No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems — Bibliometrics and the Study of Scholarly Collaboration: A Literature Review
Abstract
This literature review covers multiple authorship as it relates to research on scholarly publishing within library and information science. The article examines the research on collaboration in other disciplines and considers the methodological impact of various ways of allotting "credit" for multi-authored works and the relationships between multiple authorship and other publication variables, such as quality and impact. Given the complex relationship between collaboration and productivity, the concomitant use of nonbibliometric methods of studying collaboration, as well as the application of meta-analysis, is suggested.
... In comparison with the large volume of published research in other fields (Harsanyi, 1993), there have been relatively few citation analysis studies in adult education. The only study published in a refereed journal that was designed with the purpose of identifying the most frequently cited authors and publications in adult education (Boshier & Pickard, 1979) was conducted over 15 years ago. ...
... Multiple-authorship: Allocating appropriate credit. A review of citation counting methods used in other fields revealed three distinct and widely recognized methods: complete, straight, and adjusted counting 3 (Harsanyi, 1993;Lindsey, 1980;MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1989). These three methods, along with the FPE method that was used in the four previously mentioned adult education citation studies were evaluated in an effort to select the most reliable counting method for this study. ...
... When using complete counts, all authors are given full credit for each citation (Harsanyi, 1993). For example, with this method one reference to Women's Ways of Knowing (1986) would result in one full citation point being granted to each of the four co-authors Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule. ...
The purpose of this article is to report on the citation practices and patterns of Canadian presenters at the 1990 to 1994 annual conferences of CASAE. The study identified the most frequently cited authors and publications, explored alternative methods for ranking authors, and critiqued methodologies used in previous adult education citation studies. The research findings were analyzed to identify trends and themes particular to a Canadian context. Though the overall results were similar to those reported in previous studies, differences included: (a) a substantial increase in the number of female authors cited, (b) an increase in the number of Canadian authors cited, and (c) an indication that women collaborate in adult education research and publishing to a greater extent than men. A holistic look at the data revealed an emphasis on reviving or enhancing the adult educator's role as an agent for social change. Résumé Cet article vise à faire le point sur l'usage des citations et références parues dans les actes des colloques annuels de l'Association canadienne pour l'étude de l'éducation des adultes (ACÉÉA), entre 1990 et 1994. Notre étude désigne, les publications et les auteurs les plus fréquemment cités, explore diverses méthodes pour faire le classement des auteurs, et offre une critique des méthodologies utilisées dans le passé pour analyser les citations et références. L'analyse des résultats permet d'identifier certains thèmes et tendances associés au contexte canadien. Nos résultats appuient les conclusions de certaines études précédentes, et contribuent de nouvelles données. Ainsi, le nombre de femmes est à la hausse parmi les auteurs cités, de même que le nombre de Canadiens; par ailleurs, les femmes semblent être majoritaires dans le monde de la recherche et de l'édition en éducation des adultes. De façon générale, on note une tendance à valoriser le rôle des éducateurs d'adultes en tant qu'agents de changement social.
... Dies geschieht zum einenüber Fördereinrichtungen, die die Vergabe ihrer Gelder zunehmend an kollaboratives Arbeiten knüpfen, aber zum anderen aucḧ uber die Leitungen der Forschungseinrichtungen, die von den Wissenschaftlern die Bildung von Kooperationen fordern (Jansen, 2004 (Melin, 2000;Beaver, 2001;Hagstrom, 1965;Bozeman & Corley, 2004) (Floyd, Schroeder & Finn, 1994 Freude, sich mit einem Thema zu befassen, verhindern die Isolation von Forschern und können im Sinne eines intellectual companionship zu einem effektiven geistigen Austausch führen (Fox & Faver, 1984 (Hagstrom, 1965;Stokes & Hartley, 1989), dass diese soziale Komponente von Wissenschaftskooperationen nicht zwingend einen eigenen Grund für Wissenschaftskooperationen darstellt, sondern eher die Beziehungen «einbettet» (Collins, 1974), wie es Granovetter (1992) (Melin, 2000;Katz & Martin, 1997;Harsanyi, 1993). Dies geschieht dadurch, dass Forschung in Kooperationen prinzipiell effizienter ausgeführt werden kann (Katz & Martin, 1997). ...
... Dies geschieht dadurch, dass Forschung in Kooperationen prinzipiell effizienter ausgeführt werden kann (Katz & Martin, 1997). Zu den positiven Effekten, die häufig beschrieben werden, gehören eine höhere «Qualität» oder ein größerer «Erfolg» kollaborativ geschriebener Artikel (Harsanyi, 1993). Gordon (1980) (Pressner, 1980;Merton & Zuckerman, 1973;Laband & Tollison, 2000). ...
... 14 Der positive Effekt von kooperativ geschriebenen Arbeiten auf Zitationsquoten steigt noch einmal für internationale Ko-Publikationen (Glänzel und Schubert (2001) für die Chemie). Katz und Hicks (1997) & Beaver, 1966;Harsanyi, 1993;13. Acedo et al. (2006, S. 960) sehen allerdings hierfür auch eine alternative Erklärungsmöglichkeit und zwar die erhöhten Chancen, bei mehreren Autorenüber Netzwerke die Herausgeber oder Gutachter persönlich zu kennen und darüber die Annahmechancen zu erhöhen. ...
... Andelen samförfattade artiklar har ökat inom alla vetenskaper sedan 1950-talet (Harsanyi 1993). Inom de hårda vetenskaperna kan antalet författare till en och samma artikel ibland röra sig om ett hundratal (!) personer, beroende på att viss forskning bedrivs i stora internationella forskarlag. ...
... Samförfattarskap förefaller i vilket fall ha en positiv inverkan på produktiviteten. Flera sociologiska studier visar att den arbetsdelning och ömsesidiga uppmuntran som ett samarbete kan innebära, medför att arbetstakten höjs (Harsanyi 1993). ...
... Det är inte ovanligt att bibliometriska metoder används i undersökningar av B&Ipublikationer. Martha A. Harsanyi (1993) beskriver 17 studier gjorda mellan 1979 och 1992, och vid en sökning i SSCI för den senaste 10-årsperioden hittar jag dubbelt så många arbeten till 16 . I detta kapitel redovisas tidigare bibliometriska studier som har relevans för min undersökning. ...
... Egghe et al. (2000). It is widely accepted that some kind of discounting should be applied (Harsanyi, 1993, Lukovits & Vinkler, 1995, Burrell & Rousseau 1995, Egghe et al., 2000, Trueba & Guerrero, 2004 also to the Hirsch index (Jin et al., 2007, Burrell, 2007, Wan et al., 2007, Egghe 2008. One difficulty is, that different scoring methods can lead to paradoxical effects and yield totally different rankings (van Hooydonk, 1997, Egghe et al., 2000 so that no unambiguous solution of the "multiple-author problem" (Harsanyi, 1993) exists. ...
... It is widely accepted that some kind of discounting should be applied (Harsanyi, 1993, Lukovits & Vinkler, 1995, Burrell & Rousseau 1995, Egghe et al., 2000, Trueba & Guerrero, 2004 also to the Hirsch index (Jin et al., 2007, Burrell, 2007, Wan et al., 2007, Egghe 2008. One difficulty is, that different scoring methods can lead to paradoxical effects and yield totally different rankings (van Hooydonk, 1997, Egghe et al., 2000 so that no unambiguous solution of the "multiple-author problem" (Harsanyi, 1993) exists. But fractional counting is usually preferred since it does not increase the total weight of a single paper (Egghe et al., 2000). ...
J. E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers, that received at least h citations. This so-called Hirsch index can be easily modified to take multiple co-authorship into account by counting the papers fractionally according to (the inverse of) the number of authors. I have worked out 26 empirical cases of physicists to illustrate the effect of this modification. Although the correlation between the original and the modified Hirsch index is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either the original or the modified index.
... El trabajo de Bozeman y otros (2013) aborda la colaboración científica de forma más amplia, ya que tiene la virtud, por un lado, de incorporar mucha de la literatura que ha quedado fuera del análisis al tomar como referencia el modelo clásico de la colaboración científica centrado en la producción de conocimiento científico y en la obtención de reconocimiento simbólico; y por otro, hace especial hincapié en los aspectos organizacionales, entre los que estarían los que denomina la "cara oculta" de la colaboración científica. También existen trabajos específicos de revisión como los de Wagner y otros (2011), que analizan las aproximaciones al estudio de la interdisciplinariedad como forma de colaboración o la contribución de Harsanyi (1993) que aborda los problemas relacionados con la multiautoría de las publicaciones. ...
... Chompalov y otros(2002), fijándose en los estilos de gestión, identificaron cuatro tipos de estructuras de organización de la colaboración, a las que denominaron, respectivamente "burocrática", "sin liderazgo", "no especializada" y "participativa". En el ámbito individual,Bozeman y Corley (2004), distinguieron entre seis tipos de colaboradores: "capataces", "nacionalistas", "mentores", "discípulos", "colegas" y "estrategas".En la figura 2 se recoge un esquema de los diferentes aspectos que se pueden abordar en relación con el estudio de la colaboración científica desde una óptica procesual.Los rasgos positivos de la colaboración científica, que son innegables, han sido matizados a lo largo de los últimos años por diferentes estudios que han alertado acerca de la existencia de problemas asociados a la misma y al modo "clásico" de su estudio, destacando en este sentido la aportación de Cronin(2001), que se pregunta si las hiperautorías constituyen una perversión de las prácticas de comunicación científica; y el estudio deHarsanyi (1993) que alerta acerca de los problemas metodológicos relacionados con el criterio adoptado para medir la colaboración o los indicadores seleccionados, de los que se pueden derivar la obtención de diferentes resultados. En relación con el estudio de la colaboración científica y particularmente complementando y profundizando en la aproximación bibliométrica "clásica", ha irrumpido con fuerza en los últimos años el Análisis de Redes Sociales, que se puede considerar en la actualidad tanto una metodología analítica como un área de conocimiento, ya que ha desarrollado ...
