Single-author Articles Research Articles

Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Impact of Single-Authored Articles in Brazilian Journals of Information

This research aims to describe the scientific impact of single-authored articles published in Brazilian journals in information-related fields (Archival, Library Science, Information Science and Museology) between 2009 and 2017. This is a bibliometric study of a descriptive character, with an applied quantitative methodological approach. The ABCDM database, the Harzing’s Publish or Perish software and the Lattes Platform were used for data collection, which were then fed into and analyzed as Excel table and SPSS (t-test). From 1680 single-authored articles, 313 were randomly selected for study. Main results regarding the authorship were: 55.12% of authors had more single-authored articles than multiple-authored articles; 67.36% of the most cited articles were single-authored. Main results regarding the articles were: 35.10% of single-authored articles were the most frequently cited among an author’s entire body of work; in 49.67% of the cases, the average number of citations of single-authored articles exceeded the authors’ total average number of citations; in 50.00% of cases, the average number of citations of single-authored articles exceeded the average number of citations of multiple-authored articles. The average number of citations of single-authored articles exceeded the average number of citations of multiple-authored articles and of articles in general.

Research on Authentic Leadership in Türkiye: A Descriptive Content Analysis Study

This research aims to determine the trends in the studies on authentic leadership carried out between 2010 and 2022 in Türkiye. Descriptive content analysis, one of the systematic review types, was applied in the research. As a result of the reviews made based on the research criteria, 144 studies were obtained. The “Authentic Leadership Publication Classification Form” developed by the researcher was utilised as the data collection tool. Data was analysed using frequencies, percentages, tables and figures (graphs). As a result of the research, it was determined that the studies on authentic leadership were mainly single-author articles and written by male researchers. It was observed that theses on authentic leadership were mostly written at Hacettepe University and İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, while the articles were mostly published in the Journal of Academic Social Sciences and the Journal of Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences. It was determined that the highest number of studies on authentic leadership were carried out in 2019, the number of studies published in the Turkish language and the field of business administration was higher, and the most studied topics along with authentic leadership were psychological capital, organisational commitment, innovation, organisational citizenship and job satisfaction, respectively. It was also identified that the quantitative method and relational screening model were frequently applied in the research and that the participants mainly consisted of the employees of the companies and enterprises. The sampling method was not mentioned in most of the research, but the studies specifying the sampling method mostly benefited from the random and convenience sampling methods. Moreover, it was noticed that the studies were mostly conducted with varying numbers of participants, ranging from 201 to 300, using surveys and scales as the data collection tools and SPSS as the statistical software.

Exponential authorship inflation in neuroscience and psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s.

How many researchers does it take to publish an article in top journals in neuroscience and psychology? Manually coding 42,580 articles spanning 1879-2021 from 32 journals, we examined the evolution of authorship size and its rate of change. Moreover, we assessed the driving forces behind these changes. We found that, starting from the 1950s but not earlier, the average authorship size per article in neuroscience and psychology has increased exponentially, growing by 50% and 31% over the last decade and reaching a record high of 10.4 and 4.8 authors in 2021, respectively. Single-authored articles have become a rarity today, particularly in primary research articles: 1.7% in neuroscience and 2.2% in psychology in 2019-2021 (vs. 5.7% and 11.2% in review articles). With the withering of sole authors rises a new type of authorship, group authors (e.g., a consortium). Group authorship was rare before 2000, but in 2019-2021, it appeared in 4.1% of articles in neuroscience, mostly in genetics, neuroimaging, and disease-outnumbering single-authored articles for the first time-and 0.7% in psychology, mostly in developmental and clinical research. The exponential inflation in authorship size could not be attributed to behaviors of professional editors in profit-oriented journals but aligns with a hybrid epistemic-behavioral-cultural account-an account that integrates multidimensional factors, including increased research complexity, the benefits of collaboration, the rise of government-funded research, changing norms in authorship practices, and biased incentives in evaluation. These findings suggest troubling implications for research reproducibility, innovations, equity/diversity, and ethics, calling for policy deliberations to address potential negative ramifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

In health research publications, the number of authors is strongly associated with collective self-citations but less so with citations by others

ObjectiveThis study investigated the associations between the number of authors and collective self-citations versus citations by others.Study design and settingWe analyzed 88,594 health science articles published in 2015 and citations they received until 2020. The main variables were the number of authors, the number of citations by co-authors (collective self-citations), and the number of citations by others.ResultsThe number of authors correlated more strongly with the number of citations by co-authors than with citations by others (Spearman r 0.31 vs. 0.23; mutually adjusted r 0.26 vs. 0.12). The percentage of self-citations among all citations was 10.6% for single-authored articles, and increased gradually with the number of authors to 34.8% for ≥ 50 authors. Collective self-citations increased the proportion of articles reaching or exceeding 30 total citations by 0.7% for single-authored articles, but by 11.6% for articles written by ≥ 50 authors.ConclusionsIf citations by others reflect scientific utility, then another mechanism must explain the excess of collective self-citations observed for multi-authored articles. The results support the hypothesis that the authors’ own motivations explain this excess. The evaluation of scientific utility should also be based on citations by others, excluding collective self-citations.

