Measuring Publication Diversity among the Most Productive Scholars: How Research Trajectories Difer in Communication, Psychology, and Political Science

Abstract

Examining research patterns across scientific fields constitutes a growing research enterprise to understand how global knowledge production unfolds. However, scattered empirical evidence has casted light on how the publication diversity of the most productive scholars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation. This study focuses on the most prolific scholars across three fields (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology), and examine all journals where they have published. Results revealed the most common journals in which prolific scholars have appeared and showed that Communication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychology journals than vice-versa, while psychologists' largely neglect them both. Our findings also demonstrate that males and US scholars are over-represented across fields, and that neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender and geographic location has a significant influence over publication diversity. The study suggests that prolific scholars are not only productive, but also highly diverse in the selection of the journals they publish, which directly speaks to both the heterogeneity of their research contributions and target readers.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientometrics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04386-7
1 3
Measuring publication diversity amongthemost productive
scholars: howresearch trajectories differ incommunication,
psychology, andpolitical science
ManuelGoyanes1,2· MártonDemeter3· ZichengCheng4· HomeroGildeZúñiga2,4,5
Received: 25 January 2022 / Accepted: 19 April 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Examining research patterns across scientific fields constitutes a growing research enter-
prise to understand how global knowledge production unfolds. However, scattered empiri-
cal evidence has casted light on how the publication diversity of the most productive schol-
ars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation. This
study focuses on the most prolific scholars across three fields (Communication, Political
Science, and Psychology), and examine all journals where they have published. Results
revealed the most common journals in which prolific scholars have appeared and showed
that Communication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychol-
ogy journals than vice-versa, while psychologists’ largely neglect them both. Our findings
also demonstrate that males and US scholars are over-represented across fields, and that
neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender and geo-
graphic location has a significant influence over publication diversity. The study suggests
that prolific scholars are not only productive, but also highly diverse in the selection of the
journals they publish, which directly speaks to both the heterogeneity of their research con-
tributions and target readers.
Keywords Publication diversity· Productivity· Research careers· Research trajectory·
Communication· Psychology· Political science
Introduction
In recent years, the growing internationalization and competition between research-
intensive universities have sparked substantial interest in examining the research pat-
terns of academic fields using different Scientometric data measures. Generally, these
meta-analyses include the descriptive inspection of the most frequent research topics
(Günther & Domahidi, 2017), methodological approaches (Demeter & Goyanes, 2021),
networks of co-authorship (Newman, 2004), or research impact (Delgado & Repiso,
2013), primarily within fields. However, as relevant as these analyses may be, two
* Manuel Goyanes
mgoyanes@hum.uc3m.es
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Scientometrics
1 3
related research gaps remain unbridled: examining the most productive scholars’ (1)
publication trajectories (2) across fields.
First, the limited scholarship examining top-performing scholars have mainly
explored diverse research productivity antecedents (Joy, 2006; Lee & Bozeman, 2005),
gender disparities (Eloy etal., 2013; Van Arensbergen etal., 2012), or research per-
formance traits (e.g., Jones et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2003). Beyond these studies,
meta-analytical research has also traditionally followed a top-down process to structur-
ally describe research patterns in academic fields, typically neglecting prolific schol-
ars. Accordingly, research has primarily examined a constrained set of journals, mainly
those indexed in the JCR or Scopus ranking, to further examine their authorship or cita-
tion structure (Freelon, 2013; Günther & Domahidi, 2017; Jones etal., 2010; Martínez
etal., 2011). Finally, research on diversity in sciences has also been highly prolific but
has mainly focused on showing the extensive geographical and gender bias at different
academic levels, such as editorial boards (Goyanes, 2020; Dhanani & Jones, 2017) or
authorship (Breuning & Sanders, 2007).
Considering all these streams of research together, we still know little about a transver-
sal theme that connects them all: how the publication trajectories of the most productive
scholars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation.
To address this gap in the literature, rather than constraining the analysis to a set of given
journals –as implemented by prior scholarship– we focus instead on the 100 most pro-
ductive scholars in Communication, Psychology, and Political Science, and examine their
publication diversity scores, considering all journals where they have published. Therefore,
focusing on three different fields, the aim of this study is fourfold: (1) structurally describe
the most prolific scholars research trajectories, (2) examine their gender and geographical
representation, (3) explore and compare their publication diversity patterns, (4) and under-
stand how gender and geographical positions shape the most prolific scholars’ publication
diversity.
Examining research trajectories among the most productive scholars is relevant for
understanding the publication patterns of scientific fields; it reveals how homogeneous or
heterogeneous the contributions of the most prolific scholars are and where they have typi-
cally published their academic works. Some authors, for instance, may pursue a standard-
ized career, focusing on one set of defined journals relevant to their topics. In contrast, oth-
ers may consider a more diverse publication strategy to reach different readers. Likewise,
exploring the gender and geographic representation of the most productive scholars consti-
tutes a vital research agenda to further capture research bias in scientific production. Alto-
gether, this study contributes to current conversations at the intersection of Scientomet-
rics studies, gender, and geographical bias in global knowledge production (e.g., Aguinis
etal., 2018; Baruch, 2001; Begeny etal., 2018; Brown etal., 2020; Goyanes & De-Marcos,
2020; Leahey, 2006; Nisonger, 2002; Teele & Thelen, 2017; Van Arensbergen etal., 2012),
providing insightful theoretical implications and empirical findings on academic represen-
tation and research trajectories.
Our results first reveal that the most popular journals among the most productive Com-
munication, Psychology, and Political Science scholars are Health Communication, Per-
sonality and Individual Differences and The British Journal of Social Work, respectively.
Also, germane to publication trajectories, a network analysis shows that prolific Commu-
nication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychology journals
than vice-versa. In contrast, psychologists’ publications are primarily targeted to both Psy-
chology and life science periodicals, typically neglecting either Communication or Polit-
ical Science journals. In short, there is a bilateral relation between Communication and

