Single-author Publications Research Articles

Pediatric cancer research trends and performance in Africa: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2022

BackgroundChildhood cancer rates in Africa are lower than in high-income countries but increasing, making pediatric cancers a significant public health concern. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of the publication of pediatric cancer research in Africa, including publication types and citation trends over time. MethodsThe Science Citation Index Expanded database within the Web of Science Core Collection was searched for articles published from 1991 to 2022 in the topic domain, using title, abstract, author keywords, and KeyWords Plus. Indicators used to assess publications performance of the countries included: total number of publications, single-country publications, collaborative publications with African countries, collaborative publications with non-African countries, first-author publications, corresponding-author publications, and single-author publications. ResultsA total of 4461 relevant documents were retrieved, with 2770 original research articles. Annual number of articles rose from 13 articles in 1991 to 287 in 2022. Most articles were produced by Egypt (28 %) in North Africa, followed by South Africa (20 %) in sub-Saharan Africa. Collaboration between African countries remains low; however, international collaborations have enhanced the average number of citations per article. Most of the first authors (65 %) and corresponding authors (67 %) of these international collaborative articles were affiliated with non-African institutions. ConclusionsThe number of publications sharply increased over the study period and diversely represents African countries. Collaborations with international partners increased citations; however, few of these publications had African first authors. Conversely, inter-institutional partnerships between African countries were relatively low, highlighting the need for better collaboration within Africa.

Patterns and trends of university-industry research collaboration in Ghana between 2011 and 2020

Purpose The ranking of universities and other research-intensive institutions in global ranking systems is based on numerous indicators, including number of articles with external collaboration, number of articles with international collaboration, number of articles with industry collaboration as well as co-patents with industry. The purpose of this paper is to examine university–industry research collaboration in Ghana, with the aim of exploring the relationship between the research output collaborations in the top four universities in Ghana and industry across different geographical scales. Design/methodology/approach This study’s data was obtained from the SciVal database, which drawn its data from the Scopus bibliographic and citation database. The bibliographic and citation data were extracted using a search of the publications affiliated to the University of Ghana, for the period 2011–2020. Findings Key findings demonstrate a constant rise in the number of research publications by the selected universities over time. Research collaboration intensity in the selected universities in terms of co-authored publications was higher as compared to single-authored publications. University–industry research co-authorships were, however, lower when compared to university–university research co-authorships. The university–industry research co-authorships occurred mostly with Europe, Asia-Pacific and North American-based institutions as opposed to African-based institutions. In Ghana, four industry-based institutions were engaged in intensive research with the selected universities. Originality/value This study demonstrates that, for each selected university, it is possible to measure the performance of individual universities in both intra-regional and international collaboration. Such results may be useful in informing policy as well as merit-based public funding of universities in Ghana.

Evolution of Single-Session Therapy: A Bibliometric Analysis.

This bibliometric analysis aimed to explore the publication and citation metrics of the research literature on single-session therapy (SST) to understand its current status, trends, and future prospects. Seventy-five keywords were validated by subject matter experts. Publications from 1972 through September 2023 were extracted from the bibliometric website Lens.org. Publication trends, citation patterns, prominent journals, and influential authors were examined as part of the bibliometric analysis. Citation network analysis, bibliographic coupling of authors, and coauthorship network analysis were also performed. A total of 301 SST publications, including 18 books, 85 book chapters, and 176 journal articles, were found, published by 493 authors. The citation- and publication-related metrics suggested a growing level of subject matter expertise over time. Initially, single-author publications held more prominence than collaborative work, but this pattern shifted. From 2011 to 2020, scholarly interest surged, resulting in 144 publications during this period. This bibliometric analysis, the first systematic exploration of the SST knowledge base, can be used to expand and enrich future SST research.

Impact of authorship on citation rates: a comparative analysis of top 9999 articles in social science

Publishing in high-impact journals scanned in prestigious indexes and getting as many citations as possible have been the sources of recognition and credibility for researchers. On the other hand, there has been seen a change in authorship trends over the years. A key trend observed in authorship these days has been the decline of single-authored publications and the rise of multiple-authored ones. The relationship between authorship and citation rates remains unclear, though. Only a limited scope of studies has compared single and multiple-authored articles regarding citation rates, especially in social sciences. This research aims to determine whether there is a difference between single and multiple-authored social sciences journal articles in terms of citations they receive and, if so, to provide insights into the possible reasons behind this difference. The quantitative and qualitative data collected revealed four findings. First, in the field of social sciences, single-authored articles receive more citations than multiple-authored ones. Second, although multiple authorship brings multiple perspectives, it may harm the unity and cohesion of an article. Third, single-authored articles have a smooth and fluent style, which makes them easier to read. Last, the articles with a single author require more field expertise and deeper analyzes.

