in Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica from 2005 to 2021

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the trend of female representation in publishing in the Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica (AAB) from 2005 to 2021. In recent years, there has been an increased focus on gender equality and disparity. However, as far as we know, an evaluation of the Belgian literature in this regard has not been undertaken before. Methods: The study’s main objective is on determining the gender of the first author, with the gender of the second and last authorship position being secondary outcomes. Additionally, the study aimed to investigate whether other variables, such as the field in which the article was published, study type, the country of origin (of the first author), the first author’s academic degree, the number of authors, and coauthors’ gender, are related to these outcomes. Results: In total 475 manuscripts were included for data collection, of which 146 (30.7%) had a female first author, 94 (19.8%) had a female second author, and 61 (12.8%) had a female last authorship position. We demonstrated a trend towards greater gender equality in the AAB over time, with more women occupying first and second authorship positions. However, we observed a stagnation in female last authorship positions, with only a small increase of last female authorship of 1.16% reaching 7.41% in 2021. Further analysis showed that female last authorship affected first female authorship. As the number of authors increases, the representation of women (particularly for the last author) diminishes compared to their male colleagues. Lastly, the analysis of gender in relation to the number of coauthors showed that male authors are more likely to publish alone (as a single author) compared to their female colleagues. The AAB predominantly published case reports, observational studies, and narrative reviews, all of which had a higher number of male authors than female authors. The study also uncovered the absence of female first authors in the four systematic reviews published. Conclusion: From 2005 to 2021, the number of female first authors in the AAB has increased, and there has been a small but steady rise in female last authorship position. However, articles published in the AAB still exhibit a lower representation of female first authors. It is crucial to conduct further research and raise attention to gender disparity in anesthetic – and per extension in scientific - literature.

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.

Bibliometric Analysis on Geriatric Rehabilitation in Scopus Database (1948-2022)

Background: Aging presents both challenges and opportunities. It will increase demand for health care to restore function or enhance residual functional capability and improving the quality of life in older people. The objective of the present investigation was to offer perspectives into the worldwide research production concerning the geriatric rehabilitation. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted utilizing the Scopus database covering the period of 1948 through 2022. Several methods and instruments were employed to scrutinize and illustrate the data. Results: The search strategy found 6630 articles. The United States was the most active country with the highest number of coauthors. VA Medical Center was the most active organization with Becker the most active author in Geriatric Rehabilitation research with 40 articles from Germany, followed by Hauer and Trabucchi with 39 and 37 articles, respectively. The most frequent words in this field were “rehabilitation, elderly, geriatrics, stroke, hip fracture, aged, dementia and activities of daily living.” The most influential articles were specified. In terms of journals, BMC Geriatrics was the most active, while the most cited article was “Gait Variability and Fall Risk in Community-Living Older Adults: A 1-Year Prospective Study” by Hausdorff in 2001. Conclusions: Geriatric rehabilitation has received special attention in the last decade. Current studies highlight the importance and understanding of the unique needs of older adults. The core for this area that includes impairment related to physical, cognitive, and functional needs is considered. Hence, health care practitioners and scholars must prioritize geriatric rehabilitation as a specialty and comprehend the optimal strategy for supporting elderly individuals to maintain their independence as much as feasible.

A Bibliometric Analysis on Power Analysis Studies

The primary purpose of this study was to establish a theoretical framework for studies on power analysis conducted in the fields of education, psychology, and statistics for researchers. Therefore, the bibliometric characteristics of publications related to power analysis in the Web of Science database were analyzed using the Biblioshiny interface in the R programming language. The study identified influential studies on power analysis in education, psychology, and statistics. It also determined which concepts were associated with power analysis over the years and the authors and countries that contributed to the advancement of research regarding this concept. This research was conducted based on 515 studies that were included following specific criteria. It was found that the studies published between 1970 and 2023 were obtained from 183 sources, with a total of 1246 authors. There were 98 single-authored studies, and the number of co-authors per study was 2.88 on average. According to Bradford’s Law, Behavior Research Methods, Psychological Methods, and Multivariate Behavioral Research were the most productive journals concerning power analysis, taking up a larger proportion within the core sources compared to other journals. These journals were among the top three in terms of the number of publications, h-index, total number of citations, and publication rankings. These journals were followed by Structural Equation Modeling-A Multidisciplinary Journal, Frontiers in Psychology, and Educational and Psychological Measurement. An examination of studies on power analysis in education, psychology, and statistics according to Lotka's Law indicated that the relevant literature is insufficient and needs further development.