Authorship and citation patterns of highly cited biomedical researchers: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundScientific productivity is often evaluated by means of cumulative citation metrics. Different metrics produce different incentives. The H-index assigns full credit from a citation to each coauthor, and thus may encourage multiple collaborations in mid-list author roles. In contrast, the Hm-index assigns only a fraction 1/k of citation credit to each of k coauthors of an article, and thus may encourage research done by smaller teams, and in first or last author roles. Whether H and Hm indices are influenced by different authorship patterns has not been examined.MethodsUsing a publicly available Scopus database, I examined associations between the numbers of research articles published as single, first, mid-list, or last author between 1990 and 2019, and the H-index and the Hm-index, among 18,231 leading researchers in the health sciences.ResultsAdjusting for career duration and other article types, the H-index was negatively associated with the number of single author articles (partial Pearson r -0.06) and first author articles (-0.08), but positively associated with the number of mid-list (0.64) and last author articles (0.21). In contrast, all associations were positive for the Hm-index (0.04 for single author articles, 0.18 for first author articles, 0.24 for mid-list articles, and 0.46 for last author articles).ConclusionThe H-index and the Hm-index do not reflect the same authorship patterns: the full-credit H-index is predominantly associated with mid-list authorship, whereas the partial-credit Hm-index is driven by more balanced publication patterns, and is most strongly associated with last-author articles. Since performance metrics may act as incentives, the selection of a citation metric should receive careful consideration.

Global Trend on Machine Learning in Helicobacter within One Decade: A Scientometric Study.

This study aims to create a science map, provide structural analysis, investigate evolution, and identify new trends in Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) research articles. All Helicobacter publications were gathered from the Web of Science (WoS) database from August 2010 to 2021. The data were required for bibliometric analysis. The bibliometric analysis was performed with Bibliometrix R Tool. Bibliometric data were analyzed using the Bibliometrix Biblioshiny R-package software. A total of 17,413 articles were reviewed and analyzed, with descriptive characteristics of the H. pylori literature included. In journals, 21,102 keywords plus and 20,490 author keywords were reported. These articles were also written by 56,106 different authors, with 262 being single-author articles. Most authors' abstracts, titles, and keywords included "Helicobacter-pylori." Since 2010, the total number of H. pylori-related publications has been decreasing. Gut, PLOS ONE, and Gastroenterology are the most influential H. pylori journals, according to source impact. China, the United States, and Japan are the countries with most affiliations and subjects. In addition, Seoul National University has published the most articles about H. pylori. According to the cloud word plot, the authors' most frequently used keywords are gastric cancer (GC), H. pylori, gastritis, eradication, and inflammation. "Helicobacter pylori" and "infection" have the steepest slopes in terms of the upward trend of words used in articles from 2010 to 2021. Subjects such as GC, intestinal metaplasia, epidemiology, peptic ulcer, eradication, and clarithromycin are included in the diagram's motor theme section, according to strategic diagrams. According to the thematic evolution map, topics such as Helicobacter pylori infection, B-cell lymphoma, CagA, Helicobacter pylori, and infection were largely discussed between 2010 and 2015. From 2016 to 2021, the top topics covered included Helicobacter pylori, H. pylori infection, and infection.

The production of gender-specific scholarly literature in Romania: the weak institutionalisation of Gender Studies in higher education

ABSTRACT This article examines the predictors of gender-specific literature production in the field of social sciences and humanities (SSH). The research used bibliometric information on 1132 gender-related articles by authors with Romanian affiliations. Binary logistic regression shows the individual and institutional factors of a paper’s likelihood of including gender-related words in its title. Weak institutionalisation of Gender Studies marks this national context, reflected in the marginal and discontinuous integration in the curriculum of higher-education institutions. Our findings suggest that the female gender of the first or a single author, as well as the authors’ affiliation with Romanian universities running master’s programmes in Gender Studies, are positively associated with the outcome variable. Likewise, single-author articles have greater odds than co-authored articles of including a reference to gender in their titles. Conversely, articles published in journals in the JIF third quartile of the JCR hierarchy have less chance of having a title that conveys an orientation towards gender-specific research. The implications of our findings suggest that the decision-makers at the level of faculties and research institutes in SSH must focus on creating a facilitating environment for scholarly interest in feminist research. We propose tackling the negative stereotypes regarding feminism’s ideological underpinnings and its ostensible lack of epistemological foundation. Romania is a country still facing significant domestic violence and poor gender equality, so these findings have further implications at the societal level.

