Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000

This article analyses changes in publication patterns over a twenty-year period at Norwegian universities. Based on three surveys among academic staff; in 1982, 1992 and 2001, covering all kinds of publications, the following general conclusions are drawn: (a) co-authorship has become more common, (b) the extent of publishing directed towards an international audience has increased, (c) the scientific article in an international journal has enhanced its position as the dominating type of publication, and (d) the number of publications per academic staff member has increased. The largest changes have taken place within the social sciences, which to an increasing extent approaches the publication pattern in the natural sciences. On the other hand, the large productivity differences between individual researchers have remained remarkably stable over the two decades in all fields of learning. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks

The ability to activate and manage effective collaborations is becoming an increasingly important criteria in policies on academic career advancement. The rise of such policies leads to development of indicators that permit measurement of the propensity to collaborate for academics of different ranks, and to examine the role of several variables in collaboration, first among these being the researchers’ disciplines. In this work we apply an innovative bibliometric approach based on individual propensity for collaboration to measure the differences in propensity across academic ranks, by discipline and for choice of collaboration forms—intramural, extramural domestic and international. The analysis is based on the scientific production of Italian academics for the period 2006–2010, totaling over 200,000 publications indexed in Web of Science. It shows that assistant professors register a propensity for intramural collaboration that is clearly greater than for professors of higher ranks. Vice versa, the higher ranks, but not quite so clearly, register greater propensity to collaborate at the international level.     

Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part I. Development of a new model using a series expansion approach

International co-operation has strongly intensified during the last decades owing to rapid developments in scientific communication. Economic, political, and intra-scientific factors also strongly influence international collaboration links among individual countries. Obviously research results of international scientific co-operation are reflected in the documented scientific communication as international co-authorship links in scientific publications. Most bibliometric studies on this issue pertain to the share of international co-authored papers in national publication output and their impact on national and international research, or to the analysis and mapping of the structure of collaboration links. The present study attempts to develop a model to measure and analyse the extent of multilateral international co-authorship links. A new indicator, the Multilateral Collaboration Index (ρ) is introduced and analysed as a function of the share of internationally co-authored papers (f). Based onf a series expansion approach is applied that can be considered an extension of a fractionation model byNederhof andMoed and allows classifying the extent of multilateral links both among science fields and among individual countries. The paper is concluded by a first attempt to estimate the errors involved in our approach.     

Gender and productivity differentials in science

The paper presents the results of an examination of gender differences in scientific productivity on a sample of 840 respondents, half the young scientific population in Croatia. In the last decade gender differences in the scientific productivity of young researchers have increased, which may be the result of introducing a more competitive scientific system. Young female researchers publish an average of two scientific papers less than their male counterparts in five years, and their publications reach 70.6% of males" publication productivity in the same period. In the case of both sexes, about 15% researchers publish about half of all research papers, but even the most productive women publish less than their male counterparts Socio-demographic, educational and qualificational predictors contribute more or less equally to the number of scientific publications by women and men. It is not until we introduce structural variables that a strong sex differentiation appears because these factors are much more powerful in explaining the production of women. They show that female scientists" publication productivity is more strongly influenced by their position in the social organization of science. There are also considerable sex differences in the case of individual productivity predictors. International contacts determine the number of papers by female scientists most of all. Attendance at scientific conferences abroad is the most powerful predictor of male productivity, too, but reviewing colleagues" papers and academic degree are also very important. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science

Summary A comparative analysis of the scientific performance of male and female scientists in the area of Materials Science at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) is presented. Publications of 333 scientists during 1996-2000 are downloaded from the international database Science Citation Index and the national one ICYT. Scientific performance of scientists is studied through different indicators of productivity (number of SCI and ICYT publications), international visibility (average impact factor of publications, percentage of documents in “top journals”) and publication practices (%international publications, signing order of authors in the documents and different collaboration measures). Inter-gender differences in the research performance of scientists are studied. Influence of professional category and age are analysed. Although women are less productive than men, no significant differences in productivity are found within each professional category. However, a different life-cycle of productivity is found for men and woman and the most important inter-gender differences in productivity occur at the ages of 40-59.     

