2018
Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research
Abstract: We aimed to assess which factors correlate with collaborative behavior and whether such behavior associates with scientific impact (citations and becoming a principal investigator). We used the R index which is defined for each author as log(Np)/log(I1), where I1 is the number of co-authors who appear in at least I1 papers written by that author and Np are his/her total papers. Higher R means lower collaborative behavior, i.e. not working much with others, or not collaborating repeatedly with the same co-autho…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
122
20
11
2
Citation Types
7
60
0
5
Year Published
2018
2026
Publication Types
Select...
100
25
22
9
Relationship
0
156
Authors
Journals
Cited by 152 publications
(72 citation statements)
References 40 publications
7
60
0
5
“…Results indicated that generally, academic staff members who collaborated more were also more research productive where the topmost collaborators were also among the top most research productive. The result in the current study was congruent to those of previous scholars (He et al, 2009;Hedjazi & Behravan, 2011;Kyvik & Reymert, 2017;Parish et al, 2018;Vuong et al, 2017) who found out that research productivity was high among academic staff members who collaborated most. Such congruence might be related to a number of reasons for example, obtaining publication data from one data source.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Results indicated that generally, academic staff members who collaborated more were also more research productive where the topmost collaborators were also among the top most research productive. The result in the current study was congruent to those of previous scholars (He et al, 2009;Hedjazi & Behravan, 2011;Kyvik & Reymert, 2017;Parish et al, 2018;Vuong et al, 2017) who found out that research productivity was high among academic staff members who collaborated most. Such congruence might be related to a number of reasons for example, obtaining publication data from one data source.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Genealogic and collaborative connections prolonged the life-span of teams within the Clock field. These observations are in line with previous studies highlighting the relevance of training and mentorship [43–45] and the importance of collaborations [5, 46–49]. TTP represents a new measure to estimate the contribution of authors to a specific field.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Genealogic and collaborative connections seem to enhance the impact of teams and to prolong their life-span within a field. This underlines the relevance of training and mentorship ensuring the continuity of research in S&T (Sauermann and Haeussler, 2017) and supports the importance of cooperations regardless of the field (Lu et al, 2011;Mukherjee et al, 2017;Wuchty et al, 2007;Stallings et al, 2013;Coccia and Wang, 2016;Parish et al, 2018). (Milojevic, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…The delineation of families and collaborator networks in the Clock field revealed that genealogical and collaborative connections prolong the life-span of authors. These observations are in line with studies showing the relevance of training and mentorship [60][61][62][63][64] and the importance of collaborations [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. The automatic delineation of family connections from first author-last author pairs provides an alternative to efforts requiring user input [73][74][75] (https://www.genealogy.math.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