The influence of research collaboration on citation impact: the countries in the European Innovation Scoreboard

The effect of research collaboration (RC) on citation impact (the citations that the scientific knowledge has received) has been studied over the years. However, the extant literature has not considered that the effect of RC can not be efficiently assessed if the level of development of the research and innovation system (RIS) of the collaborating countries is disregarded. I have addressed this gap by looking at the articles published by 36 countries and controlling for other variables that also influence citation impact. The results show that the higher the development of the RIS, the higher the citation impact, as measured by the percentile each article occupies in the respective Web of Science subject area, of single–authored articles and of articles with domestic research collaboration (DRC). The articles representing DRC always have a higher citation impact than single-authored articles, regardless of the level of development of RIS of the countries. Even the articles representing an international research collaboration do not always have a higher impact than single-authored articles; (1) there is no statistically significant difference between the citation impact of articles published in collaboration between scientists from countries considered strong innovators and modest innovators and the citation impact of single-authored articles of scientists from countries considered strong innovators; and (2) articles published by scientists from countries considered innovation leaders in collaboration with scientists from countries considered modest innovators have a lower impact than single-authored articles published by scientists from countries considered innovation leaders. In general, collaboration between scientists from countries with a well-developed RIS and those with a less developed RIS results in articles with a lower citation impact than articles with DRC originating from scientists from countries with a well-developed RIS and higher than articles with DRC originating from scientists from countries with a less developed RIS.

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.

Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship

Despite improvement in gender inequality in Australian science, the problem has not been fully addressed yet. To better understand the nature of gender inequality in Australian science, all gendered Australian first authored articles published between 2010 and 2020 and indexed in the Dimensions database were analysed. Field of Research (FoR) was used as the subject classification of articles and Field Citation Ratio (FCR) was used for citation comparison. Overall, the ratio of female to male first authored articles increased over the years, and this was true for all FoRs except for information and computing sciences. The ratio of single-authored articles by females was also improved over the study period. Females appeared to have a citation advantage, using Field Citation Ratio, over males in a few FoRs including mathematical sciences, chemical sciences, technology, built environment and design, studies in human society, law and legal studies, and studies in creative arts and writing. The average FCR for female first authored articles was greater than the average FCR for male first authored articles, including in a few fields such mathematical sciences where male authors outperformed females in terms of the number of articles.

EĞİTİMDE VE PSİKOLOJİDE BOYUTLULUK ARAŞTIRMALARI ÜZERİNE BİR BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZ

The main purpose of this study was to establish a theoretical framework for researchers concerning studies on dimensionality and reveal trends in studies on dimensionality. Therefore, the bibliometric features of publications on dimensionality in the Web of Science (WOS) database were analyzed using the Biblioshiny interface in R programming language. The study determined which studies on dimensionality were effective in education and psychology, which concepts were associated with these concepts throughout the years, and which authors and countries contributed to the progress of studies on this concept. A total of 1726 authors’ studies on dimensionality in education and psychology, published between 1970 and May 2023, were reached. The number of citations was 26.49 on average. Out of 1726 authors, 132 single-author articles were published. The number of articles written on dimensionality started to increase from 2003 on, with fluctuations in the rate of increase until 2012. However, since 2012, there has been a rapid increase in the number of articles on dimensionality. The study found that the average annual citation count increased from 6.7 in 1977 to 79.23 in 2011. The journal with the highest number of published articles on dimensionality was Psychological Reports, which has published 38 articles. Another finding indicated that Schumm Wr, Longan Cj, and Marsh Hw had the most publications on dimensionality. The most commonly used keyword regarding dimensionality was model. Turkey had cooperation on dimensionality research with several countries, such as the United States, Romania, Canada, Brazil, and China. Studies on dimensionality clustered around topics, such as multidimensionality, unidimensionality, validity studies, and measurement models.

Comparison of Gamification, Game-Based Learning, and Serious Games in Medical Education: A Scientometrics Analysis.

Game in education aims to enhance human motivation and performance in a given activity. Gamification experts and health researchers are still unsure about the status of progress of game for health. So, to fill in this gap, the present study aimed to analyze scientific productions to identify production trends, subject areas, countries, institutes, and authors in these three areas on gamification, game-based learning, and serious games in medical education, as well as to determine co-authorship patterns. The present descriptive quantitative research was conducted through scientometric analysis by using co-authorship networks in gamification, game-based learning, and serious games. First, an advanced search was performed from 1990 to 2020 and the studies were retrieved from Web of sciences, on Aug 17, 2021 The plain text format of data was inputted to Microsoft Excel, CiteSpace and Gephi to analyze scientometric maps for the three domains. Subsequently, the required indicators to review co-authorship networks were obtained: Degree centrality, Betweenness centrality, Closeness centrality, Density, Clustering coefficient, collaboration index and collaboration coefficient. There were 466 documents in gamification, 155 documents in game-based learning, and 295 documents in serious games. The results indicated the rising trend of scientific publications on the three domains. US was a prolific country in all three domains. Author collaboration has remarkably increased, although the number of single-author articles is still high. Due to the increasing growth of publications on these three domains, research can be continued by forming specialized groups and supporting joint publications. Also, research policy-makers should promote author collaborations on the national and international scale.