Journal of Information Literacy: A Bibliometric Study

Journal of Information Literacy is the Journal published by CILIP information Literacy group. The present study was undertaken to analyze the bibliometric attributes of the journal with respect to growth of articles, authorship patterns, length of articles etc. Total 239 articles were published in the journal from year 2015 to 2022. These were downloaded from the official site of the journal and analyzed. It was found that average 30 articles are published in each volume of the journal. Single author publications were also dominant in the journal.

Academic Collaborations in Asia

No country enjoys a monopoly on the production and transaction of knowledge. Academic collaborations among countries and between institutions have increased in recent decades. The reason seems to be that papers co-authored with international academics are not only cited more often but also have higher impact than single author publications. This article shows that although the Asian countries have a tendency to look westward, academic collaborations among higher education institutions in these countries are on the increase. These have evolved in three distinct but related stages: a) collaborations for national capacity development; b) collaborations as part of the globalisation process; and c) collaborations to enhance academic credibility and national institutions’ global ranking. The article also discusses the emergence of new institutional structures to promote regional collaborations and the role of diaspora in promoting research collaborations in the region.

Bibliometric Network Analysis of Trends in Cyclone Separator Research: Research Gaps and Future Direction

Cyclone separators are used extensively in diverse applications and research domains to collect particle-laden flows. Despite the technological advances in this field, no bibliometric reports on this topic have been documented. Understanding the state of the art in this field is crucial for future research. Using bibliometric mapping techniques, this study examined the quality, quantity, and development of research on cyclone separators. Relevant data were extracted in plain text formats through search queries refined by publication year (2000–2021) and document type (article and review articles). A sample of 487 publications, limited to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database was used for the bibliometric analysis. Data analysis was performed using RStudio software package (R Bibliometrix tool). Of the 487 publications that appeared during this period, China had the highest number, followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, whereas chemical engineering journals dominated the cyclone separator research publications. Collaboration among the researchers was low (MCPR < 0.5000). Furthermore, the pattern of single-author publications was found to outstrip that of the multiple-author publications. The findings suggest that researchers in various parts of the world, particularly Africa and the Middle East, should route their research efforts towards this field, in light of the lack of publications from these regions on this subject. The aim of this study was to serve as a seminal reference for potential technological research directions and collaboration among researchers in this and other related fields.

Does the author’s collaboration mode lead to papers’ different citation impacts? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching

• This study explores the impact of different collaboration modes on the cited frequency of publications. • Compared with the existing works, our PSM-based method is more innovative since we investigate the impact of author’s collaboration mode from a casual view. • Our method reduces the selection bias of samples and makes the variables more balanced. • Research collaboration, especially international collaboration, plays a significant role in promoting the impact of research results in three subfields of computer science. This study explores the impact of different collaboration modes on the cited frequency of publications. Though several studies have obtained some research results, most of them exploit association or regression-based methods, which may not lead to causal conclusions. To overcome the above challenges, we use the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method to analyze and compare the citation frequencies resulting from four groups of collaboration models: international versus domestic, international multilateral versus international bilateral, domestic inter-organizational versus domestic intra-organizational, and domestic multi-author versus domestic single-author. More specifically, we conduct this analysis by exploring the publications with three computer science subfields from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The experimental results show that international collaboration, especially international multilateral collaboration, has a significant role in increasing the frequency of citations to scientific publications, showing that internationalization and collaboration are critical factors in the growth of the impact of the papers. Among national co-publications, collaborative publications within national organizations receive a higher citation impact. Multi-author collaborations significantly increase citation frequency compared to single-author publications. Our heterogeneity analysis across the different subfields of the computer science domain finds that the treatment effects for the three subfields differ modestly and mostly significant from the whole sample. Moreover, besides the implications for developing research policy and scientist collaboration, our study can capture the causal effect between author collaboration patterns and citation frequency to reveal their causal effects.

Forty years of invasion research: more papers, more collaboration...bigger impact?