Determining the Characteristics of Papers That Garner the Most Significant Impact: A Deep Dive into Mexican Engineering Publications

Engineers make things, make things work, and make things work better and easier. This kind of knowledge is crucial for innovation, and much of the explicit knowledge developed by engineers is embodied in scientific publications. In this paper, we analyze the evolution of publications and citations in engineering in a middle-income country such as Mexico. Using a database of all Mexican publications in Web of Science from 2004 to 2017, we explore the characteristics of publications that tend to have the greatest impact; this is the highest number of citations. Among the variables studied are the type of collaboration (no collaboration, domestic, bilateral, or multilateral), the number of coauthors and countries, controlling for a coauthor from the USA, and the affiliation institution of the Mexican author(s). Our results emphasize the overall importance of joint international efforts and suggest that publications with the highest number of citations are those with multinational collaboration (coauthors from three or more countries) and when one of the coauthors is from the USA. Another interesting result is that single-authored papers have had a higher impact than those written through domestic collaboration.

Does scientific collaboration variety influence the impact of articles?

This study attempts to investigate the relationship between scientific collaboration variety and scientific output in a specific field. The indicators were set from co-author variety (co-author’s academic background variety and co-author’s network structure variety as independent variables) and article impact (academic impact and social impact as dependent variables). Considering other factors affecting the research results, we also set up control variables (the number of co-authors, proportion of high-level authors and ratio of highly productive authors). We used the Scopus database as the data source and collected all articles published in the dental field in 2018 as data. We used multiple linear regression analyses to examine the impact of co-authors’ variety on the article impact. The results demonstrate that the relationship between scientific collaboration variety and article impact is complicated, which depends on the type of variety of the cooperative scientist. Conversely, the same variety indicator presents the same results as the correlation analysis of academic and social impact articles. The findings indicate that authors can improve their scientific output by collaborating with similar authors of academic backgrounds or stable groups of authors, which provides guidance for scientific cooperation.

Factors Affecting Publication Impact and Citation Trends Over Time

Objective – The researchers investigated whether faculty use of the references in articles had a relationship with the later impact of the publication (measured by citation counts). The paper also reported on additional factors that may influence the later impact of publications. Methods – This researchers analyzed data for articles published by faculty at a large public university from 1995 to 2015. Data were obtained from the Scopus abstract and citation database and analyzed using SPSS27 to conduct Pearson’s correlations and regression analysis. Results – The number of references included in publications and the number of citations articles received each year following publication have increased over time. Publications received a greater number of citations annually in their 6th to 10th years, compared to the first 5. The number of references included in an article had a weak correlation with the number of citations an article received. Grant funded articles included more references and later received more citations than non-grant funded articles. Several variables, including number of references used in an article, the number of co-authors, and whether the article was grant funded, were shown to correlate with the later impact of a publication. Conclusion – Based on the results, researchers should seek out grant funding and generously incorporate literature into their co-authored publications to increase their publications' potential for future impact. These factors may influence article quality, resulting in more citations over time. Further research is needed to better understand their influence and the influence of other factors.

Impact of international collaboration on dentistry related papers published in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

ObjectiveThis bibliographic analysis was designed to review all dental publications in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and evaluate the effect of international collaboration on the impact of published articles. MethodsThe Web of Science (WOS) database was used to extract all related published articles in the KSA from 1982 to 2021. The keywords were connected using Boolean Operators to download related articles. Downloaded articles were screened according to the following inclusion criteria: collaboration journal category, journal discipline, number of citations, number of authors, and impact factor. After applying the inclusion criteria and excluding single-author articles, 5,689 documents were included in the final analysis. The chi-square test and two-independent samples t-test were used to determine the statistical significance between the variables. ResultsA significantly higher proportion of articles with international collaboration (51.4%) were published in dental journals than those published nationally (43.3%) or within the institutional level (41.8%) (P < 0.0001). In addition, the average number of citations (9.28 ± 23.8) ranged from 0 to 749, received by an article and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published, significantly higher in the case of internationally collaborative work compared with national or within institutional collaboration (P < 0.0001). ConclusionInternational collaboration positively affected the impact factor, number of citations, and quartile rank of published articles. Moreover, the number of co-authors in different countries contributes to the international collaboration effect.

