Search results

The purpose of this paper is to know whether the authors’ productivity pattern of library and information science (LIS) open access journals adheres to Lotka’s inverse square law of scientific productivity. Since the law was introduced, it has been tested in various fields of knowledge, and results have varied. This study has closely followed Lotka’s inverse square law in the field of LIS open access journals to find a factual result and set a baseline for future studies on author productivity of LIS open access journals.

The publication data of selected ten LIS open access journals pertain to authorship, citations were downloaded from the Scopus database and analysed using bibliometric indicators like authorship pattern, collaborative index (CI), degree of collaboration (DC), collaborative coefficient (CC) and citation counts. This study has applied Lotka’s inverse square law to assess authors’ productivity pattern of LIS open access journals and further Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) goodness-of-fit test applied for testing of observed and expected author productivity data.

Inferences were drawn for the set objectives on authorship pattern, collaboration trend and authors’ productivity pattern of LIS open access journals covered in this study. The single authorship pattern is dominant in LIS open access journals covered in this study. The CI, DC and CC are found to be 1.95, 0.47 and 0.29, respectively. The expected values as per Lotka’s law (n = −2) significantly vary from the observed values as per the chi-square test and K-S goodness-of-fit test. Hence, this study does not adhere to Lotka’s inverse square law of scientific productivity.

Researchers may find an idea about the authors’ productivity patterns of LIS open access journals. This study has used the K-S goodness-of-fit test and the chi-square test to validate the authors’ productivity data. The inferences found out from this study will be a baseline for future research on author productivity of LIS open access journals.

This study is significant from the viewpoint of the growing research on open access journals in the field of LIS and to identify the authorship pattern, collaboration trend and author productivity pattern of such journals.

Analyze patterns of co-authorship in hospitality and tourism (H&T) research using bibliometric methods. The purpose of this paper is to answer three questions related to collaborative practices, the number of authors, the order of signatures and the role of the corresponding author.

The methodology is based on the bibliometric techniques of authorship analyzes published in leading H&T journals. Evaluative techniques provide longitudinal evidence of the evolution of some indicators of authors’ collaboration: the percentage of alphabetized authorships; the percentage of articles were the most relevant author signs in the first, middle or last position; and the position of the corresponding author in the by-line.

First, the collaborative nature of H&T research is confirmed; almost 80% of articles in the sample are co-authored. Second, over the past 30 years, the alphabetized signature model has been in decline in this field. Today, about 20% of articles indexed in JCR journals are signed alphabetically. Third, the first author’s placement is less consistent than that of the corresponding author.

This work provides relevant information on researchers’ authorship habits that may help evaluators assign credit and accountability and avoid malpractice in the authorial assignment.

This study explores the habits of researchers who collaborate to improve their productivity, impact and reputation. This is often linked to facilitating access to research funding and obtaining recognition from incentive systems. Yet, no research specifically examines trends in signature order or the corresponding author’s role in the H&T field.

This paper presents a co-authorship study of authors who published in Digital Humanities journals and examines the apparent influence of gender, or more specifically, the quantitatively detectable influence of gender in the networks they form.

This study applied co-authorship network analysis. Data has been collected from three canonical Digital Humanities journals over 52 years (1966–2017) and analysed.

The results are presented as visualised networks and suggest that female scholars in Digital Humanities play more central roles and act as the main bridges of collaborative networks even though overall female authors are fewer in number than male authors in the network.

This is the first co-authorship network study in Digital Humanities to examine the role that gender appears to play in these co-authorship networks using statistical analysis and visualisation.

This study aims to showcase the effect of gender in the field of library and information science.

Research and review articles published from 2005 through 2014 in The Electronic Library, a prominent journal in the field of Library and Information Science, were examined from the perspective of authors’ gender. Influence of gender was assessed with respect to at individual and collaborative levels, quality in terms of citedness and citation count, and receipt of research grants.