The construction of knowledge is a collaborative process that has seen a dramatic growth over recent decades, since almost all research activities now involve increasing numbers of researchers, institutions, disciplines and countries. The present study provides a bibliographic review of the literature on research collaboration and identifies pioneering work on the topic, the types of studies undertaken and the variables analyzed. Several approaches are discussed: the "classical" approach, based on bibliometric indicators, which has taken on a new dimension with Social Network Analysis; and quantitative and qualitative approaches, which attempt to investigate the motivations and dynamics of collaborative work. The study of scientific collaboration has been undertaken using a variety of methodologies from different disciplinary perspectives. This was made evident at the Congress "Scientific collaboration: a multidisciplinary approach" held at University of Valencia in November 2013, which brought together leading experts on the subject from around Spain. This special issue of Revista Española de Documentación Científica contains ten selected papers presented at that event. We conclude this introductory paper by examining the main challenges that research into scientific collaboration should explore.
... We take the example of two products with exactly the same value but with one authored by a researcher working completely alone and the other by 10 researchers: under the VQR rules, both the "partial" and "full" products score equally in contributing to the university rankings. Potentially exaggerating such effects is the fact that the number of citations that a publication receives is correlated to the number of co-authors that produce it (Harsanyi, 1993;Bridgstock, 1991;Abt, 1984). There are fields of physics, such as high energy physics, with scientists authoring hundreds of publications per year together with hundreds of co-authors. ...
The 2004-2010 VQR, completed in July 2013, was Italy's second national research assessment exercise. The VQR performance evaluation followed a pattern also seen in other nations, in being based on a selected subset of products. In this work we identify the exercise's methodological weaknesses and measure the distortions that result from them in the university performance rankings. First we create a scenario in which we assume the efficient selection of the products to be submitted by the universities and from this simulate a set of rankings applying the precise VQR rating criteria. Next we compare these "VQR rankings" with those that would derive from application of more appropriate bibliometrics. Finally we extend the comparison to university rankings based on the entire scientific production for the period, as indexed in the Web of Science.
... Bibliometrics is the quantitative analysis of the bibliographic properties of literature (Hawkins, 2001;Kokol et al., 2020). Bibliometric analysis (BA) represents a new form of metaanalytical research or meta-review of literature (Harsanyi, 1993;Kim & McMillan, 2008;Fetscherin et al., 2010). It is a statistical technique used to assess the quality and quantity of published scientific literature and analyze trends in a particular area (Sweileh et al., 2017;Buber & Koseoglu, 2022). ...
Since the 1970s, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have gained increasing recognition in the literature, drawing the attention of numerous scientific disciplines, particularly within technical and environmental sciences. What initially began as computerized map production in the 1970s has evolved with advancements in computer processing power and capacity, supported by various software packages. This study aims to reveal the general tendencies in research studies conducted in the fields of urban planning, spatial planning, and landscape planning. To identify these trends, a bibliometric analysis was conducted by examining literature on studies published worldwide, including Türkiye. For this purpose, 2,354 research and review articles published between 1990 and 2022 and indexed in the Web of Science database were analyzed using VOSviewer software, which is suitable for scientific mapping and bibliometric analysis. The analysis focused on the most frequently published journals, highly-cited authors and countries, collaborative authorship relationships, and the most cited authors, journals, and research topics in Türkiye. As a result, it has been observed that, considering the emergence of modern GIS concepts in the late 1970s and subsequent development based on spatial data from the 1980s, studies in the fields of Urban and Regional Planning, Urban Design, and Landscape Architecture have gained momentum since the 1990s. Research establishing the relationship between GIS and planning in Türkiye has been increasing since 2004, with the primary focus of these studies being categorized into three clusters: site selection, spatial mapping, and mathematical modeling. Cite this article as: Çelik KT, Şekeroğlu A. The importance of geographical information systems in urban and landscape planning: A bibliometric analysis. Megaron 2023;18(4):499-519.
... where the symbols have their meaning as defined in Eq. 34. In the last two or three decades, the number of co-authors has continuously increased [65,84,61]. This plays a critical role in the distribution of citations among the scholars. ...
In recent years, several scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a breakthrough in the research community for assessing the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity, and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of the h-index and to overcome its shortcomings. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators, which have been categorised into seven categories based on their properties: (1) complement of h-index, (2) based on total number of authors, (3) based on publication age, (4) combination of two indices, (5) based on excess citation count, (6) based on total publication count and (7) based on other variants. The primary objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.
... Another important issue when analyzing international collaboration is the counting method used. The problem of how to distribute credit for authorship has been extensively studied since the early developments of authorship indicators (e.g., Frandsen & Nicolaisen 2010;Harsanyi 1993;Lindsey 1980;Waltman 2016). Recently, Gauffriau (2017) published a review of counting methods and arguments for use. ...
Responsible indicators are crucial for research assessment and monitoring. Transparency and accuracy of indicators are required to make research assessment fair and ensure reproducibility. However, sometimes it is difficult to conduct or replicate studies based on indicators due to the lack of transparency in conceptualization and operationalization. In this paper, we review the different variants of the Probabilistic Affinity Index (PAI), considering both the conceptual and empirical underpinnings. We begin with a review of the historical development of the indicator and the different alternatives proposed. To demonstrate the utility of the indicator, we demonstrate the application of PAI to identifying preferred partners in scientific collaboration. A streamlined procedure is provided, to demonstrate the variations and appropriate calculations. We then compare the results of implementation for 5 specific countries involved in international scientific collaboration. Despite the different proposals on its calculation, we do not observe large differences between the PAI variants, particularly with respect to country size. As with any indicator, the selection of a particular variant is dependent on the research question. To facilitate appropriate use, we provide recommendations for the use of the indicator given specific contexts.
... (Merig o et al. 2019). Bibliometric citation analysis is a well-established form of meta analytical research or a so-called 'meta-review' of literature (Cote, Leong, and Cote 1991;Garfield 1984;Harsanyi 1993;Kim and McMillan 2008). Citation analysis and citation diagrams have become a standard benchmark in the area of bibliometrics to examine the degree of connectivity between pairs of nodes/papers in the created node network (Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Davarzani 2015). ...
The purpose of this article is to offer a synopsis of the progression in scholarly research in social business enterprises (SBE). The study entails bibliometric analysis, and bibliographic data visual-isation using the Scopus database, generating alluvial diagrams using Rawgraphs platform and identification of thematic clusters in SBE research. The results of our bibliometric analysis show that there is significant growth in the number of publications in the research domain of SBE, with a thematic focus in particular areas. Our scientiometric research shall also act as a point of reference on the extant and embryonic topics, designs and methodological choices for future SBE studies.
... Another important issue when analyzing international collaboration is the counting method used. The problem of how to distribute credit for authorship has been extensively studied since the early developments of authorship indicators (e.g., Frandsen & Nicolaisen, 2010;Harsanyi, 1993;Lindsey, 1980;Waltman, 2016). ...
Responsible indicators are crucial for research assessment and monitoring. Transparency and accuracy of indicators are required to make research assessment fair and ensure reproducibility. However, sometimes it is difficult to conduct or replicate studies based on indicators due to the lack of transparency in conceptualization and operationalization. In this paper, we review the different variants of the Probabilistic Affinity Index (PAI), considering both the conceptual and empirical underpinnings. We begin with a review of the historical development of the indicator and the different alternatives proposed. To demonstrate the utility of the indicator, we demonstrate the application of PAI to identifying preferred partners in scientific collaboration. A streamlined procedure is provided, to demonstrate the variations and appropriate calculations. We then compare the results of implementation for five specific countries involved in international scientific collaboration. Despite the different proposals on its calculation, we do not observe large differences between the PAI variants, particularly with respect to country size. As with any indicator, the selection of a particular variant is dependent on the research question. To facilitate appropriate use, we provide recommendations for the use of the indicator given specific contexts.
... Consistent with our study, a study on nursing in the UK reported that supervisor support was an important factor in terms of conversion of graduate student theses into publications (Timmons & Park, 2008). Several studies in the literature revealed that publishing based on student-supervisor collaboration not only increased the productivity of the author but also positively affected the quality of the published articles (Harsanyi, 1993). ...
This study aimed to determine the academic publication rate of health sciences graduate theses, as well as the factors that influence researchers to publish. The study took place in Ege University Institute of Health Sciences, Turkey, and used a correlated research model to analyse both qualitative and quantitative data. We obtained data from 159 graduate students selected from 437 who graduated between 1 September 2009 and 31 August 2014. From this group, 76 of the theses were published as 141 items. Of these, 93 (66%) were journal articles, of which 51 (36.2%) were published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index (SCI)/SCI‐Expanded/Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). In the multiple regression analysis, we found that employment in a university increased the probability of producing publications from theses by 8.54 times (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.954–18.440) and that encouragement from a supervisor increased the same by 2.79 times (OR, 95% CI = 1.021–7.640). Reasons for not publishing their theses were classified into 11 items, of which thematic analysis showed that the most prominent reasons were lack of time (n = 18, 24.3%) and workload (n = 15, 20.2%). This suggests that interventions targeting these two factors may result in increased publication of theses.