Science in Scandinavia: A Bibliometric Approach

The development of publication activity and citation impact in Scandinavian countries is studied for the 1980–1997 period. Besides the analysis of trends in publication and citation patterns and of national publication profiles, an attempt is made to find statistical evidences of the relation between international co-authorship and both research profile and citation impact in the Nordic countries. A coherent Scandinavian cluster has been found, and the Nordic countries have strong co-authorship links with highly developed countries in West Europe and North America. It was found that international co-authorship, in general, results in publications with higher citation rates than purely domestic papers. International collaboration has, however, not the same influence on publication profiles and citation impact of each analysed countries.     

Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields

The purpose of this paper is to give a macro-picture of collaboration in research groups and networks across all academic fields in Norwegian research universities, and to examine the relative importance of membership in groups and networks for individual publication output. To our knowledge, this is a new approach, which may provide valuable information on collaborative patterns in a particular national system, but of clear relevance to other national university systems. At the system level, conducting research in groups and networks are equally important, but there are large differences between academic fields. The research group is clearly most important in the field of medicine and health, while undertaking research in an international network is most important in the natural sciences. Membership in a research group and active participation in international networks are likely to enhance publication productivity and the quality of research.     

Co-word analysis and thematic landscapes in Spanish information science literature, 1985–2014

Current research information systems (CRISs) offer great opportunities for scientometric studies of institutional research outputs. However, many of these opportunities have not been explored in depth, especially for the analysis of intra-institutional research collaboration. In this paper, we propose a hybrid methodology to analyze research collaboration networks with an underlying institutional structure. The co-authorship network extracted from the institutional CRIS of the Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, is analyzed using the proposed methodology. The obtained results show that the organizational structure of the institution has a profound impact on both inter- and intra-institutional research collaboration. Moreover, researchers involved in inter-department collaborations tend to be drastically more productive (by all considered productivity measures), collaborative (measured by the number of co-authorship relations) and institutionally important (in terms of the betweenness centrality in the co-authorship network) compared to those who collaborate only with colleagues from their own research departments. Finally, our results indicate that quantifying research productivity by the normal counting scheme and Serbian research competency index is biased towards researchers from physics and chemistry research departments.     

A bibliometric analysis of publications by the School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, South Korea

This study presents an in-depth survey of research and citation performance of the School of Biological Sciences (SBS) 39-member faculty at Seoul National University (SNU), the most prestigious university in South Korea, for the years 2004–2009. Thirty-nine faculty members published a total of 640 publications during the period, representing an average of 16.4 publications per scientist. Among the 640 publications, 521 (81.4 %) were cited 9,204 times, an average of 14.4 citations per publication. More publications co-authored by the SBS faculty with foreign researchers (mostly from the U.S.A.) were published in mainstream journals than publications by three other co-authorship types. Accordingly, publications by international co-authorships received more citations compared to citation levels of three other co-authorship types in terms of the average citations per publication. The study has found a concentration effect, whereby quite a small number of publications received approximately one-third of the citation performance generated by the SBS faculty at SNU. The results demonstrate that the citation performance of the SBS at SNU can be influenced considerably by the presence and productivity of ‘star’ scientists.     

Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science,mathematics and dentistry fields

This study attempts to describe, in a comparative way, scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities and understanding of Brazilian researchers of productivity level 1 at the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). In order to do so, a questionnaire was sent to the researchers of productivity level 1 at CNPq in the Mathematics, Dentistry and Information Science fields, with questions about scientific collaboration and co-authoring activities. We analyzed the scientific production of the researchers who answered the questionnaire and we have identified that 78% of the participants consider that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are different activities, and the potential and usual number of research collaborators is between 2 and 3 in Mathematics and Information Science, and between 5 and 6 collaborators in Dentistry. Differences among fields were pointed out by identifying main collaborators and co-authors. The reasons for collaborating vary according to the nature of the research, however, the percentages are high in these three areas: “training of researchers and students”, “desire to increase their own experience through the experience of others” and “increased productivity.” From the analysis of the scientific production declared in their Lattes Curriculum, we have found that the average number of authors per publication in the field of Information Science is 2.2 authors, in Mathematics is 2.8 authors per publication, and in Dentistry the average is 5.3 authors per publication. We have concluded that scientific collaboration and co-authorship are terms assigned to different activities for the analyzed fields.     

Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists

We present some results of an evaluation of research performance of Spanish senior university researchers in Geology. We analyse to what extent productivity of individual researchers is influenced by the level of consolidation of the team they belong to. Methodology is based on the combination of a mail survey carried out among a defined set of researchers, and a bibliometric study of their scientific output. Differences among researchers have been investigated with regard to team size and composition, patterns of publication in domestic and foreign journals, productivity, co-authorship of papers, and impact of publications. Results indicate that not belonging to a research team represents a handicap at the time of publishing in top international journals. Researchers belonging to consolidated teams are more productive than their colleagues in non-consolidated teams, and these in turn more than individuals without team. Team size does not appear to be as important for scientific productivity as the number of researchers within the team that reached a stable job position. Analysis of the impact factor of journals has not revealed differences among researchers with regard to the visibility of their papers. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries

Purpose: To provide up-to-date bibliometric reference data describing the output and success of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries, including lifetime publication and citation numbers, and to investigate associations of bibliometric measures with academic status and gender as well as the department characteristics of size and quota of senior researchers. Method Queried literature databases using an extensive online register of academic psychologists in the German-speaking countries, obtaining valid data for 85 % (N = 1742) of the population of interest. Findings Skewed distributions for publications and citations; maximum number of German-language (=native) publications much higher than maximum number of English-language publications; relatively large part of population publishing almost exclusively in German; publication count predictable by academic status, gender, department size, and quota of senior researchers; citation count predictable by publication count, status, department size, and quota of senior researchers; department characteristics interact with individual characteristics to produce specific conditions under which publication count and citation count are higher or lower than expected: combination of female gender, small department size and large quota of senior researchers is associated with particularly increased publication count; female gender and large department size are associated with decreased publication count; high publication count, large department size and low quota of senior researchers are associated with increased citation count; low publication count and large quota of senior researchers are associated with decreased citation count. Conclusions Reference values for scientific output provided in this study provide an anchor for monitoring and international comparison; despite considerable noise in data, we show that interactions of individual and organizational characteristics are relevant for scientific success and should be investigated further, e.g. by adopting various measures of organizational diversity and tracing a population longitudinally.     

Evaluating scholars based on their academic collaboration activities: two indices, the RC-index and the CC-index, for quantifying collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities

Although there are many studies for quantifying the academic performance of researchers, such as measuring the scientific performance based on the number of publications, there are no studies about quantifying the collaboration activities of researchers. This study addresses this shortcoming. Based on three measures, namely the collaboration network structure of researchers, the number of collaborations with other researchers, and the productivity index of co-authors, two new indices, the RC-Index and CC-Index, are proposed for quantifying the collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities. After applying these indices on a data set generated from publication lists of five schools of information systems, this study concludes with a discussion of the shortcomings and advantages of these indices.     

Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan

This research examines the association of co-authorship network centrality (degree, closeness and betweeness) and the academic research performance of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Higher centrality in the co-authorship network is hypothesized to be positively related to performance, in terms of academic publication, with gender having a positive moderating effect for female researchers. Using social network analysis, this study examines the bibliometric data (2002–2009) from ISI Web of Science for the co-authorship network of 2,027 Pakistani authors publishing in the field of Chemistry. A non-temporal analysis using node-level regression reports positive impact of degree and closeness and negative impact of betweeness centrality on research performance. Temporal analysis using node-level regression (time 1: 2002–2005; time 2: 2006–2009) confirms the direction of causality and demonstrates the positive association of degree and closeness centrality on research performance. Findings indicate a moderating role of gender on the relationship of both degree and closeness centrality with research performance for Pakistani female authors.     