Open access and international coauthorship: A longitudinal study of the United Arab Emirates research output

Abstract We investigate the interplay between open access (OA), coauthorship, and international research collaboration. Although previous research has dealt with these factors separately, there is a knowledge gap in how these interact within a single data set. The data includes all Scopus-indexed journal articles published over 11 years (2009–2019) where at least one of the authors has an affiliation to a United Arab Emirates institution (30,400 articles in total). To assess the OA status of articles, we utilized Unpaywall data for articles with a digital object identifier, and manual web searches for articles without. There was consistently strong growth in publication volume counts as well as shares of OA articles across the years. The analysis provides statistically significant results supporting a positive relationship between a higher number of coauthors (in particular international) and the OA status of articles. Further research is needed to investigate potentially explaining factors for the relationship between coauthorship and increased OA rate, such as implementation of national science policy initiatives, varying availability of funding for OA publishing in different countries, patterns in adoption of various OA types in different coauthorship constellations, and potentially unique discipline-specific patterns as they relate to coauthorship and OA rate.

A Social Network Analysis of Publishing Networks in the “Big 5” Journals in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Prior research has frequently employed various methods for investigating issues surrounding publication productivity and authorship, including examinations of the number of co-authors in peer-reviewed journal articles and the order of authorship. Relying on 5 years of data from publications from the “Big 5” journals in criminology and criminal justice (i.e., Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime &amp; Delinquency, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Crime &amp; Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly), the current study extends this extant research by providing a social network analysis of publishing networks. Results are consistent with previous findings, suggesting that publishing networks are largely decentralized, although key networks and definitive leaders in these networks exist as well. In addition, several authors were identified that have significant leverage over the publishing networks. Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.

31. How Many Plastic Surgeons Does it Take to Write A Paper? A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Authorship Inflation

PURPOSE: Publications measure academic productivity; they can affect research funding and career trajectory. There is a trend of increased authors per publication in surgery journals. We sought to determine whether authorship inflation exists in the plastic surgery literature and identify independent predictors of number of co-authors. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of articles published in three high impact plastic surgery journals at 2-year intervals between 2010 and 2020. For each publication, we collected details on year of publication, article type, plastic surgery topic, gender of senior author, geographical origin of study, and number of authors. RESULTS: A total of 5593 articles were collected. The median number of authors per article increased over time (rho 0.199, p<0.001). Cohort studies, basic science investigations, literature reviews, and systematic reviews experienced a significant increase in the number of authors per article from 2010 to 2020 (p<0.001). The rise in number of authors was consistent across all plastic surgery topics (p<0.001). Both male and female senior authors had a significant increase in the number of co-authors (p<0.001). The regression model demonstrated that article type (cohort studies, basic science investigations, and systematic reviews) and geographical region (East Asia, Europe, North America, and South America) predicted more co-authors, whereas plastic surgery topics (aesthetic and hand surgery) predicted fewer authors. CONCLUSION: The number of authors per publication is increasing in plastic surgery. Author proliferation was consistent across most article types and unaffected by gender. Possible reasons behind this trend include research complexity, increased collaboration, or gift authorship.

A Chinese academic tradition examined in the context of international academic communication: exploratory research into Shang Que articles

PurposeAcademic contention occurs when research evidence is amenable to more than one interpretation. China has a long tradition of Shang Que (商榷), in which authors argue for their preferred interpretation. The modern form of this tradition is the Shang Que article, which often takes the form of research papers in Chinese-language journals and which tends to be question-oriented. Shang Que articles usually take the views of a particular author or article as the focus of independent and complete criticism by another, independent, academic. This paper explains the role of Shang Que articles in Chinese scholarship and their influence on international academia.Design/methodology/approachA bibliometric analysis was used to explore the characteristics and evolution of Chinese Shang Que articles using 30,577 articles published between 1979 and 2018. Microsoft Excel and Gephi were used for data analysis and visualization.FindingsFindings suggest a decline in the number of Shang Que articles and an increase in the number of co-authors. Shang Que articles remained particularly prominent in Philosophy and Humanities and Social Sciences, where they focused on local issues such as classical Chinese, the Sinicization of Marxism and Chinese literature. This suggests that the number of Shang Que articles is related to the degree of internationalization of a research field.Originality/valueShang Que articles, which have been influenced by academic paradigms in English, are a fusion of China's Shang Que tradition and of the modern academic system. Through considering Shang Que articles, this paper explores the benefits of local academic traditions in non-English-speaking cultures.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Research into Internet Gaming Disorders in Korea