Key points
Half of graduates' theses were converted into published items with no significant differences according to gender and graduate programme.
Successful publication of items derived from theses is positively influenced by employment in university and receiving encouragement from a supervisors.
The main reason for not publishing theses was workload and lack of time.
... At this state, the doctoral scholar is expected to undertake a bibliometric literature review to ascertain the number of research output over the years (articles, books and such others), prominent countries and institutions of research and such parameters (Hood & Wilson, 2001;Osareh, 1996). These could be analyzed and presented for trend analysis over the years (Harsanyi, 1993;Hood & Wilson, 2001). Further, to add a scientific dimension to the literature review process, co-citation, citation, co-word and such analysis could be carried out (Osareh, 1996). ...
... Bibliometrics, a statistical measure of the impact of published articles, includes bibliometric citation analysis, a well-recognised meta-analytical research also known as 'meta-review;' of literature (Garfield, 1983;Harsanyi, 1993). The basic assumption of bibliometric analysis is that researchers publish their most significant findings in academic journals, and embark on new research projects primarily based on articles published in similar journals (Van Raan, 2003). ...
... Bibliometrics, a statistical measure of the impact of published articles, includes bibliometric citation analysis, a well-recognised meta-analytical research also known as 'meta-review;' of literature (Garfield, 1983;Harsanyi, 1993). The basic assumption of bibliometric analysis is that researchers publish their most significant findings in academic journals, and embark on new research projects primarily based on articles published in similar journals (Van Raan, 2003). ...
This study presents a review of articles with a focus on seaport competitiveness from the maritime literature. We investigated how port competitiveness research has evolved during the last two decades using bibliometric citation analysis tools and techniques. Bibliography data, collected from the ISI Web of Science database, consisted of 267 research papers by 465 authors in 117 journals. Based on citation analysis, we identified the key universities, journals and articles, and their impact on port competitiveness research. Also, seven key research streams with few sub-streams were revealed as a result of a mixed co-citation and in-depth content analysis of the most cited articles. A bibliometric co-citation mapping technique was used to show how the key articles are built on each other. Key research papers and their concepts, methods and findings are also discussed. Finally, we present some strategic research challenges and future research agendas.
... To answer how much empirical approaches have impacts on SE, here we can rely on bibliometric studies. Bibliometrics which is a quantitative method for the production of metrics in scientific literature (Rauter 2006;Ball and Tunger 2005;Garfield 1998;Harsanyi 1993;White and McCain 1989;Solla Price 1981;Solla Price 1976;Garfield 1973;Pritchard 1969;Solla Price 1963;Lotka 1926) and usually presents the big picture has been applied in SE too. A bibliometric study by Sassmannshausen and Volkmann (2013) entitled "A Bibliometric Based Review on Social Entrepreneurship and its Establishment as a Field of Research" revealed that most of frequently-cited articles in SE lacked empirical section with mostly qualitative approaches application. ...
The paper was shaped around the pivotal question: Is SE a sound and scientific field of research? The question has given a critical tone to the paper and has also helped to bring out some of the controversial debates in the realm of SE. The paper was organized under five main discussions to be able to provide a scientific answer to the research question: (1) is “social entrepreneurship” an oxymoron?, (2) the characteristics of SE knowledge, (3) sources of social entrepreneurship knowledge, (4) SE knowledge: structure and limitations and (5) contributing epistemology-making concepts for SE. Based on the sections, the study relied on the relevant philosophical schools of thought in Epistemology (e.g., Empiricism, Rationalism, Skepticism, Internalism vs. Externalism, Essentialism, Social Constructivism, Social Epistemology, etc.) to discuss these controversies around SE and proposes some solutions by reviewing SE literature. Also, to determine the governing linguistic discourse in the realm of SE, which was necessary for our discussion, Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) for the first time in SE studies was used. Further, through the study, SE buzzwords which constitute SE terminology were derived and introduced to help us narrowing down and converging the thoughts in this field and demarking the epistemological boundaries of SE. The originality of the paper on one hand lies in its pioneering discussions on SE epistemology and on the other hand in paving the way for a construction of sound epistemology for SE; therefore in many cases after preparing the philosophical ground for the discussions, it went beyond the prevalent SE literature through meta-analysis to discuss the cases which were raised. The results of the study verified previously claimed embryonic pre-paradigmatic phase in SE which was far from a sound and scientific knowledge, although the scholarly endeavors are the harbingers of such a possibility in the future which calls for further mature academic discussion and development of SE knowledge by the SE academia.
... where the symbols have their meaning as defined in Eq. 32. In the last 2 or 3 decades, the number of co-authors has continuously increased Harsanyi (1993); Kennedy (2003); Greene (2007). This plays a critical role in the distribution of citations among the scholars. ...
In recent years, several Scientometrics and Bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a major breakthrough in the research community to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of h-index as well as to overcome shortcomings of h-index. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all Scientometrics as well as Bibliometrics indicators which have been categorized into seven categories :(i) Complement of h-index, (ii) Based on total number of authors, (iii) Based on publication age, (iv) Combination of two indices, (v) Based on excess citation count, (vi) Based on total publication count, (vii) Based on other variants. The main objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.
... Wolf defines it as "the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings." A common approach to meta-analysis is the bibliometric citation technique (Fetscherin and Heinrich 2015, Cote, Leong, and Cote 1991, Garfield 1983, Harsanyi 1993, Kim and McMillan 2008, Apriliyanti and Alon 2017. While it is commonly used in many disciplines including sciences, humanities (Jonsson andMayer 1999, Smith andGlass 1983) and social sciences (Glanzel 1996 Bibliometric analysis is based on the reasonable assumption that researchers publish their most important findings in scholarly journals and predominantly base their research on articles previously published in similar journals (Raan 2003). ...
This article provides a comprehensive review of scholarly research on credit risk measurement during the last 57 years applying bibliometric citation analysis and elaborates an agenda for future research. The bibliography is compiled using the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (WOS) database and includes all articles with citations over the period 1960–2016. Specifically, the review is carried out using 1695 articles across 72 countries published in 442 journals by 2928 authors. The findings suggest that credit risk research is multifaceted and can be classified into six streams: (1) defaultable security pricing, (2) default intensity modeling, (3) comparative analysis of credit models, (4) comparative analysis of credit markets, (5) credit default swap (CDS) pricing, and (6) loan loss provisions. The article contributes through synthesizing and identifying existing as well as emerging research streams.
... Wolf defines it as "the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings." A common approach to meta-analysis is the bibliometric citation technique (Fetscherin and Heinrich 2015, Cote, Leong, and Cote 1991, Garfield 1983, Harsanyi 1993, Kim and McMillan 2008, Apriliyanti and Alon 2017. While it is commonly used in many disciplines including sciences, humanities (Jonsson andMayer 1999, Smith andGlass 1983) and social sciences (Glanzel 1996, Apriliyanti andAlon 2017), it is rarely applied in finance. ...
This paper provides a comprehensive review of scholarly research on credit risk measurement during the last 57 years applying bibliometric citation analysis and elaborates an agenda for future research. The bibliography is compiled using the ISI Web of Science database and includes all articles with citations over the period 1960-2016. Specifically, the review is carried out using 1695 articles across 72 countries published in 442 journals by 2928 authors. The findings suggest that credit risk research is multifaceted and can be classified into six streams: (1) defaultable security pricing, (2) default intensity modeling, (3) comparative analysis of credit models, (4) comparative analysis of credit markets, (5) credit default swap pricing and (6) loan loss provisions. The paper contributes through synthesizing and identifying existing as well as emerging research streams.
... The authorship pattern was analyzed to determine the percentage of single and multiple authorship. According to Harsanyi (1993) different disciplines interpret the order of authorship differently. Most of the engineering dicipline has multiple auhtorship, whereas the social sciences has high percentage of single authorshp. ...
This paper proposed main problems of quantity and quality measurement of the research articles published in INKOM journal for 5 years period in informatics, computers and control system. Those three areas have become research missions of The Research Center for Informatics – Indonesia Institute of Sciences. The aim of this paper is to show how to solve research problems above using bibliometric method to analyze bibliography data available in the journal as well as to offer a summary of the research activity in the area including its most important aspects. Bibliographical data are taken from 76 articles published in the journal from May 2007 to November 2011. This paper also discusses how the method is used to measure article distribution, magazine classification category, article subject distribution, authorship patterns, and institutions distribution contributions. Results of the research show that the majority of articles are contributed by multi authors with degree of collaboration 0,553; the journal has already been widely known by the researchers outside LIPI, researchers from non-LIPI institution dominated more on the publication than from LIPI itself. The quantity of research articles increased in 2011 and used more references from scientific articles than the year before. Besides, the research quality also increased and used more cited articles from scientific journal literature than from books.
... Several mathematical measures are available to express collaboration as a numerical value (Egghe, 1991;Harsanyi, 1993). For the purpose of this study, two indices were used. ...
