Single-authored publications in the sciences at Israeli universities

Farber, Miriam

doi:10.1177/0165551505049261

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The disciplinary differences in coauthorship rates shown above overlap with and echo some previous studies. This is true for the low rate of coauthorship for mathematics (Farber, 2005) and the social sciences and humanities (Larivière et al, 2015). The results extend prior findings with updated, finer grained, and longer term information.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Nevertheless, evidence from National Science Foundation funded studies in the United States suggests that it grew more rapidly during 1997-2012 in applied fields and particularly in the medical sciences and emerging applied hybrid fields (Coccia & Bozeman, 2016). The fields in which single authorship is most common are mathematics and the arts and humanities (Farber, 2005) and there are more authors per paper in the natural and medical sciences compared to the social sciences and humanities (Larivière et al, 2015).…”

Section: Disciplinary Differences In Coauthorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Thelwall

Maflahi

2022

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research co-authorship is useful to combine different skillsets, especially for applied problems. Whilst it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields co-author the most and least. In response, this article assesses changes in the rate of journal article co-authorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Whilst all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in co-authorship, in 2020 there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whilst 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Disciplinary Differences In Coauthorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Thelwall

Maflahi

2022

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…699-700;Metz & Jäckle, 2017). Collaboration in the humanities and social science is perceived as extrawork and more difficult than working as sole investigator (Farber, 2005;Lewis et al, 2012). Accordingly, we differentiate political science into sub-disciplinary schools of thought to account for potential differences with regard to collaboration patterns.…”

Section: Collaboration Types In Academiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Kudos to you! Comparing co-authorships and acknowledgements in political science journals from Germany

Wallaschek¹,

Heiberger²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research on academic collaboration focuses on co-authorships, citations and acknowledgements as 'reward triangle'. However, acknowledgements have received comparatively little attention. In this paper, we compare co-authorship and acknowledgement networks and investigate conditions that influence their formation (gender, institutional affiliation and status of authors and acknowledged individuals). We select three sub-disciplinary political science journals from Germany between 2010 and 2017. We employ techniques from social network analysis to compare these conditions by using homophily measures. The results demonstrate that co-authorships have a rather sparse network while including acknowledgements reveals hidden collaboration structures. Moreover, scholars from the same institution are more likely to co-author and acknowledge each other while we show heterophily effects for acknowledging and co-authoring behavior of professors. We also identify an underrepresentation of female academics as authors and credit-givers alike. Thus, our exploratory study reveals similarities and differences patterns for co-authorships and acknowledgements providing new ground for future studies on all aspects of collaborative behavior in science.

show abstract

“…Seamless communication lines, between scientists and laboratories, now allowing not only exchange of ideas, but also immediate sharing of outcomes of experiments from far away places, brought about a new kind of co‐operation in publishing. As a result some papers in physics have as much as a couple of hundred authors (Farber, 2005) from research laboratories all over the world, that are now able to work and publish together in spite of the geographic distance.…”

Section: The Reading – Writing – Reading Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

How shall we write and read in twenty‐first century academy?

Farber

2007

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper's aim is to point out trends in scholarly communication – both some of the main advantages and the yet unsolved problems that technology – swift communication lines, digitalization and the web – brought into one of the most important activities of academic life: the reading – writing – publishing cycle.Design/methodology/approachThe different stages, which eventually give birth to a scientific paper, are described here as thinking – (experimenting) – reading – writing – publishing, and analyzed from handwritten to print to digital texts, with an emphasis on the revolutionary changes that scholarly publishing is experiencing.FindingsThanks to computerization, hypertext and the web, academic life enjoys swift and effortless communication, ease of writing, rapid publishing, almost unlimited access, but there are several uncalled for developments as well.Originality/valueThe new technologies lack a convenient way of writing‐while‐reading, enhance plagiarism, eliminate traditional archiving methods without offering a satisfactory new substitute (presently) and give rise to a call for a revised way of citation, together with new ways of archiving and storing.

show abstract

Single-authored publications in the sciences at Israeli universities

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

Kudos to you! Comparing co-authorships and acknowledgements in political science journals from Germany

How shall we write and read in twenty‐first century academy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About