Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications

Gazni, Ali; Didegah, Fereshteh

doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0343-8

Cited by 186 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multi-author research has become more common (Gazni, Sugimoto, & Didegah, 2012;Persson, Glänzel, & Danell, 2004) and receives more citations than does solo research (Gazni & Didegah, 2010;Sooryamoorthy, 2009; Leimu & Koricheva, 2005a&b). However, a few studies have found no correlation between more authors and increased citations (Bornmann, Schier, Marx, & Daniel, 2012;Haslam et al, 2008).…”

Section: Research Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include the impact of the publishing journal (Boyack & Klavans, 2005), collaboration (Gazni & Didegah, 2010), the interdisciplinarity of the article references (Larivière & Gingras, 2010), the number and impact of references (Boyack & Klavans, 2005), and the size of the related field (Lovaglia, 1989). Thus, authors seeking to maximise the impact of their research may write more clear titles and abstracts and may also be particularly careful to ensure that their literature review does not miss any relevant highly cited papers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has the limitation that the difference may be spurious in the sense of being caused by factors other than the ones investigated. International collaboration seems to be particularly beneficial for small institutions (Goldfinch, Dale, & DeRouen, 2003) rather than big institutions (Gazni & Didegah, 2010).Institutional collaboration, which involves researchers from different institutions, also associates with higher citation impact (Gazni & Didegah, 2010;Sooryamoorthy, 2009;Narin & Whitlow, 1990). These studies are also geographically and institutionally limited and use a simple correlation test for an association between institutional collaboration and citation counts, and so it may be that other factors explain the increased citations better than institutional collaboration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Didegah

Thelwall

2013

Journal of Informetrics

Self Cite

267

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assesses whether eleven factors associate with higher impact research: individual, institutional and international collaboration; journal and reference impacts; abstract readability; reference and keyword totals; paper, abstract and title lengths. Authors may have some control over these factors and hence this information may help them to conduct and publish higher impact research. These factors have been previously researched but with partially conflicting findings. A simultaneous assessment of these eleven factors for Biology & Biochemistry, Chemistry and Social Sciences used a single negative binomial-logit hurdle model estimating the percentage change in the mean citation counts per unit of increase or decrease in the predictor variables. The journal Impact Factor was found to significantly associate with increased citations in all three areas. The impact and the number of cited references and their average citation impact also significantly associate with higher article citation impact. Individual and international teamwork give a citation advantage in Biology & Biochemistry and Chemistry but inter-institutional teamwork is not important in any of the three subject areas. Abstract readability is also not significant or of no practical significance. Among the article size features, abstract length significantly associates with increased citations but the number of keywords, title length and paper length are insignificant or of no practical significance. In summary, at least some aspects of collaboration, journal and document properties significantly associate with higher citations. The results provide new and particularly strong statistical evidence that the authors should consider publishing in high impact journals, ensure that they do not omit relevant references, engage in the widest possible team working, when appropriate, and write extensive abstracts. A new finding is that whilst is seems to be useful to collaborate and to collaborate internationally, there seems to be no particular need to collaborate with other institutions within the same country. IntroductionDuring an academic career, scholars make numerous choices about the type of research to conduct, how to present their research, and where to submit it for publication. It seems logical that researchers should aim to conduct the highest possible impact research in order to make the most of their talents and opportunities. Whilst the key decisions for this aim are likely to be specific to the topics researched, there are some more peripheral factors that are nevertheless relevant and that academics may also need to consider in order to maximise the impact of their efforts.Citation counts are widely acknowledged as the main scientific research impact indicator and empirical studies have been carried out to seek associations between citation counts and various objective and easily measurable properties of research. These include the impact of the publishing journal (Boyack & Klavans, 2005), collaboration (Gazni & Didegah, 2010)...

show abstract

Section: Research Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Didegah

Thelwall

2013

Journal of Informetrics

Self Cite

267

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For 7 of the 9 years investigated, citation productivity, as measured by the fractional counting system, was highest for group-sizes between 2 and 3 (Levitt & Thelwall, 2013). Gazni and Didegah (2011), in an investigation of WoS articles with at least one author affiliated with Harvard University, found a significant positive correlation between the number of co-authors and the number of citations. Franceschet & Costantini (2010), in an investigation of 970 Italian economics and statistics articles, found that the citation level increased as the number of authors increased from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3 or more.…”

Section: : Citation Productivity and Group Sizementioning

confidence: 98%

Long term productivity and collaboration in information science

Levitt

Thelwall

2016

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funding bodies have tended to encourage collaborative research because it is generally more highly cited than sole author research. But higher mean citation for collaborative articles does not imply collaborative researchers are in general more research productive. This article assesses the extent to which research productivity varies with the number of collaborative partners for long term researchers within three Web of Science subject areas: Information Science & Library Science, Communication and Medical Informatics. When using the whole number counting system, researchers who worked in groups of 2 or 3 were generally the most productive, in terms of producing the most papers and citations. However, when using fractional counting, researchers who worked in groups of 1 or 2 were generally the most productive. The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, however, because authors that produce few academic articles within a field may publish in other fields or leave academia and contribute to society in other ways

show abstract

“…The use of relative impact factor and relative citation rates enables us to observe that the CSIC tends to publish in better journals and to receive more citations than our country-average in various areas. This upholds the quality of the research carried out at the institution, although it may be infl uenced by some factors such as the predominance of basic research at the CSIC (which tends to receive more citations), and its high rate of international collaboration, for which a greater impact has been described in the literature (see for example Gazni and Didegah, 2011). Special mention should be made of the high impact of the CSIC in Multidisciplinary journals, Mathematics and Social Sciences, which is 40 % higher than the national average.…”

Section: The Csic: a Perspective By Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicadores bibliométricos para el análisis de la actividad de una institución multidisciplinar: el CSIC

González‐Albo¹,

Moreno²,

Morillo³

et al. 2012

Rev. esp. doc. cient.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications

Cited by 186 publications

References 17 publications

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

Long term productivity and collaboration in information science

Indicadores bibliométricos para el análisis de la actividad de una institución multidisciplinar: el CSIC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About