This study examines patterns of authorship in nineteen Egyptian journals of agricultural science. Multiple authorship was found to be the predominant trend in the field and co-authored papers accounted for some 79 percent of the sample. The most common form of multiple authorship involved three people. Considerable variation was found among sub-fields and co-authorship was found to be most common in social-science related agricultural disciplines. The author found no significant differences in patterns of collaboration in the agricultural sciences in Egypt and two the other developing countries for which comparative data was available.
... Hsu and Huang (2011) find a correlation between collaboration and higher impact. Harsanyi (1993) discusses multi-authorship as a source of prestige. Moreover, it might be argued that multi-authored manuscripts allow economies of scale. ...
Universities looking to recruit or to rank researchers have to attribute credit scores to their academic publications. While they could use indexes, there remains the difficulty of coauthored papers. It is unfair to count an n-authored paper as one paper for each coauthor, i.e., as n papers added to the total: this is “feeding the multitude”. Sharing the credit among coauthors by percentages or by simply dividing by n (“1/n rule”) is fairer but somewhat harsh. Accordingly, we propose to take into account the productivity gains of parallelization by introducing a parallelization bonus that multiplies the credit allocated to each coauthor.
It might be an idea for coauthors to indicate how they organized their work in producing the paper. However, they might systematically bias their answers. Fortunately, the number of parallel tasks is bounded by the number of coauthors and the credit is bounded by a limiting Pareto-optimal maximum. Thus, the bonus is given by (N+2)/3 for N parallel tasks. Because of specialization, there may be, at most, as many parallel tasks as co-authors. Thus, credit allocated to each coauthor is given by (n+2)/3n, that varies between 2/3 of a single-authored paper for two coauthors and 1/3 when the number of coauthors is very large. This is the “maximum parallelization credit” rule that we propose to apply.
This new approach is feasible. It can be applied to past and present papers regardless of the agreement of publishing houses. It is fair and it rewards genuine cooperation in academic publishing.
... Od ukazania się książki Price'a w kolejnych dekadach prowadzono wiele badań bibiometrycznych, które potwierdzały wzrost liczby artykułów pisanych przez więcej niż jednego autora w różnych dziedzinach nauki (zob. Harsanyi, 1993), przy czym tempo zmian było zależne od dziedziny (O'Connor, 1970). Mott Greene na przykładzie tygodnika Nature zauważa, iż od lat 50. ...
Abstrakt Cel/teza: Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie wyników badań współautorstwa publikacji z zakresu bibliologii i informatologii, przeprowadzonych na podstawie wybranych czasopismach polskich i zagranicznych, opublikowanych w latach 2000–2009. Autor dodatkowo prezentuje wyniki analizy wykorzystania anglojęzycznych czasopism przez polskich bibliologów i informatologów, uznając cytowania obcojęzycznych publikacji za jeden ze wskaźników kompetencji językowych, niezbędnych do podejmowania międzynarodowej współpracy naukowej. Koncepcja/metody badań: Badania przeprowadzono na podstawie danych zgromadzonych w bazie CYTBIN oraz pięciu czasopism zagranicznych: Wyniki i wnioski: Przeprowadzone badania ukazały tendencję wzrostu liczby publikacji wieloautorskich w piśmiennictwie zagranicznym w latach 2000-2009, w których artykuły wieloautorskie stanowią 39% ogółu publikacji. Natomiast w literaturze polskiej zaobserwowano w tym okresie stały, 9% udział publikacji wieloautorskich. W badanych czasopismach zagranicznych regularnie pojawiają się artykuły trzech i większej liczby autorów, stanowiąc 16% ogółu publikacji, podczas gdy w czasopismach polskich publikowane są artykuły autorstwa, co najwyżej trzech osób, stanowiąc zaledwie 1% wszystkich publikacji. Oryginalność/wartość poznawcza: Przeprowadzone badanie przedstawia w kategoriach ilościowych współautorstwo publikacji w polskich czasopismach z zakresu bibliologii i informatologii i porównuje je z publikacjami w czasopismach zagranicznych. Słowa kluczowe Badania bibliometryczne. Bibliologia i informatologia. Polska. Współautorstwo. Współpraca międzynarodowa.
... These studies also make two assumptions: (1) that co-authorship indeed signifies actual research collaboration and (2) that all scientists who collaborate become co-authors. While the first assumption is often violated (Harsanyi 1993), it is also relatively easy to address statistically (Laudel 2002). The second assumption is much more problematic, because co-authored publication depicts only a fraction of collaborative activities (Melin and Persson 1996). ...
Science and technology policy academics and evaluators use co-authorship as a proxy for research collaboration despite knowing better. We know better because anecdotally we understand that an individual might be listed as an author on a particular publication for numerous reasons other than research collaboration. Yet because of the accessibility and other advantages of bibliometric data, co-authorship is continuously used as a proxy for research collaboration. In this study, a national (US) sample of academic researchers was asked about their relationships with their closest research collaborators – some with whom respondents reported having co-authored and some with whom respondents reported not co-authoring. The results suggest there are numerous dimensions of co-authorship, the most influential of which is informal and relational and with little (directly) to do with intellectual and/or other resource contributions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Generally we advise academics and evaluators interested in tracking co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration to collect additional data beyond those available from popular bibliometric resources because such information means better-informed modeling and better-informed policy and management decision making.
... Bibliometrics, a statistical measure of the impact of published articles, includes bibliometric citation analysis, a well-recognised meta-analytical research also known as 'meta-review;' of literature (Garfield, 1983;Harsanyi, 1993). The basic assumption of bibliometric analysis is that researchers publish their most significant findings in academic journals, and embark on new research projects primarily based on articles published in similar journals (Van Raan, 2003). ...
Since the 1990s competition among seaports have increased tremendously. The increasing number of seaports serving the same hinterland as well as the urge to attract shipping lines stimulated the competition to a new extreme. This study investigates how scholarly research on seaport competitiveness has evolved in the last two decades by conducting a bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Bibliography data has been collected from ISI Web of Science database. The sample consists of 267 research papers by 465 authors in 117 journals. The analysis reveals that seaport competitiveness research field is interdisciplinary in nature with articles published in economics, management, logistics and geography journals along with journals dedicated to maritime research. The key universities and journals as well as the impact of authors and articles with future research directions are outlined in this paper. The study explores ten sub-research streams in seaport competitiveness and visualizes how articles on seaport competitiveness build on each other through co-citation mapping technique.
... There is a considerable body of literature that addresses the issues of multiple authorship and collaboration in the publication of scholarly works. 11 However, there appears to be no consensus on how to count or assign credit relative to name order. Normative standards for name ordering vary across disciplines. ...
This article updates earlier studies by Gloria Cline and Paul Metz on the characteristics of authorship of articles published in College & Research Libraries, focusing on gender, institutional affiliation, and extent of collaboration. Between 1989 and 1994, representation by academic librarians and authors affiliated with library schools increased, collaboration became predominate, and for the first time the number of primary women authors equaled that of men. Considering all coauthors, female authors outnumbered men. The largest proportion of authors were women academic librarians who coauthored articles. Women, however, were underrepresented among authors affiliated with library schools and among academic administrators.
... Hsu and Huang (2011) find a correlation between collaboration and higher impact. Harsanyi (1993) discusses multi-authorship as a source of prestige. Moreover, it might be argued that multi-authored manuscripts allow economies of scale. ...
It is unfair to count a n-authored paper as one paper for each coauthor, i.e., as n papers: this is “feeding the multitude”. Sharing the credit among coauthors by percentages or by simply dividing by n is fairer but somewhat harsh. So, we propose to take into account the productivity gains of parallelization by introducing a team bonus function that multiplies the allocation thereby increasing the credit allocated to each coauthor.
The degree of parallelization cannot be determined exogenously discipline by discipline. So, one may propose that each team of coauthors indicates how the labor was organized to produce the paper. Unfortunately, the coauthors may systematically bias their answers in order to increase the team bonus by three mechanisms: (i) the coauthors exaggerate the number of parallel tasks, (ii) the team exaggerates the number of coauthors, (iii) the team exaggerates the parallelization rate.
Fortunately, (i) the number of parallel tasks is bounded by the number of coauthors; (ii) cheating about the number of coauthors reduces the reward that each receives; (iii) we show that the reward is bounded by a limiting Pareto-optimal case. Thus, the bonus is given by (N+2)/3 for N parallel tasks; when we have the minimum number n of coauthors, the same number of coauthors as parallel tasks, the reward is given by (n+2)/3n, that varies between 2/3 of a paper for two coauthors and 1/3 of a paper, asymptotically.
This new approach is feasible, and fair and it rewards genuine cooperation in academic publishing.
... We take the example of two products with exactly the same value, but with one authored by a researcher working completely alone and the other by 10 researchers: Under the VQR rules, both the "partial" and "full" products score equally in contributing to the university rankings. Potentially exaggerating such effects is the fact that the number of citations that a publication receives is correlated to the number of coauthors that produce it (Abt, 1984;Bridgstock, 1991;Harsanyi, 1993). There are fields, such as high-energy physics, with scientists authoring hundreds of publications per year together with hundreds of coauthors. ...