Scientific research has become increasingly collaborative. We systematically reviewed invasion science literature published between 1980 and 2020 and catalogued in Clarivate Analytics Web of Science to examine patterns of authorship and the relationship between co-authorship and annual citation rates. This study analysed 27,234 publications across 1,218 journals and demonstrated that, as the number of publications in invasion science has exponentially increased, the number of authors publishing per year and the average number of authors per paper have also increased. The rising number of authors per paper coincides with a marked decline of single-authored publications; approximately 92% of publications in this dataset were multi-authored, with single-authored papers comprising less than 4% of all papers published in 2020. The increase in multi-authored papers is likely driven by multiple factors, including the widespread perception that collaboration increases scientific quality. The number of authors is positively correlated with perceived research impact; papers with two or more authors produce research that is more frequently cited compared to single-authored papers, and papers with five or more authors have annual citation rates almost double that of single-authored papers. The complexity, context-dependence and urgency of biological invasions contributed to the rise of the highly collaborative field of modern invasion science.

Women's representation in emergency medicine journals across two decades: 2000-2019.

The primary aim was to determine women's representation as authors in emergency medicine journals in various authorship positions over the last 20years. The secondary aim was to compare the two decades to analyze the development over time. We conducted a retrospective bibliometric analysis of three emergency medicine journals from the online archives of 2000-2019. We analyzed a total of 7939 original research and review articles. Female authorships at the first (25,8%), last (18,7%), and corresponding (21,6%) positions were limited, despite the relatively high presence rate (72,5%). Women authored 13,1% of all single-authored publications. When the number of authors increased, the odds for women as co-authors increased. However, the odds for last and corresponding authorship decreased, while the odds for the first authorship remained unchanged. When two decades were compared, we found that proportions of women as first and corresponding authorship increased ([23,8% vs. 27,0%] p=0.001 and [20,0% vs. 22,6%] p=0.228, respectively) while the representation as the last author remained unchanged ([19,4% vs 18,3%] p=0.006). The presence of women in any authorship position also increased significantly ([66,1% vs. 76,5%] p=0.000) across two decades, with similar trends for the different journals studied. However, the yearly analysis shows that women's representation follows a fluctuating pattern with a minimal increase. When analyzing specific journals, we found that the increase in female authors as first and corresponding authors was limited to Academic Emergency Medicine ([24,7% vs 34,5%] p=0.000 and [21,4% vs 32,1%] p=0.000). Results of this study are promising in showing that the representation of women in emergency medicine publications is rising during the recent decade. Although the academic gender gap has not been closed, steps taken for gender equality in academic emergency medicine are clearly notable.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation.

Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution. In 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals. The authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally. Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.

Studies on Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time of Publications Productivity of Nuclear Medicine Research

Scientometrics is a branch of the library and information science. Scientometric tools can be used to quantify and compare the scientific activities at various levels of collection including institutions, sectors, provinces, and countries. They can also be used to measure research collaborations, map scientific networks, and monitor the evolution of scientific fields. Scientometric indicators give policy-makers objective, reproducible, and therefore verifiable information that goes away from the unreliable. Scientometrics is anxious about the quantitative features and characteristics of science and scientific research. Scientometrics is a restraint, which uses statistical and computational techniques to realize the structure and changing aspects of science. The study shows that the Authorship Pattern in Nuclear Medicine literature fluctuates from single-authored publications to 78 authored publications during the study period 1991-2020. As per the analysis of the table, the highest number of research output by single-authored was 14.06% with 1776 contributions followed by double authored contributions was 13.07% (1651) and three authored contributions were 12.59% (1590).

Harvestmen in the first twenty years: a scientometric analysis of Zootaxa's contribution to opilionology (Arthropoda, Arachnida, Opiliones).

