Search results

This paper aims to introduce a systematic computing and analytical procedure that is applied to the co-author network to identify the temporal evolution and growth of research collaborations in the area of e-governance. The empirical analysis of the temporal co-author network can trace the emerging authors and knowledge bursts over time.

The study applied social network theory to trace the author collaboration patterns in the domain of e-governance. Analysis of the co-author network using micro and macro parameters was done to trace the temporal evolution of the author collaborations.

E-governance is a multi-disciplinary research domain split over streams of management, politics, information technology and electronics. Hence, research collaborations play a significant role in its advancement. The knowledge sharing between individual authors, institutions and groups through research collaborations, resulting in extensive sharing of data, equipment and research methods, has boosted research activities and development in e-governance. In this paper, the authors systematically analyse the current scenario of research collaborations in the area of e-governance using co-author network to estimate its impact on the advancement of the field. The authors also analysed the temporal evolution of the co-author networks, which show remarkable growth of research collaborations in the domain of e-governance from the year 2000.

The co-author network analysis is only a proxy measure for the analysis of research collaborations. The names of the authors and the university affiliations used in the article are as retrieved from the research repository of Scopus. The degree, citations and other parameters related with authors have scope only within the environment of the co-author network used in the analysis. The criteria used in the study is limited to the degree of research collaborations and the number of co-authored publications in the giant component of the co-author network.

Institutions, authors and governments can trace and select suitable topics and choose research groups of co-authors over the world for future research collaborations in e-governance. The knowledge about the emerging and most discussed topics gives an overview of the global research trends of e-governance.

The study identified the evolution of creative collaborations in e-governance in the global perspective. The methodology introduced here is helpful to detect the proficient and productive author collaborations and the spectrum of related e-governance research topics associated with them. As the author collaborations can be mapped to the institutional and country-level collaborations, the information is helpful for researchers, institutions and governments to establish the best collaborations in e-governance research based on the author proficiency, collaboration patterns and research topics as per the requirements.

The paper introduces a novel research methodology using temporal analysis of co-author network to identify the evolution of research patterns and the associated research topics.

The study aims to construct an understanding of professional academic writing network structures to inform organisational strategic investment in academic staff development.

Longitudinal social network analysis is used to examine the personal-networks evident in the publication portfolios of a purposive sample of four international academics across each quartile of the SCOPUS defined area of General Nursing's top 100 authors.

Trends in the publication portfolios of elite academics across gender, sector and geographic location are presented. In the first years of successful writing for publication, authors collaborate within a single highly connected co-author network. This network will typically expand to include new co-authors, before additional separate co-author collaborations emerge (three- to four- years). Authors experience steady growth in co-author numbers four- to seven- years from first co-authored publication. After a period of rapid expansion, these collaborations coalesce into a smaller number of highly connected groups (eight- to ten- years). Most collaborations occur within the higher education sector and across multiple disciplines including medicine, social sciences and psychology. Male co-authors are disproportionately represented in what is a predominantly female profession.

The development of extended co-author networks, locally, internationally and across the higher education sector, enable authors to attain the marker of achievement required by universities and government funding bodies, namely sustained output of academic publications. Identified trends support the inclusion of investment in academic time and resources in higher education institutions strategic and operational plans to enable academic staff to develop interdisciplinary professional networks. In focussing this investment on gender equality, female academics will experience parity of opportunity in achieving their organisational and personal goals relating to professional academic writing. Medium-term investment may be required before the impact of that investment becomes apparent.

This is the first example of social network analysis used to determine characteristics of professional academic writing portfolios over time. Findings inform the type and range of investment required to facilitate academic staff writing activities, specifically those publishing in the area of General Nursing.

This paper presents a follow-on study that quantifies geolingual markers and their apparent connection with authorship collaboration patterns in canonical Digital Humanities (DH) journals. In particular, it seeks to detect patterns in authors' countries of work and languages in co-authorship networks.

Through an in-depth co-authorship network analysis, this study analysed bibliometric data from three canonical DH journals over a range of 52 years (1966–2017). The results are presented as visualised networks with centrality calculations.

The results suggest that while DH scholars may not collaborate as frequently as those in other disciplines, when they do so their collaborations tend to be more international than in many Science and Engineering, and Social Sciences disciplines. DH authors in some countries (e.g. Spain, Finland, Australia, Canada, and the UK) have the highest international co-author rates, while others have high national co-author rates but low international rates (e.g. Japan, the USA, and France).

This study is the first DH co-authorship network study that explores the apparent connection between language and collaboration patterns in DH. It contributes to ongoing debates about diversity, representation, and multilingualism in DH and academic publishing more widely.

The paper aims to investigate the rate of Iranian researchers collaboration with their colleagues in other countries in science citation index (SCI). In addition, it seeks to investigate the visibility of publications by Iranian researchers, and particularly the visibility of papers resulting from international collaboration.

The paper employs the survey research method to answer research questions. Any publication recorded in the SCI database from 1998 to 2007 with at least one Iranian author was recognized and transferred to a database in Excel. The total records were 33,813. This number mostly includes articles, letters, notes, and reviews.

The results showed that Iranian researchers have had scientific collaboration with 115 countries, and that their numbers have increased between 1998 and 2007. The results also showed that the number of domestic articles per year was 2‐3.5 times more than international ones. Investigating international collaboration in different subject areas revealed that geosciences had the biggest number of publications co‐authored internationally. Iran's main partners were the USA, Canada, and UK, respectively. European researchers were the main counterparts of Iranian researchers. In addition, Iranian researchers had mostly co‐published with their colleagues in advanced countries. Among Iranian universities and research institutions, the University of Tehran had the highest collaboration at the international level. The results revealed that the average number of citations received by international co‐authored publications was more than those received by domestic co‐authored publications.

The paper shows the situation of international collaboration among Iranian researchers and the impact of publications resulting from international collaboration.

This paper aims to propose a new qualitative indicator for the evaluation of the productions of researchers in any discipline.

Based on the study of existing quantitative indicators, the authors’ approach consisted of the hybridization of two indicators. This hybridization is based on the individual H_index (Hi_index) and H_index contemporary (Hc_index) weighted by qualitative factors. The initial sources of the data are online bibliographic databases, such as Google Scholar and Publish or Perish.

A new scientometric indicator was used to compare the scientific production quality of researchers and their classification (as part of a research community) as the classification of national and international research institutions. The authors have applied a new indicator to compare and classify the members of their laboratory, RIADI, according to their quality of scientific production.

The indicator is an improvement of the H_index. It is a measure that can have an impact on society (influencing research attitudes, affecting quality of research). By this contribution, the authors measure more than one aspect by involving all the external factors that can affect the quality of research.

This paper fulfils a gap in the literature concerning the absence of a qualitative indicator among the set of existing quantitative measures. Additionally, this paper addresses the limitations of the existing qualitative practices, such as peer review and citation analysis. In the new qualitative indicator, the authors involve all of these qualitative aspects: the influence of the age of the paper, the number of co-authors, the order of the co-authors, the impact factor of journals and the conference rankings.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate causal linkages between output and outcome indicators of productivity in academia.

The duration of teaching service and the number of graduate students supervised to completion were adopted as output indicators of productivity. Equivalent outcome indicators were the number of (co)authored books (including book chapters and monographs) and journal articles, respectively. In the investigations, a structural equation modeling approach was adopted.

The number of students supervised to completion directly impact the number of (co)authored articles (p < 0.05). The duration of teaching service indirectly influences (co)authored articles by directly impacting the number of students supervised to completion (p < 0.05).

The causal linkages between the indicators of productivity are an indication of the level of research activity of academia. However, the study does not provide an exhaustive assessment of all indicators of productivity in academia.

Unlike literature on the subject area that is focused on factors influencing productivity in academia, this study demonstrates casual relationships between the indicators of productivity.

Consistent and systematic reflective practice is a key element of professionalization. Reflecting on the current status and trends highlights areas of success and areas for further examination within the field of comparative and international education (CIE). This research examines the characteristics of articles in peer-reviewed comparative and international education journals from the last three years in order to identify how the field has changed. Data explored include number of authors, author(s) institutional location(s), research methodology, content or context of analysis, and keywords. Results were compared to questions and recommendations posed by Bereday in 1964 and in the initial Annual Review in 2013. Single-country studies continued to dominate the field for the third year; however, there has been a shift in methodological approaches, with more balance between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Collaboration, evidenced by an increase in co-authored articles, has increased across the field. Findings from keyword analysis show that although six keywords have remained at the top of the field across the three years, there are few topics which unite the field. These results indicate that although one strength of the field has been cited as its diversity, CIE lacks a common focus on methods, theories, or contents that set it apart from other education-affiliated disciplines. Scholars are encouraged to continue consistent and systematic reflection in determining future directions of the field by identifying unique approaches to distinguish CIE.

This chapter provides an examination of the characteristics of comparative and international education research published in 2020 as well as an overview of the trends in this research since 2014. This analysis of published research includes a special focus on authors situated in the Global South as well as those authors who are affiliated with organizations outside of academic (i.e., professional, non-teaching organizations). These two focus characteristics reflect the shifting composition of authors and research in comparative and international education in the twenty-first century as well as the professionalization aspirations of the field of comparative and international education more broadly. Evidence from the seven years of data collection suggests that there is a marked shift toward increasingly more co-authored research, a shift from predominantly qualitative methods to non-empirical research content, and a rise in topic oriented research over the otherwise dominant single-country study in comparative and international education research.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of the relationship between a scholar’s research performance (using weighted journal-impact factor average) and their degree centrality; the impact of author-homophily (in terms of gender, institutional sector, academic age, academic ranks, province and city) on this relationship is investigated as well.

Using scientific publishing data and journal-impact factors from Thomson Reuters’ ISI Web of Science (SCI) and Journal Citation Reports, respectively, the domestic co-authorship network of chemistry researchers in Pakistan during 2002-2009 was constructed then modeled via ordinary least squares regression.

Results show that the personal characteristics of a researcher do not necessarily lead to high degree centrality, i.e. attributes may not be causal to co-author relationships. Instead, high degree centrality is more so a function of the forerunning research performance of the researcher: those whom publish more in terms of impact factor, attract more co-authors (high degree centrality). Moreover, the relationship between research performance and degree centrality is positively moderated by age and province homophily and negatively moderated by city homophily.

Data are sourced wholly from the Pakistani chemistry research community; results many not be generalizable to other sub-populations or the wider research community.

The findings provide insights to performance-seeking authors: knowing that their research performance enhances their centrality, which in-turn may lead to increased research performance and various other desirable professional outcomes. In addition, researchers can look toward establishing similar (homophilous) or dissimilar (heterophilous) ties knowing that the relationship between research performance and centrality will likely be stronger when similarity or dissimilarity exists.

This study supports the idea that high research performance attracts more potential co-authors, which in-turn may lead to ever greater research performance, which suggests that the research community will be fragmented between high- and low-performing researchers. Also researcher will have similar or dissimilar ties in terms of various characteristics which in turn moderate the research performance centrality relationship.

This paper counteracts the empirical belief that researchers are attractive as potential co-authors according to their personal and professional characteristics. It is actually their research performance and homophily or heterophily of their ties which matters.