Scientometrics
1 3
Political Science, while both fields have unilateral connections to Psychology in terms of
research output.
Second, our findings demonstrate that males are over-represented among the most pro-
lific scholars across fields, but especially in the field of Political Science and Psychology.
As for geographical representation, the proportion of non-US scholars among the most
prolific researchers is statistically higher in Political Science, Psychology, and the pooled
sample, but not in the field of Communication, in which US biases are still prevalent.
Finally, neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender
and geographic location has a significant effect on publication diversity, suggesting that the
research output of the most prolific scholars are exceptionally diverse, regardless of their
gender, geographical location, or field of study.
Research trajectories acrosselds
While there is scarce comparative research examining publication patterns across Commu-
nication, Psychology, and Political Sciences, a remarkable research tradition has sprung up
around publication trends in each field independently. In political science, extant research
has found low diversity rates in terms of gender and race in both the pool of submitted and
published papers (Brown etal., 2020; Nisonger, 2002). However, no research has focused
explicitly on publication trajectories of the most prolific scholars, remaining unclear the
most salient journals where top-performing scholars have published and the connections
established among them.
Unlike Political Science, publication trajectories of Psychology (Joy, 2006) and Com-
munication scholars have been subjected to broader empirical scrutiny (Bolkan et al.,
2012). However, especially in Psychology, most studies focused on either a given set of
journals (de Meuse, 1987; Smith etal., 2003) or the most productive scholars from a given
group of departments (Byrnes & McNamara, 2001; Jones etal., 1982). Thus far, research
has found that the field of Psychology is considerably dominated by research originating
in the US (Arnett, 2008; Begeny etal., 2018), yet with increasing levels of multidiscipli-
narity (Mayer & Rathmann, 2018). Along similar lines, Benjafield (2020) found that the
standard set of journals where psychologists publish has changed, progressively distancing
from humanistic fields, and turning towards neuroscience, cognitive sciences, and biology
(Wieczorek etal., 2021).
While there is a broader research agenda examining publication patterns of the most
prolific scholars in Communication (Burroughs etal., 1989; Hickson etal., 1989; Stacks
& Hocking, 1992), most studies focused on a predetermined set of journals, remaining
unclear the broader network of scholars’ publication trajectories. For example, Hickson
etal. (1993), limiting their sample to 19 Communication journals listed on the Index to
Journals in Communication Studies in 1990, found that Communication Monographs,
Communication Education, and Human Communication Research were the most popular
journals for prolific scholars.
Later, Bolkan etal. (2012) found that for the most productive scholars, Communication
Research Reports, Communication Education, Human Communication Research, Commu-
nication Quarterly, Communication Studies, and Communication Research were the most
popular publication outlets during 2012–2016. However, as in the prior case, the study
constrained its sample to 24 journals that have “historical precedent” (p. 4), five of which
were considered to be the “most central to our discipline” (p. 1). Complementary to this

Scientometrics
1 3
former research, this study approaches the relationship between productivity and publica-
tion trajectories from a divergent perspective. Instead of examining a determined set of
journals to examine the most prolific scholars, the analysis focuses on the most prolific
scholars to explore all periodicals where they have been published. Accordingly, we pose
the following research questions:
RQ1 Where have most productive scholars published their papers in Communication, Psy-
chology, and Political Science?
RQ2 Which are the publication trajectories of the top 100 scholars in Communication,
Psychology, and Political Science?
Gender inequalities inscience participation
In recent years, the analysis of gender inequalities, usually referred to as Matilda-effect in
science (Rossiter, 1993), has substantially increased (Cole & Zuckermann, 1984; Fox &
Nikivincze, 2021; Xie & Shauman, 2003). Extensive research has typically shown that,
despite the growing presence of female scholars, they are still underrepresented amongst
the most productive ones (Aguinis etal., 2018; Mayer & Rathmann, 2018; Van Arensber-
gen etal., 2012). In Political Science, Briscoe-Palmer and Mattocks (2020) argue that male
dominance is still rampant; several studies have also voiced concerns about gender bias in
various academic levels, such as editorial boards, authorship, and fellowships in scientific
associations (Breuning & Sanders, 2007; Brown etal., 2020; Teele & Thelen, 2017).
In Psychology, despite being generally considered a female-oriented field (Mayer &
Rathmann, 2018), researchers also found a significant male overrepresentation (Arnett,
2008; Begeny etal., 2018). Mayer and Rathmann (2018) analyzed the gender distribution
in different publication outlets (i.e., journals, book chapters, and monographs). They found
the most biased picture in journal publications, suggesting that “female professors publish
less often than male professors, and are therefore less visible and less likely to gain rec-
ognition and prestige for their findings” (Mayer & Rathmann, 2018, p. 1679). According
to the same authors, the lower publication success of female scholars is not the result of a
lower acceptance ratio but a lesser likelihood of submitting their scholarship.
In Communication, gender inequalities have also been the focus of analytical efforts and
academic discussion (Knobloch-Westerwick & Glynn, 2013; Knobloch-Westerwick etal.,
2013). Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn (2013) have found convincing evidence for the
existence of the Matilda effect in their study of 15years of two prominent journals of com-
munication theory. Moreover, in line with role congruity theory, they also revealed that a
paper by a female author(s) has a different degree of citation (or more precisely, under-cita-
tion) depending on whether the topic is perceived to be more “masculine” or “feminine”.
However, in the context of our research, the most relevant findings of Knobloch-Wester-
wick and Glynn’s study (2013) are that, first, male scholars get more citations than their
female peers on average. Second, the gender gap in citations is more substantial in the most
prolific scholars that published at least five papers in the analyzed two flagship communi-
cation journals. The same authors also demonstrated the importance of the selection of the
topic in a controlled experiment (Knobloch-Westerwick etal., 2013), pointing out that the
presumed gender of the authors affected the assessment of the ‘scientific quality’ of the
same scientific papers (or their abstracts). Judges gave higher evaluations if they thought
that the author was male and lower if they thought she was female, especially when the

