A study of research collaboration in the pre‐web and post‐web stages: A coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline

Huang, Mu‐Hsuan; Wu, Ling-Ling; Wu, Yi-Chien

doi:10.1002/asi.23196

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 86 publications

(160 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In analyses looking at papers as the unit of study, increased co-authorship has been associated with citation impact [ 16 ]. Within the field of information systems, for instance, total number of co-authors of a study is positively correlated with the number of citations received by that study [ 17 ]. This positive effect of total number of co-authors on citations has also been found across scientific fields in Italy [ 18 ], in the field of demography [ 19 ], as well as in Russian molecular biologists [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research

Parish¹,

Boyack²,

Ioannidis³

2018

PLoS ONE

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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-authors. Across 249,054 researchers who had published ≥30 papers in 2000–2015 but had not published anything before 2000, R varied across scientific fields. Lower values of R (more collaboration) were seen in physics, medicine, infectious disease and brain sciences and higher values of R were seen for social science, computer science and engineering. Among the 9,314 most productive researchers already reaching Np ≥ 30 and I1 ≥ 4 by the end of 2006, R mostly remained stable for most fields from 2006 to 2015 with small increases seen in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Both US-based authorship and male gender were associated with higher values of R (lower collaboration), although the effect was small. Lower values of R (more collaboration) were associated with higher citation impact (h-index), and the effect was stronger in certain fields (physics, medicine, engineering, health sciences) than in others (brain sciences, computer science, infectious disease, chemistry). Finally, for a subset of 400 U.S. researchers in medicine, infectious disease and brain sciences, higher R (lower collaboration) was associated with a higher chance of being a principal investigator by 2016. Our analysis maps the patterns and evolution of collaborative behavior across scientific disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research

Parish¹,

Boyack²,

Ioannidis³

2018

PLoS ONE

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several approaches to studying the network structure of a research topic such as bibliographic coupling (Boyack & Klavans, 2010 ), co-words analysis (Igami et al, 2014 ), and co-authorship analysis (Huang et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual Laboratories- A historical review and bibliometric analysis of the past three decades

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online and virtual teaching–learning has been a panacea that most educational institutions adopted from the dire need created by COVID-19. We provide a comprehensive bibliometric study of 9523 publications on virtual laboratories in higher education covering the years 1991 to 2021. Influential bibliometrics such as publications and citations, productive countries, contributing institutions, funders, journals, authors, and bibliographic couplings were studied using the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol. A new metric to complement citations called Field Weighted Citation Impact was introduced that considers the differences in research behavior across disciplines. Findings show that 72% of the research work was published between 2011-and 2021, most likely due to digitalization, with the highest number of publications in 2020–2021 highlighting the impact of the pandemic. Top contributing institutions were from the developed economies of Spain, Germany, and the United States. The citation impact from publications with international co-authors is the highest, highlighting the importance of co-authoring papers with different countries. For the first time, Altmetrics in the context of virtual labs were studied though a very low correlation was observed between citations and Altmetrics Attention Score. Still, the overall percentage of publications with attention showed linear growth. Our work also highlights that virtual laboratory could play a significant role in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG4-Quality Education, which largely remains under-addressed.

show abstract

“…Although these large collaborations have received the lion's share of media attention [9], research collaboration on a smaller scale is also important for scientific productivity and influence [10]. For instance, within the field of bibliometrics, the total number of co-authors of a publication is positively correlated with the number of citations received by that study [11].…”

Section: Citation Impact and The Number Of Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Korean and foreign authors concerning the citation impact of Korean journals indexed in Scopus

Jang

Chun

Kim

2018

Sci Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An aim of this study is to analyze the citation impact of articles and reviews that were published in engineering, materials science, and medical journals in Korea over the 5-year period from 2012 to 2016 based on authors' countries. These three subject areas were selected to provide insights regarding citation impact because they are better represented than other subjects among the 248 Korean journals indexed by Scopus. Methods: We classified authors' as Korean and foreign to assess and compare the citation impact of articles and reviews according to the authors' countries and evaluated whether bibliometric indicators, such as the number of authors and the view count, were associated with a higher citation impact. Results: We found that the citations count and publications in the top 10 citation percentile in these three subject areas were higher for reviews than for articles; further, the citation impact of articles and reviews by foreign authors was higher than that of articles and reviews by Korean authors. The number of authors had a weak relationship with citation impact based on the subject area, and the number of authors per review by foreign authors in materials science and medicine was negatively associated with citation impact. Moreover, the views count was found to be positively associated with the citation impact of publications in these three subject areas. Conclusion: Considering these findings, future research should explore more bibliometric indicators, subject areas, and countries in order to develop practical applications. The results of this study provide insights and statistical evidence indicating that journal publishers and editors in Korea should attempt to attract more publications by foreign authors and promote their publications to increase their visibility and likelihood of being cited.

show abstract

A study of research collaboration in the pre‐web and post‐web stages: A coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline

Cited by 16 publications

References 86 publications

Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research

Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research

Virtual Laboratories- A historical review and bibliometric analysis of the past three decades

Comparison between Korean and foreign authors concerning the citation impact of Korean journals indexed in Scopus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About