The 2004–2010 VQR (Research Quality Evaluation), completed in July 2013, was Italy's second national research assessment exercise. The VQR performance evaluation followed a pattern also seen in other nations, as it was based on a selected subset of products. In this work, we identify the exercise's methodological weaknesses and measure the distortions that result from them in the university performance rankings. First, we create a scenario in which we assume the efficient selection of the products to be submitted by the universities and, from this, simulate a set of rankings applying the precise VQR rating criteria. Next, we compare these “VQR rankings” with those that would derive from the application of more-appropriate bibliometrics. Finally, we extend the comparison to university rankings based on the entire scientific production for the period, as indexed in the Web of Science.
... There has been a literature review of multiple authorship in the scholarly library and information science literature. 11 Harsanyi takes multiple authorship to be an indicator of collaborative research. The article contains a valuable appendix, a table of the studies undertaken of library and information science publications giving the articles considered, how the analysis was carried out and what variables were considered. ...
An analysis of the authors of Australian library research articles published in The Australian Library Journal and Australian Academic & Research Libraries over the ten-year period 1985–1994 has been made to examine their characteristics: whether they wrote alone, or with others, what sex they were, and what were their institutional affiliations. Some comparisons are made with similar international studies, and some recommendations are made.
... Bibliometric citation analysis is a well-established form of metaanalytical research or a so called "meta-review" of literature (Cote, Leong, & Cote, 1991;Garfield, 1983;Harsanyi, 1993;Kim & McMillan, 2008). It was initially used in different disciplines in science and the humanities (Price, 1976;White & McCain, 1989;Wiberley, 2003). ...
... However, the values of the fourth indicator for uncited papers are all higher than the corresponding values of cited papers, again, no matter the journal. These results are in line with well-known trends regarding citations received by publications (Harsanyi, 1993). ...
In this article we study three types of uncitedness in Library and Information Science journals: uncitedness for articles, authors and topics. One important aspect in this study is giving accurate definitions of the indicators for measuring uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics. It is found that for the period 1991–2010 ratios of uncited papers fluctuate within the interval [0,0.1]. This ratio is relatively stable and not very high. Comparison of average number of pages, average number of references, average number of authors per paper and percentage of single-authored papers between cited and uncited papers shows that no matter the journal, the first three indicators’ values for uncited papers are lower, while the values of the fourth indicator are higher, than the corresponding values for cited papers. The fact that almost all uncited authors in a journal published only one paper in this journal illustrates that a journal's uncited authors are the least productive authors in this journal. Yet, productive and highly cited authors also publish uncited papers. As to why some topics fall into the group of uncited topics, the hypothesis is that the combination of unfamiliar keywords forms an unfamiliar topic, a topic authors have elected not to study further. Another assumption is that some uncited topics fall outside the field of Library and Information Science. Retrieval results in the Web of Science for a set of uncited keywords and keyword combinations support this assumption.
... Samarbetet har ökat särskilt när det gäller tidskriftsartiklar och på grund av detta blir det allt viktigare att överväga hur den enskilde författarens roll i sampublikationer skall bedömas. En författare till en sampublikation kan vara den som huvudsakligen framtagit forskningsresultaten, han/hon kan delta i produktionen av textens vetenskapliga innehåll, verka som teknisk assistent osv (Harsanyi 1993). Den ordning i vilken författarna är uppräknade kan avspegla varje upphovsmans betydelse vid sammanställandet av en sampublikation, men kan lika väl avspegla författarnas formella ställning i vetenskapens hierarki eller basera sig på andra faktorer, såsom en alfabetisk ordning eller lottdragning. ...
• 서구 선진국들이 2000년대 전후(미국은 2010년대 초)로 국제협력 비중이 국내협력, 단독 비중을 모두 추월한 것에 비해 한국은 국내협력과 국제협력 비중 각각 2010년대 초반, 2010년대 후반에 단독 비중을 추월한 추세를 보임.
• 한국은 협력 국가의 절대적 비중에서 미국이 가장 높으나 수치는 지속적으로 감소하고 있음. 일본은 상대적 협력집중도 측면에서 압도적으로 높았으나 역시 꾸준히 감소 중임. 중국과는 절대적 비중이 지속 증가하나 상대적 협력집중도는 오히려 감소 추세임.
• 전체적인 국제협력 비중의 장기적 증가 추세는 전 분야에 걸쳐 비슷하게 나타나지만 물리·천문, 컴퓨터·정보과학, 생명과학, 나노기술 분야는 비중 값이 타 분야 대비 상대적으로 높게 나타남.
• 국가 간 협력은 다양성의 증가(=집중도의 감소) 흐름과 중국을 중심으로 한 특정 관계의 쏠림과 같은 상반된 추세가 병존하나 한국은 미국, 일본 중심의 국제협력 관계에서 점차 협력 대상의 다양화가 진전되고 있는 것으로 분석됨. 한편 한국은 화학공학, 재료공학, 나노기술 등의 분야에서 미국의 주요 협력국의 위치를 차지하고 있는 것으로 나타남.
• 중국에 대한 미국의 협력 비중은 최근까지도 지속 확대되었으며 이는 미·중 기술패권경쟁이라는 상반된 추세와 맞물려 전체 국제 연구협력 지형에 일정한 긴장 관계를 생성하고 있는 것으로 분석됨.
Introduction
This study aimed to identify challenges in determining authorship and author order, factors and criteria that influence behavior in determining authorship and author order, and beliefs about authorship and familiarity with guidelines among pharmacy faculty.
Methods
An online survey was emailed to faculty from three groups of schools categorized by degree of external research funding. Academic discipline and rank, tenure status, years in rank, and gender were queried. Questions were created to determine frequency of authorship justification and author order by specific factors. Power pressures experienced when determining authorship were queried. Three case studies were also included to determine behavior for authorship and authorship order.
Results
A total of 295 usable responses were received (30.2% response rate). A majority of faculty experienced power pressures when determining authorship. Justifying authorship for supervision of student projects and statistical analysis was common. Quantity and quality of contributions were the most common reason for justifying order. Writing substantial sections of an article was ranked the most important component in determining author order. Differences in justifying authorship based on promotion and tenure pressures were noted by academic rank, tenure status, and academic discipline. Familiarity with International Committee for Medical Journal Editors guidelines did not appear to influence behaviors.
Conclusions
There is a plurality of perceptions and attitudes among faculty in relation to authorship. A model for recognition of contributions is needed. More structured guidance in concert with moral and ethical principles would help to clarify how to best establish authorship and author order.
Bibliometric is an emerging thrust area of research and has now become a well established part of information research and a quantitative approach to the description of documents. Bibliometric has grown out of the realization that literature is growing and changing out of a rate with which no librarian or information worker equipped with traditional bibliographic skills and methods could keep abreast. This study aims to present a bibliometric analysis of the Library Philosophy and Practice journal, the aim being to offer a summary of research activity in library and information science and characterize its most important aspects. The paper analyzes a bibliometric study of 1402 articles were published during the period from 1998 to 2018 in the Library Philosophy and Practice journal. The paper covers the bibliometric analyses of year-wise distribution of articles, category-wise classification of papers, subject-wise distribution of articles, authorship patterns, and institutions-wise distribution of contributions.
Scientific publications are rapidly developing as a result of science domains development. Therfore tracing research trends in various domains of science has become a challenge. In fact, limitations of conventional methods of analysis of various domains of science and their weaknesses in representing a comprehensive view of knowledge, has led specialists of scientometrics and computer science to develop new methods to overcome it. In this direction, scientometrics specialists have been combined scientometrics indicators and methods with new visualization techniques to provide tools in order to study science and their relations. The aim of this study is to introduce methods of mapping the scientific maps especially co-word analysis and methods of text-mining analysis. This study tries to guide researchers to new fields of analyzing sciences structure. Therefore this paper focuses on the concepts of mapping scientific maps and verifing their methods try to explain theoretical foundations of scientific maps. Consequently suggests these maps to be used as a solution to convert the implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Keywords: Scientometrics, Scientific maps, Visualization, Data-mining, Text-mining با رشد حوزههای دانش، انتشارات علمی نیز بهسرعت توسعه یافته و در نتیجه این رشد، رصد روندهای پژوهشی در حوزههای گوناگون علم دشوار شده است. با توجه به محدودیتهای روشهای مرسوم تجزیه و تحلیل حوزههای مختلف علوم در دنیای جدید و عدم تصور کامل و جامع آنها از علوم مختلف، روشهای نوینی توسط متخصصان علمسنجی و علوم رایانه ارائه شده است. در این راستا، متخصصان علمسنجی در تلاشند تا نقشههای حوزههای مختلف علمی را ترسیم نمایند. بههمین دلیل، آنها شاخصها و روشهای علمسنجی را با فنون نوین مصورسازی ترکیب کردهاند تا برای سیاستگذاران و جوامع علمی، بررسی و پیمایش در مسیرهای مختلف آن میسر گردد. مطالعه حاضر، با هدف معرفی روشهای نگاشت نقشههای علمی؛ علیالخصوص تحلیل همرخدادی واژگان و روشهای متنکاوی، سعی دارد تا نظر محققان را به سمت حوزههای جدید تحلیل ساختار علوم رهنمون سازد. این مقاله ضمن توجه بر مفاهیم نگاشت نقشههای علمی و بررسی روشهای آن، به توضیح بنیانهای نظری نقشههای علمی پرداخته و در نتیجه این نوع نقشهها را به عنوان راهحلی برای بازنمون دانش ضمنی در جهت تبدیل آن به دانش آشکار، برای جامعه علمی پیشنهاد مینماید. کلیدواژهها: علمسنجی، نقشههای علمی، مصورسازی، دادهکاوی، متنکاوی
This article describes and analyses the various bibliometric components of articles published
in Indian Journal of International Law (IJIL).The paper analyses the various quality aspects of
326 articles which were published during the period under study from 1960 to 2010. The paper
covers the quantitative growth of articles by volume and year, distribution of citations by volume
and year, range and percentage of citations per article, authorship pattern of articles, authorship
productivity, ranked list of most prolific contributors, ranked list of authors by geographical
affiliation, ranked list of authors by profession, ranked list by subjects of articles and journal
self-citation in the articles. How often an article, an author, or a journal is cited by others is an
indication of the quality of the journal and performance of the researcher or group—the higher
the number of citations, the higher the level of quality and performance.