There has been an increase in the proportion of male authors over the years with a resulting decline in female authors. Male authors are more productive as teachers, while females contribute more as working professionals or while they peruse their academic/research programmes. Though the productivity in collaborative works has increased in all gender combinations, it is more prominent when authors of opposite gender team up. No significant difference is observed in the number of national or international works produced in different collaborative authorship patterns. There is no difference in the number of male and female authors in male–female collaborative works. Works sponsored by grants are produced more frequently in groups comprising male–female or male–male members. No significant difference is observed in the number of cited or uncited works produced in different authorship patterns. The number of citations to works is independent of the nature of gender-wise authorship patterns.

The study examines the status of women in research, specifically in the field of library and information science. The findings of the study are based on the contribution of the authors involved with the journal, “The Electronic Library”. Readers are encouraged to expand the study by including authors that contribute to other library and information science journals.

The study is first of its kind to highlight the involvement and observe the influence of female authors in the field of library and information science research.

By exploring the patterns of co-authorship, this paper aims to identify the degree and type of research collaboration in Malaysia.

A total of 22,244 publication records from five research universities in Malaysia were retrieved from Scopus database. Journal articles published for the period between 2008 and October 2011 were collected. Indicators such as number of authors, subject areas, number of local institutions and foreign countries, were analysed using simple statistical tools to identity the degree and type of collaboration.

The findings reveal that in Malaysia, researchers tend to work in teams but collaboration is more dominant in science-based research than social sciences. Academics published extensively with their colleagues from the same university or from other academic institutions, but there is little collaboration with researchers from public research institutes or industry. In terms of international collaboration, Iran, India, UK, Japan and the USA are the top five collaborating countries. Disciplines with significant international collaboration are physics and astronomy; chemistry; agricultural and biological sciences; engineering; health profession and computer sciences.

This paper is among the few that study the patterns of co-authorship in Malaysia and most probably the first to examine the patterns in the Malaysian research universities. The study highlights the skewed distribution of co-authorship patterns where there is limited evidence of cross sectors collaboration in journal publication. The findings call for policy makers as well as universities to look into the constraints as well as drivers that would enhance the linkage of different actors in the national research system.

Various forms of regional cooperation in East Asia have greatly increased in the past two decades. Scientific collaboration is beneficial for both scientifically lagging countries (SLCs) and scientifically advanced countries (SACs) with respect to their S&T capacity and thus economic prosperity. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive description of intra‐regional scientific collaboration in East Asia from 1985 to 2008 with the 10+3 (ASEAN ten plus China, Japan and South Korea) framework.

The paper uses co‐authored articles embodied by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI‐Expanded) to indicate cross‐border scientific collaboration.

Data show that heterogeneity in the publication output across East Asian countries is decreasing. Intra‐ASEAN, intra‐ Northeast Asia, as well as ASEAN and Northeast Asia scientific collaboration greatly improved since 1997.

This paper discusses factors influencing international scientific collaboration and focuses on explaining the impact of regional integration. Finally, it offers further suggestions on East Asian integration from the perspective of scientific collaboration.

Science is subject to a normative structure that includes how the contributions and interactions between scientists are rewarded. Authorship and citations have been the key elements within the reward system of science, whereas acknowledgements, despite being a well-established element in scholarly communication, have not received the same attention. The purpose of this paper is to put forward the bearing of acknowledgements in the humanities to bring to the foreground contributions and interactions that, otherwise, would remain invisible through traditional indicators of research performance.

The study provides a comprehensive framework to understanding acknowledgements as part of the reward system with a special focus on their value in the humanities as a reflection of intellectual indebtedness. The distinctive features of research in the humanities are outlined and the role of acknowledgements as a source of contributorship information is reviewed to support these assumptions.

“Peer interactive communication” is the prevailing support thanked in the acknowledgements of humanities, so the notion of acknowledgements as “super-citations” can make special sense in this area. Since single-authored papers still predominate as publishing pattern in this domain, the study of acknowledgements might help to understand social interactions and intellectual influences that lie behind a piece of research and are not visible through authorship.