Scientometrics
1 3
paper was also about a masculine topic. Based on former research on gender inequalities,
we hypothesize that:
H1 The proportion of males among the most productive scholars is significantly higher
than females in (a) Communication, (b) Political Science, (c) Psychology, and (d) the over-
all pooled sample.
The role ofgeopolitics inscience participation
In addition to gender, one of the most studied factors affecting research productivity is geo-
politics (Baruch, 2001; Goyanes & Demeter, 2021; Pooley & Park, 2013). The underlying
assumption indicates that inequalities in global knowledge production follow the inequali-
ties in geopolitical power relations (Demeter, 2019; Wang, 2011), triggering a Matthew
effect across countries (Bonitz etal., 1997). Prior research has documented a significant
Western, especially American, domination across various fields of sciences (e.g., Lauf,
2005; Delgado & Rapiso, 2013; Demeter, 2019). In Communication, for instance, Lauf
(2005) has found that American authors dominated all SSCI communication journals,
while Delgado and Rapiso (2013) showed that 80% of communication journals are based
in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Existing evidence also shows that this
dominance in knowledge production has a significant impact on the chances of becoming a
member of the editorial board (Goyanes & Demeter, 2020).
As for Political Science, several researchers have suggested that geographical inequali-
ties are pervasive, noting that the discipline mainly reflects the voice of white, typically
American, males (Briscoe-Palmer & Mattocks, 2020; Nisonger, 2002). Similarly, in Psy-
chology, a growing number of studies have documented that the field is dominated by
research mainly produced in the United States (Arnett, 2008; Begeny etal., 2018; Bajwa
& König, 2019). All in all, cross-disciplinary bibliometric studies have shown that in terms
of the publication output of international journals, peripheral countries are seriously under-
represented, or even invisible (Curry & Lillis, 2018; Efranmanesh etal., 2017; Heilbron
etal., 2018). However, little is known thus far on how these geographic inequalities tran-
spire into the “hall of fame” of the most productive researchers. The third research question
raised in this study focuses on the production of knowledge in the United States and non-
U.S., investigating the geographic proportions of the most productive scholars in the three
research fields:
RQ3 Are there statistically significant differences between geographical proportions
among top 100 scholars (a) in each field and (b) across fields?
Diversity inpublication trajectories
Academically, diversity typically refers to the multifariousness of representation of differ-
ent academic agents, viewpoints, methods, research topics, genders, ethnicities, or geo-
politics (Shore etal., 2009; Zanoni etal., 2010). Therefore, diversity has been measured
at different levels of analysis, such as editorial boards (Lauf, 2005), research production
(Efranmanesh et al., 2017), methodological approaches (Demeter & Goyanes, 2021), or
interdisciplinarity (Gibbons, 1994; Van Noorden, 2015), mainly adopting and modify-
ing Rao’s (Leydesdorff etal., 2019; Rao, 1982; Stirling, 2007) or Simpson’s (Hill, 1973)

Scientometrics
1 3
indices. Common to these measurements, the diversity of a given sample is higher when
there are more possible values for a given variable and when these values are equally
distributed.
Besides technical studies on diversity, research has focused on the effects of interdis-
ciplinarity on specific scientometric indicators, such as productivity or impact (Abramo
etal., 2018; Chakraborty etal, 2015; Zhang etal, 2018). Jamali etal. (2020), for instance,
have associated diversity to career choices, suggesting that scholars can decide “focusing
on one or a few research topics or areas, or they might diversify their research activities
(Jamali et al., 2020., p. 131). According to the authors, a focus on a limited number of
topics can result in accumulation of great expertise, while focusing on more diverse topics
may result in better knowledge transfer and problem-solving research (Jamali etal., 2020).
Moreover, prior research has observed that higher diversity can result in the emancipa-
tion of the marginalized (Khalifa & Quattrone, 2008) as raising diversity might help to
give voice to many different people, including members of historically oppressed groups.
Several studies have also suggested that diversity might increase institutions’ performance,
raise the level of productivity, innovation and problem-solving capacities (Shore et al.,
2009). However, while there is broad research on diversity scores at different academic
levels, little is known about scholars’ diversity scores in terms of their publication trajec-
tory. Specifically, it can be assumed that prolific scholars with a higher diverse publication
diversity can provide a more diverse set of knowledge, a “skill mix” (Carter etal., 2003).
Like diverse research groups, individual academics with diverse publication trajectories
bear a broader set of theoretical and methodological knowledge, handle more viewpoints
and perspectives, and thus show better problem-solving capabilities (Goyanes etal., 2020;
Dhanani & Jones, 2017). Hence, the following research question inquiries about the pub-
lication trajectories of the most prolific scholars and presumed disciplinary differences in
their publication diversity.
RQ4 Are there statistically significant differences between publication diversity indices
and the field of study (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology).
Gender, geopolitics, andpublication diversity
While there is no specific research focusing on the linkage between gender and publication
diversity, the literature discussing potential gender-based differences at different academic
levels has implicitly suggested that the publication habits of male and female scholars dif-
fer. For example, these differences have been widely discussed at the level of resource allo-
cation (Duch etal., 2012), collaborations and networking behaviors (Abramo etal., 2013),
role stereotypes (Westerwick & Glynn, 2013), or academic specialization (Leahey, 2006).
However, little is known about gender differences and publication diversity among the
most prolific scholars. Accordingly, the fifth research question investigates if publication
diversity scores are also affected by gender among the most prolific scholars in the ana-
lyzed disciplines and the pooled sample.
RQ5 Are there statistically significant gender differences in publication diversity in (a)
communication, (b) political science, (c) psychology, and (d) in the pooled sample
Many studies have shown that academic culture and publication practices vary across
geographical locations (e.g., Pooley & Park, 2013; Wang, 2011). However, little is known

Scientometrics
1 3
if these differences are relevant to publication diversity patterns among the most prolific
scholars across fields. Consequently, the sixth research question is related to the possible
association between geographical location and publication diversity.
RQ6 Are there statistically significant differences between geographical locations in pub-
lication diversity in (a) communication, (b) political science, (c) psychology, and (d) in the
pooled sample
Finally, this study also explores whether gender and geographical location affect pub-
lication diversity across different fields. While there is little research on how geographic
position and gender are related to publication diversity, former studies suggested that geo-
graphical regions and gender differences might interact. Specifically, fewer gender inequal-
ities have been found in the Western world in general (Chan & Torgler, 2020; Goyanes
& Demeter, 2020) and in the US (Westerwick & Glenn, 2013) than in other parts of the
world. To understand the potential moderating effect on gender in explaining the rela-
tionship between geographical location and publication diversity, we propose the seventh
research question:
RQ7 Does diversity depends on the levels of gender and geographical location in (a) com-
munication, (b) political science, (c) psychology, and (d) in the pooled sample.
Method
Data collection
First, a list of the most productive scholars (n = 100; 300 in total) in Communication, Polit-
ical Science, and Psychology (year 2017 ~ 2020) and their academic information (i.e., affili-
ation, country/region, Scopus author profile link) were exported from SciVal, a platform
that works with Scopus data (Sandler & Gladyrev, 2020; Santos et al., 2020). In SciVal,
productivity is measured by the number of Scopus-indexed publication in the analyzed
period. Each scholar’s publication records containing paper titles and journals titles were
downloaded. These fields were selected as prior studies have suggested substantial inter-
connections (Leydesdorff & Probst, 2009). For data preprocessing and cleaning, the dupli-
cated journal items were first merged.
Second, book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials, book reviews, and lecture
notes were removed from the records, as the study only considered journal peer-reviewed
manuscripts. Third, each journal was assigned with an I.D. and classified into one of four
subject areas: 1 = Communication, 2 = Psychology, 3 = Political Science, 4 = others, which
is based on the classification scheme on Scimago Journal & Country Rank. When a journal
was indexed in more than one field, and in order to present data compellingly (i.e., avoid-
ing bi-partite graphs) only the first category was selected. For example, the International
Journal of Press/Politics (IJPP) was cross-listed in Communication and Political Science,
but only Communication was considered. Finally, a journal pool was constructed, contain-
ing the journal title, I.D. number, and disciplinary category. The final sample yielded 4407
journals (231 in communication, 660 in psychology, 459 in political science, and 3057
periodicals indexed in “other categories”). For each scholar, gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female),