Keywords: IJIL; Bibliometric, Citation Analysis.
This article describes and analyses the various bibliometric components of articles published in Indian Journal of International Law (IJIL). The paper analyses the various quality aspects of 326 articles which were published during the period under study from 1960 to 2010. The paper covers the quantitative growth of articles by volume and year, distribution of references by volume and year, range and percentage of references per article, authorship pattern of articles, authorship productivity, ranked list of most prolific contributors, ranked list of authors by geographical affiliation, ranked list of authors by profession, ranked list by subjects of articles and journal self-citation in the articles. How often an article, an author, or a journal is cited by others is an indication of the quality of the journal and performance of the researcher or group—the higher the number of references, the higher the level of quality and performance.
This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the exponentially growing number of papers, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issues. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges. Furthermore, we provide a ranking of the 22 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, raising doubts about the current (over-)rating of journal publications.
This chapter recognizes the importance of promotion for entrepreneurship scholars but also acknowledges that the process underlying the decision to grant or deny promotion is often opaque to those going through it. There are various metrics and proxies that people use to assess a candidate’s research record for quality and quantity, and in this chapter I detail these “measures” as well as their limitations. The chapter also explores the role of external reviews and offers some advice for how these letters should be written and how they should be read by those making the promotion decision. I specifically discuss the metrics and attitudes toward entrepreneurship research and journals.
Journal publication is a core avenue for sharing research in the LIS field. Effective scholarly communication is beneficial to the growth of a discipline. Bibliometrics research shows that articles in prestigious international journals are predominantly those of authors based in a few nations, however. Papers from authors outside the established nations are likely to be cited less often. This study analysed the longitudinal changes in geographical patterns of authorship, collaboration types, and factors affecting the citation impact of seven top LIS journals over a period of 29 years. In addition to data from all nations, this paper includes specific findings relating to Asian countries. Analysis of 8,140 papers shows that the internationalisation level in the sample set has increased in terms of number of nations represented and in a decreasing Gini coefficient. The presence of Asian nations such as Taiwan and Singapore as top contributing countries is particularly notable in the past 10 years. Domestic collaboration is found to be the dominant type of authorship pattern. In terms of citation impact as measured by citation counts, logistic regression was used to test the effects of author continent, country income level, collaboration type, publication year, and number of authors. Papers from lower-income countries or from Asian or European authors are found less likely to be ‘more cited.’ International and domestic collaboration had a positive relation with citation counts. A practical implication is that authors may consider international collaboration as a way to increase the visibility and impact of their research. Nevertheless, the reasons behind such differential citation impact require more exploration. Invisible colleges, the strengths of weak ties, and the geographic scope of a paper are some factors to be further examined. It is hoped that more research can help identify and overcome barriers in scholarly communication so as to achieve a genuine internationalisation of science.
Abstract
In our current globalised world of scientific and academic practices, research within English
for Academic Purposes (EAP), and more specifically, English for Research Publication
Purposes (ERPP) has undergone an exponential upsurge. The present study is part of a
wider research project, led by the ENEIDA research group, aiming among other things at
exploring Spanish scholars’ attitudes and experiences of research publication by means of a
large online questionnaire sent to academics from five Spanish universities and institutions.
We here report on the answers provided by Chemistry and Economics’ scholars as regards
attitudes and motivations to use English for publication purposes. Relevant differences
between them reveal different degrees of internationalization for Chemistry and Business
scholars as well as different disciplinary idiosyncrasies and expectations.
Resumen
En el contexto actual de prácticas científicas y académicas globalizadas, la investigación
del inglés para fines académicos y, de forma más concreta, del inglés con fines de publicación
ha crecido de forma exponencial. Este estudio se integra dentro de un proyecto de
investigación llevado a cabo por el grupo ENEIDA cuyo objetivo, entre otros, es explorar
las actitudes y experiencias de los académicos españoles con relación a la publicación de
su investigación utilizando un cuestionario en línea que se envió a académicos de cinco
instituciones y universidades españolas. Presentamos aquí las respuestas de las disciplinas de
Química y Económicas por lo que se refiere a actitudes y motivaciones a la hora de utilizar el inglés como lengua de publicación de la investigación. Las diferencias entre estas dos
disciplinas revelan diferentes grados de internacionalización así como diferentes expectativas
e idiosincrasias disciplinares.
In this paper attempt has been made to identify the uncited publications in ‘micro-electro mechanical systems (MEMS) literature which is one of the emerging field in electronics. The search term ‘MEMS’ was used for retrieving literatures from SCOPUS database. A total of 294573 records were identified in the field of MEMS during the period 1970-2013. Out of which, 85146 (28.90 %) records were uncited publications. The uncited paper ranges between 0.09 % and 0.72 %. It can be seen that from 1988 onwards uncitedness has been reduced below the global average and it persists till 2010. Almost 56 % of the uncited publications are from the conference proceedings. 44.56% of China publications in MEMS were uncited followed by India (31.44 %), Japan (24.40 %), and France (19.44 %). Majority of the uncited publications, are of collaborative authors besides the self-citations. Mostly more than four authors’ papers were uncited. Even top author papers were also uncited. The uncitedness may be due to non-awareness of those papers in the MEMS literature.
Comparability across scientific domains : “citing-side” weighting of citation networks
The volume of scientific literature increases by a few million articles each year. The “publish or perish” requirement or its “publish, be cited or perish”, variant accelerates the growth of this collective memory, available in condensed or complete form in specialized databases and web engines. The explicit or implicit networks revealed by articles’ data are exploited by social sciences – scientometrics, economics and sociology – and also instrumented in research evaluation. Scientometric indicators result from elaborations on these data, with various operations : counting options ; normalisation per/by field or type of research ; type of indicator ; economic valuing ; composite indicators schemes... Here we focus on a particular weighting of the citation network. Midway between the classical normalization techniques, and the recursive influence measures of Pagerank type, it introduces a new family of normalization and a general tool to measure citation exchanges, a proxy of knowledge flows.
Classification JEL : O30, C18
Abstract
Through manual and electronic corpus analysis, I explore the rhetorical structure and
discursive features of abridged abstracts in two distinct fields: Applied Linguistics and
Electronic, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering. My goal is to discuss whether
shortened abstracts, which do include some apparently superfluous elements, are truly
informative, and to compare trends in the two broad fields mentioned. According to my
findings, abridged abstracts withstand a tension between two opposing forces: rhetorical
economy on the one hand, and meta-reference and self-promotion on the other. My claim
is that, although dispensable, meta-reference and self-promotion fulfil important beaconing
functions that facilitate text production and accelerate research screening.
Key words: ESP, EAP, genre analysis, abridged abstracts, meta-reference, promotional
language.
Resumen
Mediante un análisis de corpus manual y electrónico exploro la estructura retórica y los
rasgos discursivos de los resúmenes abreviados en dos campos diferentes: la Lingüística
Aplicada y la Ingeniería Electrónica, Informática, y de Telecomunicaciones. Mi objetivo es
analizar hasta qué punto estos resúmenes abreviados, que curiosamente incluyen elementos
en apariencia superfluos, son informativos. Según mis hallazgos, este tipo de resumen soporta
una tensión entre dos fuerzas opuestas: economía retórica por una parte, y meta-referencia
y autopromoción, por otra. Mi conclusión es que estos dos últimos elementos, aunque
prescindibles, balizan contenidos específicos, facilitando con ello la escritura y agilizando
la criba de información.
Palabras clave: IFE, IFA, análisis del género, resúmenes abreviados, meta-referencia,
lenguaje promocional.
Academic librarianship is very much concerned with the scholarship of others, but what do we know about the scholarship of librarians? This empirical study examines the relationship between author demographics, article topic, and, in particular, faculty and librarian authorship collaboration in the academic library literature. Extensive data collection facilitated the analysis of trends, correlations, and frequencies. Significant findings were found regarding the number of authors, article type, and paper topic in the context of faculty and librarian authorship collaboration.
Citation counts are central to many studies in the sociology of science. Due to cost considerations and the format of the Science Citation Index, researchers often collect citations only to a scientist's first-authored publications (so called 'straight counts'), rather than to complete counts based on all published papers. This paper examines the consequences of using straight counts to study the careers of a sample of PhD biochemists. It is found that even though these two measures are highly correlated, there is a significant chance of making substantive errors when straight counts are substituted for complete counts. The problem is found to be more severe when citations are the dependent variable rather than an independent variable. It is argued that our findings can be generalized to other fields where multiple authorship is common. Accordingly, extreme care must be used in interpreting results based on straight citation counts.