In its first twenty years of existence Zootaxa has been widely utilized among researchers of Opiliones, mainly those coming from Latin American countries, principally Brazil. During 20032020, a total of 141 papers on Opiliones were published in Zootaxa (no papers were published on Opiliones in the first two years, 20012002). The journal has greatly facilitated the dissemination of knowledge on Opiliones, especially with respect to the taxonomy and systematics of harvestmen from the Neotropical Realm. Those 141 papers in Zootaxa include almost a quarter (191) of the new species of Opiliones described between 2001 and 2020, as well as 112 new synonymies. Additionally, 27 of those papers proposed 182 new or restored combinations. A total of 108 authors working in 25 countries have contributed papers to Zootaxa focusing on Opiliones. There is clearly a predominance for collaborative contributions with more than twice as many papers authored by two or more authors compared to single-author publications. In general, the majority of papers deal within the local biogeographic realm (where the lead author resides). Studies of harvestmen from seven of the eight biogeographic realms were published in Zootaxa during 20032020. The largest portion of these contributions were by far focused on the Neotropical opiliofauna, but Australasian, Nearctic, Indomalayan, Palearctic, Afrotropical and Antarctic opiliofauna are covered as well. No papers on Opiliones have been published in Zootaxa by authors representing countries in Africa. We also recognize a strong gender bias in authorship and the current composition of Opiliones subject editors. We will strive to create an inclusive environment and aim to promote diversity of scientists who study Opiliones.

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study

Background: Medical negligence is an increasing public health concern among healthcare providers worldwide as it affects patient safety. It poses a significant risk of patient injury, disease, disability, or death. The WHO has recognized deficiencies in patient safety as a global healthcare issue to be addressed. This study aimed to analyze various components of medical negligence research literature. Methods: Bibliographic data visualizations tools like Biblioshiny (RStudio) and VOSviewer were used besides MS Excel to examine the types of documents, annual scientific production, top contributing authors and their impact, authorship patterns and collaboration, top contributing countries and organizations, most significant sources of publication, most cited documents, and most frequently used keywords. Bibliometric methods were used to analyze the bibliographic records of research output on medical negligence downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. Results: The annual productivity of medical negligence research was increasing gradually. The most productive period for medical negligence research was 2011-2020. Bird contributed the highest number of publications to medical negligence literature while Brennan emerged as the highly cited author. Single-authored publications on medical negligence were not highly cited. The United States was the highest contributing country and the University of South Florida was the highest contributing organization while Harvard University was a highly cited organization. Nine out of the top ten contributing organizations were academic institutions and most of them belonged to the United States. The most important sources of publication on this topic were The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Localio et al. was the most important research article on medical negligence research. Conclusion: Due to increasing attention on this topic, there was a sharp increase in the research output on medical negligence. This is of significance as the WHO set in motion a patient safety program almost two decades ago.

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study.

Background: Medical negligence is an increasing public health concern among healthcare providers worldwide as it affects patient safety. It poses a significant risk of patient injury, disease, disability, or death. The WHO has recognized deficiencies in patient safety as a global healthcare issue to be addressed. This study aimed to analyze various components of medical negligence research literature. Methods: Bibliographic data visualizations tools like Biblioshiny (RStudio) and VOSviewer were used besides MS Excel to examine the types of documents, annual scientific production, top contributing authors and their impact, authorship patterns and collaboration, top contributing countries and organizations, most significant sources of publication, most cited documents, and most frequently used keywords. Bibliometric methods were used to analyze the bibliographic records of research output on medical negligence downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. Results: The annual productivity of medical negligence research was increasing gradually. The most productive period for medical negligence research was 2011-2020. Bird contributed the highest number of publications to medical negligence literature while Brennan emerged as the highly cited author. Single-authored publications on medical negligence were not highly cited. The United States was the highest contributing country and the University of South Florida was the highest contributing organization while Harvard University was a highly cited organization. Nine out of the top ten contributing organizations were academic institutions and most of them belonged to the United States. The most important sources of publication on this topic were The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Localio et al. was the most important research article on medical negligence research. Conclusion: Due to increasing attention on this topic, there was a sharp increase in the research output on medical negligence.This is of significance as the WHO set in motion a patient safety program almost two decades ago.

Bibliometric Analysis of Indian Social Science Publications

Present study attempts to analyse the research of social science researchers in India based on the data retrieved from SCOPUS database for the period 2015 to 2020. The data retrieved comprised 72,100 publications published in 7290 journals. The data is analysed to know the trends pertaining to – Year-wise output of research; type of publications; Authorship patterns; Citations received, Open Access Publications. Top 10 journals contributing to social science research were identified. Descriptive statistics like mean, Standard deviation are used as per the requirement of analysis. MS-Excel is mainly used for analysis of data. Study finds that social science research is showing a growing trend towards collaborative authorship and publications of multiple authors are more frequently cited than the single author publications. Economic and Political Weekly contributed more publications and topped the list of core journals. Application of Bradford's law reveals that 21 journals constitute core journals in social sciences.