Scientometrics
1 3
geographical location (1 = U.S, 2 = Non-U.S), and the field in (i.e., Communication, Psy-
chology, and Political Science) were listed.
To test the reliability of data coding, we conducted two intercoder reliability tests: (1)
for journal codes and the number of papers, and (2) for journal categories. In defining the
appropriate sample size, we followed the suggestions of Neuendorf (2017). Accordingly,
random subsets of the sample (number of papers: N = 394; journal categor ies: N = 138),
were coded by two independent coders, and then Krippendorff alpha reliability tests were
conducted. In both cases, the reliability test found substantive reliability with (1) α = 0.932
and (2) α = 0.763.
To compute the publication diversity of selected scholars, the total number of papers in
different journals were stored to calculate Simpson’s reciprocal diversity indices (SRDI;
range: 0 – 1; SRDI = 1/D, where D =
Σn(n−1)
N(
N
−
1
))
. This measurement shows the degree of con-
centration when items are classified into categories. In the formula, n refers to the total
number of items in each category, while N refers to the total number of items in all
categories.
Diversity values are considered higher when papers are proportionally distributed across
different journals and are lower when papers are distributed in the same few journals. In
other words, balanced and distributed publication patterns result in greater diversity. Pub-
lication diversity was measured at journal level. While diversity is often measured in terms
of multidisciplinarity, we suggest that, considering the “post-disciplinary” nature (Wais-
bord, 2019) or the “balkanization” (Ang etal., 2019) of many disciplines, in which differ-
ent research areas are categorized under an “umbrella field”, journal level diversity may be
and instructive dimension to understand scholars’ research pluralism.
Since the focus of the study is the most productive scholars, all of them are highly
diverse in their trajectories, meaning that their diversity values and number of published
papers are similar. The number of papers published range is 16–66, with an average pro-
duction of 23.18 (SD = 7.61) papers. Similarly, the diversity indices range from 0.90 to 1,
with an average diversity score of 0.91 (SD = 1.23). Accordingly, the diversity scores and
number of articles were not statistically significant correlated (r = 0.32; p = 0.83).
Data analysis
Different techniques of data analysis were considered for answering our research questions
and testing our hypothesis. To answer RQ1, we ran descriptive statistics based on frequen-
cies of journals within fields and in the pooled sample. For RQ2, we implemented a social
network analysis. The network analysis was conducted using the publication records of
the scholars under analysis. In the network, nodes represent journals, and edges connect
journals selected for publication by a given author. For example, if an author published in
journals 1, 25, and 392, then these edges were added, 1:25, 1:392, and 25:392. As a result,
edges represent authors’ decisions to publish in a given set of journals. This method ena-
bled us to graphically represent the network of publication trends and journal choice across
and within fields.
To test H1a, b, c, and d, we ran a series of χ2 Goodness-of-fit tests to examine gen-
der proportions within fields and in the pooled sample. Likewise, for answering RQ3a
and RQ3b, we ran a series of χ2 to examine geographical proportions within and between
fields. RQ4, RQ5, and RQ6 were tackled progressively. First, we found that diversity
scores were not normally distributed in the three fields (Shapiro–Wilk’s test, p < 0.05).

Scientometrics
1 3
Accordingly, we decided to run the non-parametric alternative of the one-way ANOVA,
i.e., the Kruskal–Wallis H test, to examine field differences (RQ4).
Similarly, for answering RQ5 and RQ6, we first checked the normality of our depend-
ent variable depending on the gender (male vs. female) of the most productive scholars
and the geographical location (the U.S. vs. non-US). We found that diversity scores were
non-normally distributed across the board (Shapiro–Wilk’s test, p < 0.05). As a result, we
implemented the non-parametric alternative of the independent-samples t-test, i.e., the
Mann–Whitney U. Finally, to answer RQ7, we ran a more stringent test of the two-way
ANOVA using bootstrapping and reporting confidence intervals (1000 bootstrap samples,
bias-corrected and accelerated [BCa]).
Results
Descriptive analysis
RQ1 asks where the most productive scholars publish (frequencies of journals across
fields) their papers. Table1 lists the top 20 journals in which the most prolific scholars
across three areas (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology) published their
research. The top five journals are all from the field of Psychology. The Psychology journal
Personality and Individual Differences was ranked as the most popular publication outlet
Table 1 Top 20 Journals Where the Most Productive Scholars Published (across Communication, Psychol-
ogy and Political Science)
Journal name No. of papers
Personality and Individual Differences 933
Frontiers in Psychology 512
Asian Journal of Psychiatry 382
Indian Journal of Psychiatry 246
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 231
Health Communication 230
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 225
Plos One 216
Body Image 205
Journalism Studies 185
Psychiatry Research 181
Archives of Sexual Behavior 179
Communication Education 162
Journalism 158
Communication Research 156
Behaviour Research and Therapy 155
International Journal on Disability and Human Development 151
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 148
International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 141
Journal of Communication 137

Scientometrics
1 3
with 933 papers, followed by another two psychology journals, Frontiers in Psychology
(512 papers) and Asian Journal of Psychiatry (382 papers). The total amount of papers
published in the top 5 psychology journals (2304 papers) takes up 28.9% of all the papers
published in the top 50 journals (7970 papers).
Table2 shows that in the field of communication, Health Communication (230 papers),
Journalism Studies (185 papers) and Communication Education (162 papers), Journalism
(158 papers), and Communication Research (156 papers) are the five most popular com-
munication journals. Again, as we already mentioned, Table3 shows that Personality and
Individual Differences (933 papers), Frontiers in Psychology (512 papers), Asian Journal
of Psychiatry (382 papers), Indian Journal of Psychiatry (246 papers), and Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology (231 papers) are the most popular psychology journals.
Finally, Table4 provides the British Journal of Social Work (122 papers), Public Adminis-
tration Review (99 papers), Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (98 papers), Journal of
Criminal Justice (92 papers), and Children and Youth Services Review (85 papers) are the
most published journal outlets among the most productive political science scholars.
Trajectories ofthemost productive scholars – network analysis (RQ2)
The trajectories of the most productive scholars constituted a full graph of 4407 nodes and
482.136 edges. Two hundred thirty-one journals are represented in communication, 660 in
psychology, 459 in political science, and the remaining 3037 journals are categorized as
‘others.’ General graph properties are reported in Table5.
Figure1 represents the entire network by different subfields. The graph shows that the
three different disciplines are relatively autonomous. More importantly, the graph also
Table 2 Top 20 communication
journals where the most
productive scholars published
Journal name No. of papers
Health Communication 230
Journalism Studies 185
Communication Education 162
Journalism 158
Communication Research 156
Journal of Communication 137
New Media and Society 132
Digital Journalism 117
Journalism Practice 112
Journal of Health Communication 110
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 106
Mass Communication and Society 97
International Journal of Communication 96
Computers in Human Behavior 92
Information Communication and Society 87
Public Relations Review 85
Communication Research Reports 84
International Journal of Press Politics 82
Human Communication Research 71
Communication Monographs 68