It is shown that on the average, the number of citations to papers
increases linearly with the number of authors. However, if team research
takes substantially more time to perform than individual research, the
advantage is lost. The larger citation rate for many-authored papers is
not due to the higher citation rate for longer papers because they tend
to be shorter than few-authored papers: it is also not due to certain
more-active fields more multiauthored papers. Longer papers yield
substantially larger numbers of citations than shorter papers, but a
single long paper still yields fewer citations than the total for
several shorter ones of the same combined lengths.
Examines changes in authorship practices in all journals published by the American Psychological Association in 1949, 1959, 1969, and 1979. The mean number of authors for papers published in the journals increased from 1.47 in 1949, to 1.72 in 1959, to 1.88 in 1969, to 2.19 in 1979. Name-ordering practices, assignment of publication credit, and the dynamics of research collaboration are discussed. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Recorded the number of authors/article for volumes of the
Journal of Counseling Psychology (JCP) at 5-yr intervals from 1954 to 1979. Consistent with publication trends in other scientific fields, there was a marked tendency toward multiple authorship. The percentage of multiple-author articles increased from about 25% in 1954, the 1st year of JCP's publication, to about 75% in 1979. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
R. F. Strahan (see record
1982-33405-001) noted a trend toward multiple authorship in the present journal. In the present study, this work was updated by including data from the last 5 yrs and was extended by using every year of publication, calculating ratios of authors to articles, and including all but the 1st of the initial 13 volumes of
The Counseling Psychologist (
TCP). It is concluded that the trend toward multiple authorship in the present journal may be leveling off and that there is a similar trend for
TCP, although it is less pronounced. (11 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Previous research examining librarians' publishing patterns has established the significance of published research for personal advancement. Studies have found, however, that in comparison with male librarians, female librarians tend to publish in disproportionately small numbers. One rationale offered for this discrepancy is that men receive the Ph.D. more frequently than do women (doctorate-holding librarians have been isolated as the most prolific writers). This study tests the hypothesis that men and women exhibit similar publishing patterns if education is held constant at the doctoral level. The population studied is limited to a random sample of library science Ph.D.s who received their degrees between 1969 and 1979. A list of each person's publications was compiled for the five-year period following receipt of the Ph.D. The citations are classified by gender, occupation, and type of publication and authorship. On the basis of this study, the hypothesis that men and women will exhibit similar publishing patterns cannot be rejected. The difference in the number of citations per person for equal numbers of men and women is insignificant. Differences between men and women when comparing type of publication, type of authorship, or quality of articles are also insignificant. There is, however, a significant difference between the number of unpublished women and the number of unpublished men; almost three times more women than men have no citations listed in Library Literature. The hypothesis can be rejected when comparing male and female educators. The difference between mean number of citations per person as well as the difference between nonpublishing male and female educators is highly significant. Male educators publish almost twice as many works as do women. Female educators are almost six times as likely as male educators to have published nothing.
This study examines the nature of the literature produced by a random sample of faculty in American Library Association accredited schools of library and information science over a five-year period, 1980-1984. Five questions were addressed: (1) What publication types do faculty produce? (2) What content types do faculty produce? (3) In what periodicals do faculty publish? (4) Do the same faculty write scholarly and teaching/service-oriented (i.e., nonscholarly) publications? (5) Do the same variables predict nonscholarly productivity as predict scholarly productivity? Publication data were collected from several databases-LISA, ERIC, OCLC, and Library Literature. Scholarly publications accounted for 39.3% of the sampled faculty publications. The preeminent communication medium was the journal, although no journal title captured more than 5.2% of the total journal publications output. A significant relationship was found to exist between writing scholarly and nonscholarly publications. None of the 15 variables found to predict scholarly productivity in at least one previous study predicted nonscholarly productivity in this sample.
Library research is at a relatively primitive stage in its development when compared to the research literatures of other disciplines. The incorporation of select social science and scientific research methods into library and information science research could improve the overall quality and effectiveness of this research. One methodology that has become widely used in the sciences and social sciences is meta-analysis. Several methods for performing meta-analyses are described and discussed. A pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility of using these meta-analytic techniques in summarizing the library research literature. The pilot study contains an analysis of the literature in which computerized and paper-based information retrieval systems were compared. This study shows that meta-analysis can be an effective tool for library and information science researchers.
This research attempts to delineate ethical boundaries of journal publishing in library and information science, from the perspective of editors. A questionnaire describing twenty-two action scenarios in the form of questions was mailed to editors of thirty-nine journals. The actions focused on ethical behavior of authors; some actions of referees and reviewers were also examined. Thirty-five editors (89.7 percent) returned the questionnaire. Analysis of the answers revealed that 60 percent or more of the editors responded in common to two-thirds of the actions, which were categorized as ethical, unethical, possibly unethical, or not as ethical issues. The editors provided detailed explanations of their choices and identified additional ethical concerns not addressed in the questionnaire.
This study examines various authorship characteristics of library and information science journal articles for 1986. Comparisons are made between the characteristics of authors of the population of articles that resulted from funded research and a random sample of articles that were not supported by funding. All substantive articles from 41 journal titles were examined, resulting in data collection for 881 articles. From this group all articles resulting from funding were selected for further study, as were a sample of the non-funded articles. Findings reveal that the authors of funded research are more likely to collaborate with other authors, possess a doctoral degree, be employed as an educator in a college or university, and write on a topic related to information science. There is no evidence that the sex of the author has any influence on the publication of funded versus non-funded articles. Faculty from disciplines other than library and information science are more prevalent as authors in the library literature than has been suggested in previous studies. No compelling evidence was found to demonstrate that among the authors who are faculty at schools of library and information science, those from higher quality schools are more heavily represented in the funded literature.
Publication output of library school faculty is examined in relation to several variables. First, publications were sorted by content (information versus library science) in order to determine whether the presence of the word information in the school name indicates an orientation toward information science. Data were collected for faculty listed in the 1983 ALISE directory and for publications indexed in the 1983 Library Literature, Library and Information Science Abstracts, and Information Science Abstracts. In the aggregate, the data show that schools with information in their names publish a significantly greater amount of information science literature. On a school-by-school basis, however, there are exceptions. Findings are also related to the presence of doctoral programs and to faculty rank. Second, descriptive data are presented on publication output by sex and rank. The data suggest that women, who are less prolific publishers and less oriented toward information science, have been less successful in rising through academic ranks than men. Tables showing schools' relative publication output and the top fifteen producers of library and information science publications as indexed in 1983 are included. Directions for further research are noted.
This study examines the relationship between scholarly publication of faculty teaching at American Library Association-accredited programs of library and information science and selected variables. The findings have implications for accreditation of library and information science programs, faculty development planning, tenure requirements, and persons seeking faculty positions in these programs. A stratified proportional random sample of faculty was taken. Data were collected from questionnaires, faculty vitae, online databases, and standard biographical and reference sources. Statistics stepwise logistic regression and chi square analysis were employed. Four variables entered the logistic regression equation—highest degree earned, size of the university, availability of nonstudent clerical assistance for faculty, and number of different courses taught. Chi square analysis found 6 of the 18 independent variables related to the dependent variable, scholarly publication. They are highest degree earned, number of years elapsed from bachelor's degree to highest degree earned, program type, size of faculty, prestige of program, and teaching load.
This research demonstrates that several quantifiable characteristics of articles in the marriage and family area are substantially related to subsequent impact in the field, based on bibliometric citation analysis. Articles are more frequently cited when they are explicitly linked to prior literature in the marriage and family field, to more current ongoing research not yet published, and to contemporary theorists in gender and sex roles. Consistent with studies of other science fields, the works published by the more eminent, highly cited scholars are more likely to be cited. However, contrary to other fields, collaborative work in marriage and the family does not yield higher visibility. The implications of these results to the field are discussed, and further analyses are proposed to supplement this bibliometric assessment and to explore some tentative conclusions.
This paper addresses the problem of insufficient research in library schools. It assumes that part of the reason for the problem lies in the lack of full socialization of library educators to the norms of academe, and in a lack of understanding of their role in the library profession as well as their role as academics. Pertinent literature is reviewed and an informal proposal for investigation of library education is set forth. The investigation is seen as an aid to improved socialization and as a means of improving library education by making it accountable. Among the factors proposed for investigation are research capability, quality and quantity of publication, colleague environment, amount of time spent on professional association activities, and the reward system of library education. It is proposed finally that deans and directors be judged by the performance record of their schools.
Previous studies of the allocation of publication credit in collaborative research have emphasized the name ordering patterns of scientists, but have largely neglected the allocation of publication credit to non-PhD subordinates. This paper examines the withholding of authorship recognition from non-PhDs and females. Quantitative and qualitative data from the social and natural sciences suggest that publication credit is not always accorded on the basis of universalistic principles. It was also found that females may have fewer opportunities in collaborative research to contribute to the same extent as do males and that when they do, they are frequently excluded from authorship.
A new bibliometric indicator, the hierarchically-ad justed author proportiometric index. is described. It is a much improved indicator ot individual scientific output, over that provided by publication number. This index is obtained by multiplying the number of pages in any publication of original research by a real, or suitably derived, weighting factor that acknowledges each author's proportional or absolute contri bution to the work. This method, its logic and its analytical advantage are illustrated by a suitable hypothetical example. and by comparative bibliometric analyses of real data: the method dramatically improves individual assessments relative to publication counts in some cases, and vice tersa in others. Future uses for the method may mclude research budgetary analysis, research audit and the monitoring of personal re search performance The method may complement, but is clearly separate from, citation bibliometry.