One-Year In: COVID-19 Research at the International Level in CORD-19 Data

The appearance of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 radically changed the community of researchers working on coronaviruses since the 2002 SARS epidemic. In 2020, coronavirus-related publications grew by 20 times over the previous two years, with 130,000 more researchers publishing on related topics. The United States, the United Kingdom and China led dozens of nations working on coronavirus prior to the pandemic, but leadership consolidated among these three nations in 2020, which collectively accounted for 50% of all papers, garnering well more than 60% of citations. China took an early lead on COVID-19, but dropped rapidly in production and participation through the year. Europe showed an opposite pattern, beginning slowly but growing in contributions during the year. The rate of internationally collaborative publications dropped overall; single-authored publications grew. For all nations, including China, the number of publications about COVID track closely with the outbreak of COVID-19 cases. Lower-income nations participate very little in COVID-19 research in 2020. Topic maps of internationally collaborative work show the rise of patient care and public health clusters—two topics that were largely absent from coronavirus research in the two years prior to 2020.

A review of research progress and projection of future publication trend amongst the science stream academics of University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka

An increase in emphasis on research productivity evaluation can be discerned commonly in higher educational institutions world over. As far as the Faculty of Science, University of Jaffna is concerned such an in depth study had not been done. This bibliometric study analyzed the research publications produced by the academics of Faculty of Science, University of Jaffna. The objective of this study is to empirically measure the research output during the time period of 2003 to 2018 to find out the department wise output, year wise publication output, authorship pattern and degree of collaboration, media of research communication, relative growth rate, doubling time and to forecast future publication trend of academics. The year wise publication output shows an increasing pattern. But the output growth is not uniform. Findings revealed that Faculty of Science has produced 1359 publications with an annual average of 85 and with the maximum of 139 during the study period. The highest number of publications is from the Department of Zoology (22%). The Department of Botany shows second highest number with 21% of the publications. The lowest number is from the Department of Fisheries (4%). The research output from departments of Physics, Mathematics and Statistics, and Chemistry are more or less the same. Mean value of the degree of collaboration of authors during the overall sixteen years is found to be 0.84. Single author publications are less (15%) than collaborative effort (85%). Abstract form of publications is more in number 836 (61%). Journal article is 501 (37%) and Book form is 22 (2%). A uniform dropping pattern was observed in the mean relative growth rate (RGR) from 0.439 to 0.122 considering four year blocks from 2003 to 2018. The mean doubling time showed an increasing tendency through each consecutive block of four year period. It ranged from 0.89 in the first block to 5.80 in the last block of a total of sixteen year time span. The forecast for 2025 based on least square estimate the number of publications should be 186 if status remains unchanged. Thus Faculty of Science has to endeavor and orient their research efforts more towards publishing journal articles than short communications and giving priority towards interdisciplinary research to obtain greater impacts with the vision of establishing excellence of the institution.

The Size of Author Teams in the Social Sciences

The last decades have seen an unprecedented rise in the size of author teams across all academic disciplines. In the social sciences, existing literature highlights that the number of authors varies greatly between research fields, geographical regions, job positions and experience. Yet we lack comprehensive understandings of the specific effects of these factors. By employing data from a large-scaled worldwide survey, we shed light on this conundrum. Our results show that psychologists as well as information technologists and operations researchers work on average in larger author teams while sociologists and political scientists work in smaller author teams. In addition, we find that Eastern European scholars work in smaller author teams and that postdocs tend to have more single-authored publications. Based on our results we call upon those in charge of search and tenure procedures to focus more on multi-authored publications while keeping the applicants’ different research field and geographical backgrounds in mind. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of academic conferences as they allow scholars to establish fruitful networks for future collaborations.

On publication number in meteor science

A sample of 2649 refereed publications in a sub-field of meteor science in 2000–2018 was analysed. The analysed sample included publications relating to meteors and meteoroids, but not to meteorites or interplanetary dust. The number of publications was stable at approximately 160 annually. The mean number of authors per publication increased from about 3.0 (2000–2009) to 4.7–4.9 (2010–2018). The contribution of the single-author publications was higher than in astronomy as the whole, averaging 31% in the first 10 years and 19% in the last 9 years. The number of researchers doubled from 2000 to 2018, reaching 588 in 2018. The mean normalised number of publications per one researcher per year was 0.43, decreasing slightly in the last 8–10 years, but generally being stable.