Scientometrics
1 3
Table 3 Top 20 psychology journals where the most productive scholars published
Journal name No. of papers
Personality and Individual Differences 933
Frontiers in Psychology 512
Asian Journal of Psychiatry 382
Indian Journal of Psychiatry 246
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 231
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 225
Plos One 216
Body Image 205
Psychiatry Research 181
Archives of Sexual Behavior 179
Behaviour Research and Therapy 155
International Journal on Disability and Human Development 151
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 148
International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 141
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 131
Psychological Reports 131
Journal of Positive Psychology 125
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 122
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 116
Current Psychology 110
Table 4 Top 20 political
science journals where the most
productive scholars published
Journal name No. of papers
British Journal of Social Work 122
Public Administration Review 99
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 98
Journal of Criminal Justice 92
Children and Youth Services Review 85
International Journal of Public Administration 72
Electoral Studies 69
Australian Journal of Public Administration 68
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 64
Journal of Occupational Science 63
Aggression and Violent Behavior 61
Policy Studies Journal 59
American Journal of Political Science 59
Health and Social Care in The Community 59
Public Administration 57
European Journal of Political Research 55
Canadian Journal of Political Science 54
Crime and Delinquency 54
Policy and Society 53
Age and Ageing 53

Scientometrics
1 3
shows that the number of publications in psychology journals significantly exceeds the
number of published papers in communication and political science. However, Plos One, a
journal that is not indexed in any of the three categories, is one of the most popular publi-
cations for the most productive scholars in all three disciplines.
A more detailed representation of the communication network (Fig.2) shows the most
popular journals for the most prolific researchers. The graph shows that the most typical
publication outlets are reputable communication journals such as Journal of Communi-
cation, Communication Research, or Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.
The most productive scholars also publish in different political science and psychology
Table 5 Network properties of fields
Average
Degree
Diameter Density Modularity Number of
communi-
ties
Avg cluster-
ing coef-
ficient
Clustering
coefficient
Full network 89.817 5 0.038 0.432 39 0.772 0.7673
Communica-
tion
40.45 4 0.094 0.33 9 0.834 0.8837
Psychology 101.757 3 0.077 0.33 6 0.785 0.7849
Sociology &
Political
Science
59.513 5 0.053 0.591 22 0.838 0.834
Fig. 1 Full network. Green = Communication, Red = Psychology, Blue = Sociology & Political Science,
Grey = Other)

Scientometrics
1 3
journals. However, most of these journals are categorized in either communication and
political science (such as the International Journal of Press/Politics) or in communication
and psychology (such as Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking). The graph
also shows that it is not typical for communication scholars to publish in journals different
from the usual suspects in communication, political science, and psychology.
The network of psychologists shows a rather different structure. The most productive
psychology scholars typically do not publish in either communication or political science
journals (Fig.3). They focus instead on psychology journals or journals related to natural
sciences, typically medicine and psychiatry.
Finally, political science demonstrates the most interdisciplinary network: the most pro-
lific political scientists typically publish in political science journals and psychology jour-
nals (Fig.4).
To test H1, we adjusted a χ2 Goodness-of-fit test. The expected frequency for each field
was 50, while for the pooled sample was 150. As shown in Table6, results indicate that
gender was not similarly distributed in each area and in the pooled sample. It’s demon-
strated that males are over-represented. Thus, H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d were supported.
When it comes to geographical proportions (RQ3), our findings (Table7) illustrate that
the number of non-US scholars was statistically different, and higher, for political science
(χ2(1) = 6.760,p < 0.01), psychology (χ2(1) = 27.040,p < 0.001), and in the pooled sample
(χ2(1) = 20.280,p < 0.001), but not for communication (χ2(1) = 0.000,p = 1.00).
For answering if there are statistically significant differences between publication
diversity scores in communication (n = 100; Mdn = 0.948), political science (n = 100;
Mdn = 0.964), and psychology (n = 100; Mdn = 0.952), we ran a Kruskal–Wallis test
(RQ4). Distributions of diversity scores were similar for the three fields, as assessed by
visual inspection of a boxplot. Median diversity scores were statistically significant
between groups, χ2(2) = 6.561, p = 0.038. Post hoc analyses were performed using Dunn’s
procedure (1964) with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Results show a
Fig. 2 Communication Network. Green = Communication, Red = Psychology, Blue = Sociology & Political
Science, Grey = Other)

Scientometrics
1 3
Fig. 3 Psychology network. Green = Communication, Red = Psychology, Blue = Sociology & Political Sci-
ence, Grey = Other)
Fig. 4 Political science network. Green = Communication, Red = Psychology, Blue = Sociology & Political
Science, Grey = Other)