Contributors

Contributors

European Journal of Behavior Analysis: women, men, and authorship

ABSTRACT The European Journal of Behavior Analysis was analyzed to determine the gender of authors from 2000 through 2020. We quantified the percentage of women and men as contributing authors and as first authors, articles that included at least one woman or man as an author, articles that included at least one woman and one man as authors, and total number of single-authored articles by gender. We identified 963 listed authors across 455 articles. Across all years and authorship position, women and men accounted 36% and 63% authorship, respectively. Authorship for women was lower across all variables assessed; however, there were increased trends across time for all but single-authored articles. We compared these data to those from other behavior-analytic journals.

A Decade of Activity of the Medical Journal of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences through Scientometric Method (2010-2019)

A Decade of Activity of the Medical Journal of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences through Scientometric Method (2010-2019)

COVID-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing

The authors wanted to verify a popular belief that women scholars have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the first names of authors of 266,409 articles from 2813 journals in 21 disciplines, and we found no significant differences between men and women in publication patterns between 2021, 2020, and 2019 overall. However, we found significant differences in publication patterns between gender in different disciplines. In addition, in disciplines where the proportion of women authors is higher, there are fewer single-authored articles. In the multi-author articles if the first author is female, there is more gender balance among authors, although there are still fewer women co-authors.

Gender of Authors in the Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis

We examined publication records in the Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis from 2005 through 2020 to determine the participation of women and men as contributing authors. We assessed the following variables: authorship (in general), first authors, articles with at least one woman, articles with at least one man, articles with both men and women, single-author articles, and authors with more than 10 publications. We identified 281 articles, with a total of 732 listed authors. Women and men were listed as authors 361 (49%) and 368 (50%) times, respectively. Women accounted for 43% of articles as first authors, and 69% of articles listed at least one woman as an author. These data are discussed and compared to data from other behavior-analytic journals.Keywords: Gender analysis, authorship, Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis.

Publication Performance and Trends in Mangrove Forests: A Bibliometric Analysis

Mangroves are one the most productive ecosystems on Earth, and they are geographically located in the tropics and sub-tropics. Notwithstanding their critical role in providing a large number of environmental services and benefits as well as livelihood provisions, mangrove forests are being lost globally at an alarming rate. At the same time, they are increasingly recognized as a cost-effective nature-based climate solution for their carbon sequestration and storage capacity. Despite their enormous importance to people’s lives and the ecosystem, no bibliometric study on this topic has been published to our knowledge. Here, we provide a bibliometric analysis of the research on mangroves with research trends, most influential research based on citation count, and the origins (country and institution) of major research. Using the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) database of the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), we identified 13,918 documents published between 1990 and 2019. Nevertheless, 12,955 articles met our final criteria and were analyzed in detail. Six publications and their citations per publication (CPP2019) were applied to evaluate the publication performance of countries and institutes. When considering the top ten Web of Science subject categories, articles published on the ecology of mangroves had the highest CPP2019 of 28. Environmental sciences have been the major category since 2013. The USA dominated the total articles and single-author articles. The USA was also the most frequent partner of international collaborative publications. China published the most single-country articles, first-author articles, and corresponding-author articles. However, articles by the USA and Australia had a higher CPP2019. Sun Yat Sen University in China was the most active university. The Australian Institute of Marine Science dominated all kinds of publications with the top CPP2019. Together with the USA, Australia, China, India, Brazil, and Japan ranked both the top six on total publications and total publications in 2019. Our bibliometric study provides useful visualization of the past and current landscape of research on mangroves and emerging fields, to facilitate future research collaboration and knowledge exchange.

Collaborative Research Trends and Authorship Patterns in North Eastern Hill University from 2000 to 2010

Authorship trends and collaborative research are studied in the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) based on the data collected from Annual Report and NEHU Institutional Repository published during the year 2000-2010. Outcome of the study shows that multi authored articles 64.93% prevail the single authored articles 35.07%. The degree of collaboration in NEHU is 0.65. Average number of authors per paper varies from 2.29 to 3.44. In 10 years from 2000 to 2010 the average no. of authors per paper is 2.72. . This study is in support for the fact that NEHU faculty members preferred collaborative trends for their research and publication work.