Studies in scientific collaboration

Beaver, Donald deB.; Rosen, Richard B.

doi:10.1007/bf02016840

Cited by 436 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The countries with highest publication counts in IEE T Educ include USA (54.58%), Spain (5.87%), UK (4.44%), Canada (4.27%) and Australia (2.18%). c) The institutes with most number of articles in this journal are: Georgia Institute of Technology (49), US Department of Defense (49), California State University System (45), University of California System (45) and Florida State University System (37). Since the IEEE T Educ dataset spans 49 years so it has been divided into decades; except for the last time span which is only 9 years, i.e.…”

Section: Data Collection and Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, he reported that such studies only provide an 'approximate measure of group efforts' [42][43]. Despite this limitation, many studies have utilized co-authorship as a measure of collaboration [44][45][46][47] and the general consensus is that the growth in multiple-authorship is a proof of increase in collaboration [45][46][47][48][49]. Therefore, the collaboration patterns of top authors of Table II were further examined and it was found that the total number of authors brought out by these top ten researchers is 54 and none of these top authors had any single-author publication (during 2003-2011 in this journal).…”

Section: ) Multi-author Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authorship and Content Analysis of Engineering Education Research: A Case Study

Nawaz

2016

Int. J. Eng. Ped.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this paper, Engineering Education as a discipline has been analyzed by taking IEEE Transactions on Education (IEEE T Educ) as a case; for examining the various trends that have been emerging over time. Based on various criteria of authorship and citation, an effort is made to highlight the main contributors or top authors of this engineering education community. It was found that authorship trends have been shifting more towards collaboration. It was also found that the authorship community is growing, both in terms of publications and publishing authors. Study of citation patterns during the last decade, reveals a high citation count per article, which indicates a high readership of this journal. Later, the study of authorship and citation patterns shed light on the trend that multi-author articles are cited more often than single-author articles. This study was compared with earlier studies in the field of Engineering Education Research (EER) using keyword analysis and temporal evolution and distribution of keywords. Additionally key-phrase and topic modeling was performed to identify leading and evolving research areas within the EER., Analysis of word co-occurrence was performed to discover the main context in which the keywords have been used. Lastly, topic modeling techniques were applied for probabilistic distributions of IEEE topics and the results were in line with earlier studies.

show abstract

Section: Data Collection and Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) Multi-author Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship and Content Analysis of Engineering Education Research: A Case Study

Nawaz

2016

Int. J. Eng. Ped.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The exchange of scientific information was institutionalized in the 1660s with the establishment of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London and the Journal des Sçavans, the first scientific journals (Beaver and Rosen 1978). While these journals provided platforms for scientists to share their results and ideas, they were largely accessible only to elitesthose who could afford a subscription themselves, or those who belonged to an institution that held copies (Nielsen 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tao of open science for ecology

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The field of ecology is poised to take advantage of emerging technologies that facilitate the gathering, analyzing, and sharing of data, methods, and results. The concept of transparency at all stages of the research process, coupled with free and open access to data, code, and papers, constitutes ''open science.'' Despite the many benefits of an open approach to science, a number of barriers to entry exist that may prevent researchers from embracing openness in their own work. Here we describe several key shifts in mindset that underpin the transition to more open science. These shifts in mindset include thinking about data stewardship rather than data ownership, embracing transparency throughout the data life-cycle and project duration, and accepting critique in public. Though foreign and perhaps frightening at first, these changes in thinking stand to benefit the field of ecology by fostering collegiality and broadening access to data and findings. We present an overview of tools and best practices that can enable these shifts in mindset at each stage of the research process, including tools to support data management planning and reproducible analyses, strategies for soliciting constructive feedback throughout the research process, and methods of broadening access to final research products.

show abstract

“…In particular, collaboration is seen as a means of: (1) dealing with the increasing complexity of the knowledge base; (2) enhancing intellectual stimulation, knowledge sharing and constructive criticism; (3) facilitating the integration of theoretical assumptions across different disciplines; and (4) promoting division of labour in situations where a single researcher may be handicapped. Later research on the origins and development of scientific collaboration in European science (Beaver, 2001;Beaver & Rosen, 1978;Beaver & Rosen, 1979a, , 1979b has identified a variety of motives for collaboration. These are summarised in Table 4.…”

Section: Motives For Research Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the first governing mechanism points to the role of trust, commitment, communication, time and territory as the building blocks of collaborative capability (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006;Miles, Snow, & Miles, 2000), the second one highlights the fact that collaboration can also provide substantial returns for individuals in terms of career progression and recognition in the professional community (Beaver et al, 1978;Cronin, 1995). In this regard, research collaboration can be understood better as a strategic choice (Katz & Martin, 1997).…”

Section: Relational Dynamics Of Research Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising Collaborative Processes in University Research Centres

Alexopoulos

Harney²,

Monks

et al. 2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of a knowledge-based agenda understanding the dynamics of the collaborative process between universities and industry becomes critical. This paper develops an analytical framework for examining the processes underpinning the collaborative capabilities of University Research Centres (URCs). Drawing on the lens of collaborative communities, this multi-level framework provides a useful basis for understanding in more detail the unique motives, relational dynamics and negotiated orders informing and shaping the formation and sustenance of research collaboration in URCs. Implications for the management of scientific and technical (S&T) human capital are discussed.

show abstract

Studies in scientific collaboration

Cited by 436 publications

References 6 publications

Authorship and Content Analysis of Engineering Education Research: A Case Study

Authorship and Content Analysis of Engineering Education Research: A Case Study

The Tao of open science for ecology

Conceptualising Collaborative Processes in University Research Centres

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About