Previous works have proposed and explored the prevailing acknowledgement types by domain. This paper focusses on the humanities to show the role of acknowledgements within the reward system and highlight publication patterns and inherent research features which make acknowledgements particularly interesting in the area as a reflection of the socio-cognitive structure of research.

This study aims to examine the current state of the research activities of scholars in the hospitality and tourism field by analyzing the first 20 years of the new millennium.

Longitudinal analyses using 14,229 journal articles as data source were realized by adopting BibExcel, Gephi and VOSviewer network analysis software packages.

This study provides a comprehensive overview of the hospitality and tourism research based on authorship and social network analysis, with patterns of prolific authors compared over four distinct periods.

The hospitality and tourism academic society is clearly illustrated by tracing academic publication activities across 20 years in the new millennium. In addition, this study provides a guide for scholars to search for multidisciplinary collaboration opportunities. Government agencies and non-governmental organisations can also benefit from this study by identifying appropriate review panel members when making decisions about hospitality- and tourism-related proposals.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to use bibliometric analysis in assessing research published in leading hospitality and tourism journals across the four breakout periods in the new millennium.

This study aims to analyze the productivity patterns of authors in Nigeria using publications indexed in Medline from 2008 to 2012 based on Lotka’s Law. Lotka’s Law of scientific productivity provides a platform for studying inequality in authors’ productivity patterns in a given field and over a specified period.

This study covers all the journal articles on HIV/AIDS pandemic in Nigeria over a period of five years (2008-2012) in Medline, of which 512 articles were reported to have been published during this period. In this paper, 306 articles that had HIV/AIDS in the title, published in 20 journals, and articles that had HIV/AIDS as author keywords were analyzed. Because no local database that indexed biomedical literature from Nigeria was available, Medline was used, which is not only a robust and flexible database that includes articles from Nigeria but is also the largest medical database that indexes over six-and-a-half million articles from 3,400 biomedical journals.

While HIV/AIDS can be considered a global pandemic, Nigeria has the second highest number of new infections reported each year, and an estimated 3.7 per cent of the population is living with the dreaded disease. This study presents a general picture of the distribution of papers as single-author papers, multiple-author papers and the measures of co-authorship. The findings of the study reveal that in the productivity distribution for authors on the subject of HIV/AIDS, only co-authors and non-collaborative authors’ categories fit in the Lotka’s Law, whereas all-authors and first-author categories differ from the distribution of Lotka’s inverse square law.

The empirical evidence used in this paper was based on only articles of HIV/AIDS pandemic in Nigeria that had HIV/AIDS the title. Therefore, the findings of this study might not be the generalized to other biomedical research studies.

The originality of this paper lies in the fact that the productivity pattern of each of the different author categories on the subject of HIV/AIDS is a first of its kind in the Nigerian context.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the characteristic patterns of monographs in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences published by Polish scholars. The study provides a comprehensive overview of the Polish book evaluation system to explain how monographs are assessed and illustrate how changes in the definitions of the types of scholarly book publications influence publication patterns.

This paper analyses bibliographic records of 42,307 monographs published by Polish scholars in the humanities and science fields from 2009 to 2016. Through a bibliometric analysis, the paper investigates the characteristic patterns of the monographs, including authorship, publication language and length, across three fields.

The present study demonstrates that changes in the definitions of scholarly book publications in Poland have significantly influenced the characteristic patterns of monographs. The analysis of the characteristic patterns across three fields reveals that the monographs are different in terms of all characteristics. In the entire period, 85.3 percent monographs were written in Polish, 10.1 percent in English, 1.4 percent in German, 1.1 percent in Russian and 2.1 percent in 39 other languages. The most significant changes are observed in authorship patterns.

This work offers empirical findings on the characteristic patterns of monographs in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences from a non-English speaking country. It discusses a unique model of book assessment and shows certain consequences of various overly formalized procedures of evaluation. Thus, the study identifies the major challenges and implications of using highly formalized procedures for book evaluation.