Scientometrics
1 3
marginal difference between communication and political sciences (p = 0.055). Differences
between communication and psychology (p = 1.000) and psychology and political sciences
(p = 0.122) were not statistically significant.
For answering RQ5, we ran a Mann–Whitney U Test (differences in diversity scores
between males and females). Distributions of diversity scores among females and males
were similar across fields. As reflected in Table8, there were no significant differences
in diversity scores between males and females in any area, neither on the pooled sample,
U = 7319.500, z = − 1.028, p = 0.308.
To answer if there are statistically significant differences between geographical loca-
tions in publication diversity in (a) communication, (b) political science, (c) psychology,
and (d) in the pooled sample (RQ6), we also ran a Mann–Whitney U Test. Distributions
of diversity scores among geographical regions were similar across fields. There were no
significant differences in diversity scores between U.S. and non-US scholars in none of the
areas, neither on the pooled sample, U = 5920, z = − 1.336, p = 0.181 (Table9).
Table 6 Distribution of the Most
Productive Scholars Across
Fields According to Their
Gender
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001
Male Female Expected Residual χ2(df)
Communication 65 35 50 ± 15 9000(1)**
Political Science 82 18 50 ± 32 40,960(1)***
Psychology 84 16 50 ± 34 46,240(1)***
Pooled sample 231 69 150 ± 81 87,480(1)***
Table 7 Distribution of
geographical locations among the
most productive scholars
*p < .05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001
U.S. non-US Expected Residual χ2(df)
Communication 50 50 50 0 .000(1)
Political Science 37 63 50 ± 13 6.760(1)**
Psychology 24 76 50 ± 26 27.040(1)***
Pooled sample 111 189 150 ± 39 20.280(1)***
Table 8 Gender differences in diversity scores across fields and in the pooled sample
Male (Mdn) Female (Mdn) Field U Z p
Communication .948 .947 .948 1046.500 − 0.658 0.511
Political Science .963 .968 .964 574.500 − 1.467 0.142
Psychology .949 .954 .952 652.500 − 0.183 0.855
Pooled sample .954 .956 .954 7319.500 − 1.028 0.304

Scientometrics
1 3
For answering RQ7 we ran a more stringent analysis, based on a bootstrapped two-way
ANOVA (1000 bootstrap samples, bias corrected and accelerated [BCa]). According to
our findings, neither in each individual field nor the pooled sample, there was a significant
interaction effect of gender and geographical location over diversity scores: a) Communi-
cation, F(0.790, 1) = 0.008, p = 0.376, par tial η2 = 0.008), (b) Psychology, F(1, 96) = 0.256,
p = 0.614, par tial η2 = 0.003, c) Political Science, F(1, 96) = 0.076, p = 0.784, d) pooled
sample, F(1, 296) = 0.126, p = 0.722, partial η2 = 0.000 (Table10).
Table 9 Geographical differences in diversity scores across fields and in the pooled sample
U.S. (Mdn) Non-US (Mdn) Field U Z p
Communication .940 .959 .948 1026.500 − 1.541 .123
Political Science .960 .967 .964 1024 − 1.010 .312
Psychology .954 .951 .952 831 − .654 .513
Pooled sample .948 .957 .954 9520 − 1.336 .181
Table 10 Bootstrap for the
estimated marginal means of
the interaction between gender
and geographical location over
diversity scores
Standard errors in brackets, bootstrap results are based on 1000 boot-
strap samples, bias-corrected and accelerated
Geographical location Gender Mean BCa 95% CI
Communication
USA Male .914 (.021) .860 – .948
Non-USA Female .926 (.014) .890 – .951
USA Male .909 (.027) .839 – .947
Non-USA Female .959 (.007) .943 – .974
Political Science
USA Male .874 (.037) .786 – .942
Non-USA Female .897 (.024) .844 – .944
USA Male .964 (.007) .949 – .982
Non-USA Female .963 (.011) .937 – .989
Psychology
USA Male .933 (.012) .904 – .956
Non-USA Female .920 (.013) .889 – .944
USA Male .973 (.008) .959 – .989
Non-USA Female .929 (.014) .898 – .955
Pooled
USA Male .904 (.016) .867 – .934
Non-USA Female .914 (.010) .890 – .935
USA Male .927 (.021) .873 – .955
Non-USA Female .959 (.006) .935 – .963

Scientometrics
1 3
Discussion
Building on research revolving around the most productive scholars in three interrelated
disciplines and their publication trajectories, our study provides a complex approach
on how gender, geopolitical, and publication diversity are related across different aca-
demic fields. Our first two research questions sought to shed light on the publication
patterns of the 100 most productive scholars in Communication, Political Science and
Psychology. Our main contribution regarding these scholars’ publication patterns relies
on demonstrating academic interconnectedness (Leydersdorff & Probst, 2009), yet not
necessarily bilateral relations.
First, our findings show that communication scholars are more prone to publish in
psychology and political science journals than the other way around. In contrast, psy-
chologists’ publications are targeted to both psychology and life science periodicals,
typically neglecting either communication or political science journals. This last find-
ing is aligned with previous research findings suggesting that the field of psychology
is distancing from soft sciences and turning instead to nature and life sciences areas
(Benjafield, 2020; Wieczorek etal., 2021). Political science is the most open field, with
blurred disciplinary boundaries (Leydersdorff & Probst, 2009), and is equally open to
psychology, communication, and other disciplines. In short, while there is a bilateral
relation between political science and communication, these fields generally have uni-
lateral connections to psychology.
Our second contribution relates to gender and geopolitical inequalities in publica-
tion diversity. In line with the corresponding literature (Aguinis et al., 2018; Fox &
Nikivincze, 2021), we hypothesized that the proportion of male scholars would be sig-
nificantly higher amongst the most prolific scholars in both the full sample and in the
individual fields. Indeed, we found a significant overrepresentation of male scholars
with a 77% male dominance in the pooled sample; the gender bias reached the highest
point in the case of Psychology (85% male scholars) and Political Science (82% male
scholars), while Communication showed a more balanced, but still biased gender repre-
sentation with 65% male scholars. Thus, in each discipline, and especially in psychol-
ogy and political science, it is significantly less likely that female scholars were listed
among the most productive academics. Again, in line with former research, these find-
ings show gender bias when it comes to academic productivity (Cole & Zuckermann,
1984; Fox & Nikivincze, 2021; Xie & Shauman, 2003).
Geopolitically, we found a notable Americanization among the most prolific schol-
ars, especially in Communication (Delgado & Rapiso 2013; Goyanes & Demeter, 2020),
while the picture in Psychology and Political Science is more balanced. In this regard,
while former studies typically analyzed the representation of geopolitical regions in the
authorship of a different set of journals (Demeter, 2019; Lauf, 2005), our study focused
on geographical proportions among the most prolific scholars. We found that non-Amer-
ican scholars outnumber US-based researchers except in the field of Communication.
However, readers should be aware of the codification scheme. With a different coding
protocol (for instance, at country level), findings will side for the US.
Finally, testing gender, geopolitical, and field differences in publication diversity, our
findings suggest that the most productive scholars have much more in common than
differences across fields. Indeed, neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the
interaction between gender and geographic location significantly affects publication
diversity. In the three areas under examination, the publication records of the most