After the concept of "Internet addiction" was first proposed in 2004, "Internet gaming disorder" (IGD) was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) as a disorder requiring further research. IGD is prevalent in South Korea, and many studies have been conducted on the disorder. Previous studies have helped in understanding various aspects of IGD, but a comprehensive understanding of the research trends is required to identify research gaps. Therefore, we conducted a bibliometric review of all published IGD studies in South Korea. For the identification of articles, the Web of Science database was used. Data analysis was performed using Biblioshiny. A total of 330 publications were included in the analysis. The average number of citations per document was 17.12. These publications were written by a total of 658 authors, and the number of coauthors per document was 5.07. The years with the most publications were 2018 (n = 57), 2017 (n = 45), and 2019 (n = 40). The top three journals containing publications were the Journal of Behavioral Addictions (n = 46), Frontiers in Psychiatry (n = 19), and Psychiatry Investigation (n = 14). In a keyword analysis (apart from "IGD", "internet addiction", and "addiction"), the keywords "adolescent" (n = 31), "self-control" (n = 11), and "impulsivity" (n = 11) were included. T. This bibliometric analysis explores and summarizes the publications on IGD in South Korea. The results are expected to provide researchers with insights for further studies into IGD.

How Many Plastic Surgeons Does It Take to Write an Article? A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis of Authorship Inflation.

Publications measure academic productivity; they can affect research funding and career trajectory. There is a trend of increased authors per publication in surgery journals. We sought to determine whether authorship inflation exists in the plastic surgery literature and identify independent predictors of the number of co-authors. We performed a bibliometric analysis of articles published in 3 high impact plastic surgery journals at 2-year intervals between 2010 and 2020. For each publication, we collected details on year of publication, article type, plastic surgery topic, gender of senior author, geographical origin of study, and the number of authors. A total of 5593 articles were collected. The median number of authors per article increased over time (ρ = 0.20, P < 0.001). Cohort studies, basic science investigations, literature reviews, and systematic reviews experienced a significant increase in the number of authors per article from 2010 to 2020 (P < 0.001). The rise in the number of authors was consistent across all plastic surgery topics (P < 0.001). Both male and female senior authors had a significant increase in the number of co-authors (P < 0.001). The regression model demonstrated that article type (cohort studies, basic science investigations, and systematic reviews) predicted more co-authors, whereas geographical region (Africa, Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and United Kingdom and Ireland) and plastic surgery topics (aesthetic and hand surgery) predicted fewer authors. The number of authors per publication is increasing in plastic surgery. Author proliferation was consistent across most article types and unaffected by gender. Possible reasons behind this trend include research complexity, increased collaboration, or gift authorship.

Impact of the number and rank of coauthors on h-index and π-index. The part-impact method

The publication activity of 20 Price-medallists was analysed by calculating several scientometric indices from data of elite sets of their publications. The following elite sets (i.e. most cited papers within the total) were obtained: π-set (where the number of papers is equal to √P, and P is the number of total papers), h-set (in which the number of papers equals to the Hirsch index), 2π-set, 2h-set, and the set of papers (ECP) which are cited more frequently than the average. The percentage share of papers and citations was found to increase in the mentioned rank of the elite sets, except ECP-set. The number of publications and citations in the elite sets was calculated also by different part-impact methods for sharing credit among the coauthors. The applied methods take into account the number or number and rank of coauthors in the by-line of the papers. It was demostrated that any of the methods changes both π and h-index significantly related to the value calculated by attributing total credit to the evaluated individual. The changes strongly depend on the number of coauthors and rank of the studied author in the by-line of the papers. Consequently, in assessing personal contribution of scientists by scientometric indices, sharing credit of publications and citations among the coauthors of publications seems to be highly relevant. Selecting the appropriate impact sharing method depends on the purpose of the evaluation.

A machine learning approach to quantify gender bias in collaboration practices of mathematicians.

Collaboration practices have been shown to be crucial determinants of scientific careers. We examine the effect of gender on coauthorship-based collaboration in mathematics, a discipline in which women continue to be underrepresented, especially in higher academic positions. We focus on two key aspects of scientific collaboration-the number of different coauthors and the number of single authorships. A higher number of coauthors has a positive effect on, e.g., the number of citations and productivity, while single authorships, for example, serve as evidence of scientific maturity and help to send a clear signal of one's proficiency to the community. Using machine learning-based methods, we show that collaboration networks of female mathematicians are slightly larger than those of their male colleagues when potential confounders such as seniority or total number of publications are controlled, while they author significantly fewer papers on their own. This confirms previous descriptive explorations and provides more precise models for the role of gender in collaboration in mathematics.