A bibliometric investigation on China–UK collaboration in food and agriculture

Based on data from the Web of Science, international collaboration between China and the UK in food and agriculture has been investigated from various perspectives. A new method for classifying cross- or multi-disciplinary fields has been created. The comparative study focuses on China’s collaboration with selected countries including the USA, the UK, Germany and Japan. The newly proposed Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is applied to evaluate publication impact. Although China’s total publications dropped in 2010, its research productivity in food and agriculture nevertheless kept growing and international collaboration, reflected by the number of publications, also increased in an exponential way. The growth rate of China’s internationally collaborated publications was lower than that of China’s total publications. The USA, Japan, Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany are the top partners for Chinese researchers in this field. China-UK joint publications overall increased although their share in China’s total internationally collaborated publications decreased. To China, collaborating with the USA, the UK and Germany, instead of Japan, seems to offer an option to raise impact. The rapidly growing number of international publications and impact of Chinese research in food and agriculture offers great collaboration potential for the country. The fact that the average impact of China-UK collaborative publications is higher than the domestic publications of either country implies that collaboration benefits both sides as has been found in several other studies.     

Identity and publication in non-university settings: academic co-authorship and collaboration

Increased collaboration between researchers working in university, industry, and governmental settings is changing the landscape of academic science. Traditional models of the interaction between these sectors, such as the triple helix concept, draw clear distinctions between academic and non-academic settings and actors. This study surveyed scientists (n = 469) working outside of university settings who published articles indexed in the Web of Science about their modes of collaboration, perceptions about publishing, workplace characteristics, and information sources. We study the association between these variables, and use text analysis to examine the roles, duties, sites, topics, and workplace missions among non-university based authors. Our analysis shows that 72% of authors working in non-university settings who collaborate and publish with other scientists self-identify as academics. Furthermore, their work life resembles that of those working in university settings in that the majority report doing fundamental research in government research organizations and laboratories. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, this research suggests that peer-reviewed publications are much more dominated by non-university academics than we previously thought and that collaboration as co-authors on academic publications is not likely to be a primary conduit for the transfer of scientific knowledge between academe and industry.

     

Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis

In recent decades, internationalization of research activities has increased, as demonstrated by the phenomena of international scientific collaboration and international mobility of researchers. This paper investigates whether the international scientific collaboration is explained by researchers’ motivation as well as their international migration. Using metadata from papers published in Nature and Science from 1989 to 2009, count data estimation was conducted. The results illustrate those researchers’ international migration and motivation, shown by both synergy and difference effects between countries, explain international collaboration. This implies that international co-authorship in recent decades has been based on researchers’ motivation as well as their networking. The positive result for synergy effects also means that pairs of countries with rich research environments tended to have more international collaboration, which may lead to the convergence of qualified research output in advanced scientific countries. Our findings also support the conclusion that researchers move to countries with better research environments, but networks created through international collaboration are not a factor in international migration. The relationship between international mobility and collaboration is confirmed as going in one direction, from mobility to collaboration.     

The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research

Policy makers, at various levels of governance, generally encourage the development of research collaboration. However the underlying determinants of collaboration are not completely clear. In particular, the literature lacks studies that, taking the individual researcher as the unit of analysis, attempt to understand if and to what extent the researcher’s scientific performance might impact on his/her degree of collaboration with foreign colleagues. The current work examines the international collaborations of Italian university researchers for the period 2001–2005, and puts them in relation to each individual’s research performance. The results of the investigation, which assumes co-authorship as proxy of research collaboration, show that both research productivity and average quality of output have positive effects on the degree of international collaboration achieved by a scientist.