Scientometrics
1 3
productive scholars are exceptionally diverse. With these results, our paper contributes
to the ongoing discussion on publication bias by suggesting a more complex description
of inequalities amongst the most prolific scholars. We found that differences in gen-
der, location, or discipline among the most productive scholars are no longer critical in
publication diversity: once listed among the most productive scholars, female and non-
American researchers hold similar publication diversity scores to males and American
peers.
Limitations
All the findings above, albeit important, carry several limitations inherent to the study,
which reveal some constraints but offer opportunities for future research directions. First,
to determine the most productive authors, we used SciVal, which works with Scopus data.
Alternatively, future studies may focus on Web of Science data, which might define a dif-
ferent set of authors and disciplinary categorization. We chose Scopus/SciVal because it
is much more inclusive than the Web of Science. Still, future research should decide if the
main patterns of diversity and interdisciplinarity between the three disciplines remain with
data from the Web of Science.
The second limitation of the study is that count data come from journal titles on the
author level. Consequently, if two prolific scholars authored a given paper, it yields two.
Notwithstanding, future research focusing on paper-level diversities can extend our results
by showing the frequencies of published papers instead of reporting authors’ choices.
Moreover, our findings suggest that the most interdisciplinary field is political science.
Authors in this discipline publish significantly in both psychology and journals that are not
indexed in the three disciplines under analysis. This result might be partially explained by
the fact that Scopus and Scimago categorize political science ambiguously, as they con-
sider two main categories: “political science and international relations” and “sociology
and political science.” However, these categorizations cannot fully explain the publica-
tion trajectories of the most prolific political science scholars, as many of the most popular
journals in which they have published are not indexed in any categories related to political
science.
Finally, some of the most productive scholars might be ranked as such due to a potential
large number of published other-than-research papers, such as book chapters, editorials,
book reviews or research notes. However, our analysis only considered research papers.
Thus, it might be possible, although not very plausible, that some of the most productive
scholars have limitedly published research articles. Future research might address this
limitation by, for instance, focusing on a smaller sample, implementing a manual content
analysis.
Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.

Scientometrics
1 3
References
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of
Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Zhang, L. (2018). A comparison of two approaches for measuring inter-
disciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the
reference list. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1182–1193.
Aguinis, H., Ji, Y. H., & Joo, H. (2018). Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other
scientific fields. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(12), 1283.
Ang, P. H., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Aguaded, I., Muñoz-Uribe, J.-F., Wasserman, H., & Athique, A.
(2019). Intellectual Balkanization or Globalization: The Future of Communication Research Publish-
ing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(4), 963–979. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10776
99019 878461
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 63, 602–614.
Bajwa, N.u.H., & König, C.J. (2019). How much is research in the top journals of industrial/organizational
psychology dominated by authors from the U.S.? Scientometrics, 120, 1147–1161. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s11192- 019- 03180-2
Baruch, Y. (2001). Global or North American? A geographical based comparative analysis of publications
in top management journals. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 109–126.
Begeny, J. C., Levy, R. A., Hida, R., Norwalk, K., Field, S., Suzuki, H., etal. (2018). Geographically rep-
resentative scholarship and internationalization in school and educational psychology: A bibliometric
analysis of eight journals from 2002–2016. Journal of School Psychology, 70, 44–63. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. jsp. 2018. 07. 001
Benjafield, J. G. (2020). Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences. Sciento-
metrics, 125, 1965–1982.
Bolkan, S., Griffin, D. J., Holmgren, J. L., & Hickson, M. (2012). Prolific scholarship in communication
studies: five years in review. Communication Education, 61(4), 380–394.
Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1997). Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for
countries. Scientometrics, 40(3), 407–422.
Breuning, M., & Sanders, K. (2007). Gender and journal authorship in eight prestigious political science
journals. P.S.: Political Science & Politics, 40(2), 347–351.
Briscoe-Palmer, S., & Mattocks, K. (2020). Race, Intersectionality, and Diversity in European Political Sci-
ence. In: Boncourt, T., Engeli, E., & Garzia, D. (eds). Political Science in Europe. Achievements, Chal-
lenges, Prospects. Rowman & Littlefield International. Pp. 199–217.
Brown, N., Horiuchi, Y., Htun, M. N., & Samuels, D. J. (2020). Gender gaps in perceptions of political sci-
ence journals. P.S.: Political Science & Politics, 53(1), 114–121.
Burroughs, N. F., Christophel, D., Addy, J. C., & McGreal, E. A. (1989). Top published authors in com-
munication studies 1915–1985. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 67, 37–45.
Byrnes, J. P., & McNamara, C. C. (2001). Evaluating doctoral programs in the developmental sciences.
Developmental Review, 21, 326–354.
Carter, D., Simkins, B., & Simpson, W. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value.
Financial Review, 38, 33–53.
Chakraborty, T., Tammana, V., & Ganguly, N. (2015). Understanding and modeling diverse scientific
careers of researchers. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 69–78.
Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2020). Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and
country. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2421–2447.
Cole, J., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistenceand change in patterns of publication
among men and womenscientists. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation
and Achievement (Vol. 2, pp. 217–258). JAI Press, Greenwich.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2018). Global academic publishing. Policies, perspectives, and pedagogies. Bris-
tol: Multilingual Matters.
Delgado, E., & Repiso, R. (2013). El impacto de las revistas de comunicación: Comparando Google Scholar
Metrics Web of Science y Scopus. Comunicar, 21(41), 45–52.
Demeter, M., & Goyanes, M. (2021). A world-systemic analysis of knowledge production in international
communication and media studies: the epistemic hierarchy of research approaches. The Journal of
International Communication, 27(1), 38–58.
Dhanani, A., & Jones, M. J. (2017). Editorial boards of accounting journals: Gender diversity and interna-
tionalisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(5), 1008–1040.