The structure measure byKretschmer
1 estimates the cooperation of a scientist. It is generalized in such a way that it increases with respect to the cooperation strengh with one of the collaborators. An alternative to the hierarchical structure measure is proposed which is continuous in all cooperation strengths.
Some discussion papers about the ORTEGA hypothesis were published inScientometrics. One aspect of these discussions was the necessity for the future extension of empirical research to gain a better foundation for the acceptance or refutation of the Ortega hypothesis which states that the research done by average scientists substantially contributes to the advance of science. In this direction an empirical study about the stratification in coauthorship networks is represented in this paper. It was tested whether the extent of stratification decreases with the increasing number of coauthors per paper.
The present paper examines the multiple authorship in research papers in biomedical sciences from the more basic aspects to clinically oriented research. Seventeen journals were chosen for analysis — nine from the general and life sciences categories and eight from medical sciences group with clinical orientation. All these were high impact journals as per the Science Citation Index and come in the top ten journals in their respective desciplines. The average authors/paper was significantly higher (P
This paper is an attempt to improve on the approximation. First author citations (Cf)Total citations (Ct) of an author's publications without the work of making the complete citation count under the author and all co-author names.Using the bibliographies of all faculty from each of four large departments: Physics, Chemistry, Materials Sciences, and Biosciences, in the same university, both first author and complete citation counts were made, care being taken to avoid the most common errors in such counts. It is shown that the function Cf·T/F (where T and F are the total number of papers and F those with subject author's name first) correlates strongly (>90%) with Ct. We find also that Ct correlates strongly with T.The data also may be used as one more line of evidence to obtain normalizing ratios for possible comparisons of productivityacross different disciplinary universes. A very tentative ratio from different studies would be 8 (Chem.)=4 (Physics)=2.5 (Mat. Sci.)=2 (Mathematics)=4.5 (Biophysics-Biochemistry).
In the context of bridging the so-called externalist and cognitive perspectives on the growth of research communities, a cancer problem domain is examined (1) to distinguish a growth in knowledge from a proliferating research literature, and (2) show how measurement of formal communication, uninformed by the historical record, clarifies or distorts sociological interpretations of innovation and growth in biomedicine. Specifically, coauthorship and citation networks are analyzed for reverse transcriptase researchers, 1970–74. This analysis reveals the visibility of large National Cancer Institute laboratories in the research literature, but demonstrates the need to augment disaggregated network data with intellectual and social (policy) history to explain the growth and structure of the domain.
This study of multinational publication (publications involving authors from more than one country) focuses on a viable method of fractionation, which can be used in on-line bibliometric research. Fractionation occurs when the credit for co-authored papers is added only partially to the total of publications of countries or authors. We attempted to find an empirical relation between the share of a country's papers in some field that is multinationally co-authored and the degree of fractionation which results. A linear regression analysis yielded a significant correlation of –0.95. The fractionation method is the first that can be applied to publication data collected on-line. A comparison is made with fractionation by first author (i.e., first address) counting. Application of the method to British scientific output for 1984–1989 suggests that British output was stable. The fractionation method can be applied to both natural and life sciences and to social and behavioral sciences. Findings suggest that similar processes of multinational publication are prevalent in both types of science. Implications of the model are discussed.
The majority of scientific research in the present era has become a collaborative effort as opposed to individual efforts of the past decades. The trend of specialization and research carried out in narrow subject fields has resulted in a flood of literature carried out by an army of research workers. With the increase in research, the subjects are growing more complex, heterogeneous and interdisciplinary.
The scale and nature of acknowledgement behaviour was investigated in four academic disciplines: history, philosophy, psychology and sociology. Data were derived from four high-ranking scholarly journals over a twenty-year period. More than 5,600 acknowledgements were classified using a six-part typology. Cross-disciplinary similarities and differences were observed. Populations of highly acknowledged individuals were identified for each discipline. The frequency distributions of acknowledgements exhibited high levels of concentration. Authors' acknowledgement behaviours were highly consistent.
Two studies examined the uniformity of publication records of schools of library and information science in research universities and compared the publication records of schools that offer doctoral program and schools that do not. It is concluded that productivity varies considerably among schools and that the presence or absence of a doctoral program does not predict productivity. (seven references) (CLB)
Patterns of collaboration and affiliation of authors of the major U.S. anthropology journals are found to be parallel to those of citations reported in the previous study in terms of subdisciplinary and disciplinary interactions with other disciplines. The dominance of outsiders is found to be most severe in physical and linguistic anthropology, while sociocultural and archaeological anthropologists seem to be able to maintain their intellectual identity. The paper also discusses how this phenomenon might contribute to the sense of crisis felt among anthropologists.
Research in the late 1950's showed a trend toward increased multiple authorship, as opposed to single authorship, of research papers in psychology. The present authors investigated whether the trend has continued to the 1980's. Convention papers presented at the meetings of 7 psychological associations, and articles published in 9 American Psychological Association journals, during 1980–1981 were categorized by number of authors. Results indicate that the trend toward more multiple-author papers has continued, with 70% of the convention papers and 76% of the journal articles having more than 1 author. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Investigating the relationships found in the documentation of a subject field is one method of examining the communication taking place in that field. Bibliometrics provides an objective method for this type of investigation. Coauthorship, while intuitively seeming to indicate strong communication links, nevertheless has been shown to produce graphical structures that vary with changes in threshold. Having determined that clustering structure does exist in the data, preferred partitions are identified as those least likely to have occurred by chance. Further analysis is made to test that the preferred or meaningful structures produced from the coauthor relationship do indeed correspond with empirical evidence of meaning. A small dataset of 371 authors and 550 coauthor pairs is used to investigate correspondence between experimental structures and empirical evidence. Results show that components of the experimental structures are largely consistent with subject content groups as determined by index terms. Geographic focus accounts for about half the cases showing term overlap. Hence, we have some evidence that bibliometric structures determined from the coauthor relationship may be consistent with networks of communication. If this continues to be documented by further research, bibliometric analysis of coauthor relationships found in the scholarly communication of a subject area can become a basic tool for communication research.
Conclusion With the research byLong, Allison andMcGinnis, Cole andCole, an-Garfield an initial understanding of the consequences of multiple authorship for empirical studies of science is emerging.9 It is too early to suggest, asLong andMcGinnis do, that indices which disgegard multiple authorship are without serious short-comings. The best advise would be to use measures which take multiple authorship into account, compare them with others that do not, and examine any differences that might emerge. At least for the data will which I have worked, multiple authorship makes a considerable difference. Although little difference is found with the data collected by long and his colleagues when examined within an unclear regression analysis framework, it would seem premature to recommend unadjusted counts. The best advice to the prospective researcher would be to collect complete information on the number of authors for all published work and all citations assuming that difference between adjusted and unadjusted counts will emerge and be comfortable with the knowledge that if it does, the measures used can properly treat the data.The major point I made earlier, that the failure to adjust for multiple authorship is the most serious error in empirical judgment made in the sociology of science, emerges more forcefully. The error will require substantial redevelopment of previous empirical literature constructed with these faulty measures.Finally, the point should not be lost that the most serious problem remains and that is the validity of the paper model of science with examines article and citation counts to understand this complex dynamic project of human inquiry.10
The reward system in science involves several psychosocial processes that can be named after books in theBible: Merton proposed the Matthew Effect andTurner andChubin offered the Ecclesiastes Hypothesis, based on relevant biblical passages. This article identifies several other bibliometric phenomena described inEcclesiastes, including an explanation of why there is a multiplication of specializations in disciplines with growing literatures.
With the research byLong, Allison andMcGinnis, Cole andCole, an-Garfield an initial understanding of the consequences of multiple authorship for empirical studies of science is emerging.9 It is too early to suggest, asLong andMcGinnis do, that indices which disgegard multiple authorship are without serious short-comings. The best advise would be to use measures which take multiple authorship into account, compare them with others that do not, and examine any differences that might emerge. At least for the data will which I have worked, multiple authorship makes a considerable difference. Although little difference is found with the data collected by long and his colleagues when examined within an unclear regression analysis framework, it would seem premature to recommend unadjusted counts. The best advice to the prospective researcher would be to collect complete information on the number of authors for all published work and all citations assuming that difference between adjusted and unadjusted counts will emerge and be comfortable with the knowledge that if it does, the measures used can properly treat the data.
The major point I made earlier, that the failure to adjust for multiple authorship is the most serious error in empirical judgment made in the sociology of science, emerges more forcefully. The error will require substantial redevelopment of previous empirical literature constructed with these faulty measures.
Finally, the point should not be lost that the most serious problem remains and that is the validity of the “paper model” of science with examines article and citation counts to understand this complex dynamic project of human inquiry.10
The paper discusses earlier attempts by Ajiferuke, Burrell, & Tague and by Englisch to define a single measure of collaboration. We show that the variables used in these papers are too rough and propose finer variables. We then formulate collaborative principles that good collaborative measures should satisfy and examine existing measures. Collaborative principles are designed in such a way that measures satisfying these principles can distinguish between (i.e., have different values for) different collaborative situations. We then present new collaborative measures better than the existing ones, in the sense that they satisfy all the studied collaborative principles. Many examples are presented and practical calculations are executed.
Rules for authors and editors may depend on something more than taste and convention.