Co-authorship Rate Research Articles

Multiplicative versus fractional counting methods for co-authored publications. The case of the 500 universities in the Leiden Ranking

This paper studies the assignment of responsibility to the participants in the case of co-authored scientific publications. In the conceptual part, we establish that one shortcoming of the full counting method is its incompatibility with the use of additively decomposable citation impact indicators. In the empirical part of the paper, we study the consequences of adopting the address-line fractional or multiplicative counting methods. For this purpose, we use a Web of Science dataset consisting of 3.6 million articles published in the 2005–2008 period, and classified into 5119 clusters. Our research units are the 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the CWTS Leiden Ranking. Citation impact is measured using the Mean Normalized Citation Score, and the Top 10% indicators. The main findings are the following. Firstly, although a change of counting methods alters co-authorship and citation impact patterns, cardinal differences between co-authorship rates and between citation impact values are generally small. Nevertheless, such small differences generate considerable re-rankings between universities. Secondly, the universities that are more favored by the adoption of a fractional rather than a multiplicative approach are those with a large co-authorship rate for the citation distribution as a whole, a small co-authorship rate in the upper tail of this distribution, a large citation impact performance, and a large number of solo publications.

List of Reviewers

This paper studies the assignment of responsibility to the participants in the case of co-authored scientific publications. In the conceptual part, we establish that one shortcoming of the full counting method is its incompatibility with the use of additively decomposable citation impact indicators. In the empirical part of the paper, we study the consequences of adopting the address-line fractional or multiplicative counting methods. For this purpose, we use a Web of Science dataset consisting of 3.6 million articles published in the 2005–2008 period, and classified into 5119 clusters. Our research units are the 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the CWTS Leiden Ranking. Citation impact is measured using the Mean Normalized Citation Score, and the Top 10% indicators. The main findings are the following. Firstly, although a change of counting methods alters co-authorship and citation impact patterns, cardinal differences between co-authorship rates and between citation impact values are generally small. Nevertheless, such small differences generate considerable re-rankings between universities. Secondly, the universities that are more favored by the adoption of a fractional rather than a multiplicative approach are those with a large co-authorship rate for the citation distribution as a whole, a small co-authorship rate in the upper tail of this distribution, a large citation impact performance, and a large number of solo publications.

Co-Authorship and Scientific Publications: A Case Study at Shahed University

The purpose of this research is to study co-authorship and scientific publications of faculty members at Shahed University, located in Iran, during the period of 2000 to 2008. Scientometrics methods were used to evaluate scientific publications. The rate of co-authorship is high (91.27%) in comparison with single authorship (8.73%). Moreover, there is a great number of scientific collaborations among Shahed University faculty members but international collaboration is low. The article provides insight into co-authorship at Shahed University and provides useful information for researchers who are seeking to learn about the collaboration in scientific works by Iranian researchers at the national and international levels.

An assessment of patterns of co-authorship for academic accountants within premier journals: Evidence from 1979–2004

Abstract This study examines several important aspects of co-authorship by accounting researchers in premier journals for the years 1979–2004. Logistic regression analysis reveals that collaboration is growing significantly. This increasing trend of co-authorship is substantially greater in premier non-accounting journals than premier accounting journals. The extent of co-authorship within taxation research is notably less than financial, managerial, or auditing research. On the other hand, non-specialized articles have significantly higher co-authorship ratios. Meanwhile, trends of co-authorship are not statistically different between U.S. academic researchers and their international academic cohorts. However, co-authorship rates for non-academic researchers are significantly less than academic researchers which may indicate that the ‘publish or perish’ phenomena for academic researchers is a more significant factor of increased co-authorship rates than other universal factors, e.g., decreased cost of sophisticated communication technology. Also, we find no evidence of university tier level or doctoral granting status effects on the co-authorship ratios of researchers.

Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU

The increase of co-authored papers is a recognized fact. At the same time the factors influencing this change is not well known. This article aims at studying the patterns of EU science co-authorships. We analyzed articles published in 18 EU countries and their intra-EU (within EU) and extra-EU (with partners outside EU) co-publication pattern in five scientific fields. The results point to a Europeanisation of shared co-authorship rather than an internationalization outside Europe. Smaller countries co-authored more with other EU countries than bigger countries while the co-authorship rate with extra-EU partners was not dependent of the country’s size. The co-authorship patterns were also found to depend on the scientific field. Engineering and Computing & Technology was the field with the highest level of national publications and Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences the field with the highest level of both intra-EU and extra-EU collaborations. These results support the view that a single market for research is developing within the EU with a seamless extension of national systems into other Member States ones.

Peers and Spheres of Influence: Situating Rob Kling

In this article we employ a number of bibliometric techniques to capture Rob Kling's intellectual impact and influences over the course of his varied career. We analyze his many publications in terms of type, topic, impact, and rate of co-authorship. We provide a detailed deconstruction of his citation identity (all those scholars whom he cited) and also his citation image makers (all those scholars who cited his work). In addition, we analyze acknowledgment data to gain deeper insights into the sociocognitive networks that sustained, and were sustained by Kling throughout his career.

Determinants of Scholarly Productivity among Male and Female Economists

A model of the determinants of articles produced by male and female economists is estimated using data from a survey of members of the American Economics Association. Years of experience, coauthorship rates, gender, research‐teaching orientation of the respondent's institution, and teaching loads are shown to be important estimators. Coauthorship appears to increase the overall production of articles and may help explain why collaboration among economists has increased in recent years. Males produce, on average, about seven more articles than females, with approximately 59% of gender‐specific differentials left unexplained by the variables included in the model. (JEL JØ)