Scientometrics
1 3
Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, T. K., & Nunes Amaral, L. A.
(2012). The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differ-
ences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone.
00513 32
Demeter, M. (2019). The world-systemic dynamics of knowledge production: The distribution of transna-
tional academic capital in the social sciences. Journal of World-Systems Research, 25(1), 112–144.
Efranmanesh, M., Tahira, M., & Abrizah, A. (2017). The publication success of 102 nations in Scopus and
the performance of their Scopus-indexed journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 421–433.
Eloy, J. A., Svider, P., Chandrasekhar, S. S., Husain, Q., Mauro, K. M., Setzen, M., & Baredes, S. (2013).
Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryn-
gology Head and Neck Surgery, 148(2), 215–222.
Fox, M. F., & Nikivincze, I. (2021). Being highly prolific in academic science: Characteristics of individuals
and their departments. Higher Education, 81, 1237–1255.
Freelon, D. (2013). Co-citation map of 9 comm journals, 2003–2013. Retrieved from http:// dfree lon. org/
2013/ 09/ 05/ co- citat ion- map- of-9- comm- journ als- 2003–2013/
Gibbons, M., etal. (1994). The new production of knowledge. Sage.
Goyanes, M. (2020). Editorial boards in communication sciences journals: Plurality or standardization?.
International communication gazette, 82(4), 342–364.
Goyanes, M., & De-Marcos, L. (2020). Academic influence and invisible colleges through editorial board
interlocking in communication sciences: a social network analysis of leading journals. Scientometrics,
123(2), 791–811.
Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2020). How the geographic diversity of editorial boards affects what is pub-
lished in JCR-ranked communication journals. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 97(4),
1123–1148.
Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2021). Dr. Excellent: The Systemic and Personal Conditions for Being an
Academic Star in Communication Studies. Kome: An International Journal of Pure Communication
Inquiry, 1–16.
Goyanes, M., Demeter, M., Grané, A., Albarrán-Lozano, I., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2020). A mathematical
approach to assess research diversity: Operationalization and applicability in communication sciences,
political science, and beyond. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2299–2322.
Günther, E., & Domahidi, E. (2017). What communication scholars write about: An analysis of 80 years of
research in high-impact journals. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3051–3071.
Heilbron, J., Sorá, G., & Boncourt, T. (2018). The social and human sciences in global power relations.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hickson, M., Stacks, D. W., & Amsbary, J. H. (1989). An analysis of prolific scholarship in speech com-
munication, 1915–1985: Toward a yardstick for measuring research productivity. Communication
Education, 38, 230–236.
Hickson, M., Stacks, D. W., & Amsbary, J. H. (1993). Active prolific scholars in communication studies:
Analysis of research productivity II. Communication Education, 42(3), 224–233.
Hill, M. O. (1973). Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 54(2),
427–432.
Jamali, H. R., Abbasi, A., & Bornmann, L. (2020). Research diversification and its relationship with
publication counts and impact: A case study based on Australian professors. Journal of Information
Science, 46(1), 131–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01655 51519 837191
Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982). An assessment of research-doctorate programs in
the United States: Social and behavioral sciences. National Academy Press.
Jones, J., Carlton, J., Fong, L. G., Torres, J. H., etal. (2010). Productivity in educational psychology
journals from 2003 to 2008. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 11–16.
Joy, S. (2006). What Should I Be Doing, and Where Are They Doing It? Scholarly Productivity of Aca-
demic Psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 346–364.
Khalifa, R., & Quattrone, P. (2008). The governance of accounting academia: Issues for a debate. Euro-
pean Accounting Review, 17(1), 65–86.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. C., Glynn, J., & Huge, M. (2013). The matilda effect in science communica-
tion: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest.
Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10755 47012 472684
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect –Role congruity effects on schol-
arly communication: A citation analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communica-
tion articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00936 50211 418339
Lauf, E. (2005). National diversity of major international journals in the field of communication. Jour-
nal of Communication, 55, 19–151.

Scientometrics
1 3
Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender
& Society, 20(6), 754–780. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08912 43206 293030
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social
Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
Leydesdorff, L., & Probst, C. (2009). The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a
journal set: The case of communication studies. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 60(8), 1709–1718.
Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2019). Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation pat-
terns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient. Journal of
Informetrics, 13(1), 255–269.
Martínez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. W. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly produc-
tive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing
scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 691–720.
Mayer, S. J., & Rathmann, J. M. K. (2018). How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing
gender differences for multiple publication dimensions. Scientometrics, 117, 1663–1693.
Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200–5205.
Nisonger, T. (2002). The relationship between international editorial board composition and citation
measures in political science, business, and genetics journals. Scientometrics, 54(2), 257–268.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
Pooley, J. D., & Park, D. W. (2013). The history of communication research. In P. Simonson, J. Peck,
R. T. Craig, & J. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of communication history (pp. 76–90). Routledge.
Rao, C. R. (1982). Diversity: Its measurement, decomposition, apportionment and analysis. Sankhya: the
Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A, 44(1), 1–22.
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.
Sandler, D., & Gladyrev, D. (2020). Analysis of the relations between scientometric and economic indi-
cators of Russian universities’ performance. Business, Management and Economics Engineering,
18(2), 331–343.
Santos, L., Cardoso, L., Araújo-Vila, N., & Fraiz-Brea, J. A. (2020). Sustainability perceptions in tour-
ism and hospitality: A mixed-method bibliometric approach. Sustainability, 12, 8852.
Shore, L., Chung, B., Dean, M., Ehrhart, K., Jung, D., Randel, A., & Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in
organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review,
19, 117–133.
Smith, M. C., Plant, M., Carney, R. N., Arnold, C. S., Jackson, A., Johnson, L. S., Lange, H., Mathis, F. S.,
& Smith, T. J. (2003). Productivity of educational psychologists in educational journals, 1997–2001.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 422–430.
Stacks, D. W., & Hocking, J. E. (1992). Essentials of communication research. HarperCollins.
Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analyzing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal
of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707–719.
Teele, D. L., & Thelen, K. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. P.S.:
Political Science & Politics, 50(2), 433–447.
Van Arensbergen, P., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific
productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868.
Van Noorden, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature, 525(7569), 306–307.
Waisbord, S. (2019). Communication: A post-discipline. Polity Press.
Wang, G. (Ed.). (2011). De-westernizing communication research: Altering questions and changing frame-
works. Routledge.
Wieczorek, O., Unger, S., Riebling, J., Erhard, L., Koß, C., & Heiberger, R. (2021). Mapping the field of
psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015. Scientometrics, 126, 1–33.
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Harvard University
Press.
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, J. S. (2010). Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality:
Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17(1), 1–21.
Zhang, L., Sun, B., & Chinchilla-Rodrıguez. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: On the relation-
ship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists. Scientometrics,
117(1), 271–291.

Scientometrics
1 3
Authors and Aliations
ManuelGoyanes1,2· MártonDemeter3· ZichengCheng4· HomeroGildeZúñiga2,4,5
Márton Demeter
Demeter.Marton@uni-nke.hu
Zicheng Cheng
zvc5199@psu.edu
Homero Gil de Zúñiga
hgz@usal.es
1 Department ofCommunication, Carlos III University, Getafe, Madrid, Spain
2 Democracy Research Unit, University ofSalamanca, Salamanca, Spain
3 National University ofPublic Service, Budapest, Hungary
4 Film Production & Media Studies Department, Pennsylvania State University, StateCollege, PA,
USA
5 Department ofCommunication, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile