Search results

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to provide a review of the growing literature on co-authorship networks and the research gaps that may be investigated for future studies in this field.

The existing literature on co-authorship networks was identified, evaluated and interpreted. Narrative review style was followed.

Co-authorship, a proxy of research collaboration, is a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output. Co-authorship could also be seen from the perspective of social networks. An in-depth analysis of such knowledge networks provides an opportunity to investigate its structure. Patterns of these relationships could reveal, for example, the mechanism that shapes our scientific community. The study provides a review of the expanding literature on co-authorship networks.

This is one of the first comprehensive reviews of network-based studies on co-authorship. The field is fast evolving, opening new gaps for potential research. The study identifies some of these gaps.

Authorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.

To appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.

Academic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.

Within the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether potentially disadvantaged groups of researchers derive more research performance benefits from co-authorship network centrality (degree, closeness and betweenness).

The paper builds on Badar et al. (2013), which found positive associations of network centrality on research performance with a moderating relationship of gender for female authors. Using data from ISI Web of Science (SCI), the authors study the same domestic co-authorship network of Chemistry researcher in Pakistan publishing from years 2002-2009 and investigate the moderating role of academic age and institutional sector on the relationship between co-authorship network centrality (degree, closeness, and betweenness) and the academic research performance (aggregate impact factor) of chemistry university/institute faculty members in Pakistan.

Ordinary least squares (OLS)-regression findings indicated a positive relationship between degree centrality and research performance with a positive moderating relationship for both academic age and institutional sector on the relationship between degree centrality and research performance for junior faculty members and faculty members employed in private sector universities/research institutes.

The findings can be heartening and motivating for junior faculty and private institute faculty in Pakistan in suggesting opportunities to surpass barriers of domination and poor resource access through co-authorship ties and structural social capital.

This paper adds to the limited research by strengthening the argument that potentially disadvantaged faculty with certain individual (academic age) and work-related characteristics (institutional sector) may benefit differentially from their co-authorship network centrality.

Many studies have investigated how the structure of the collaborative networks of researchers influences the nature of their work, and its outcome. Co-authorship networks (CANs) have been widely looked at as proxies that can help bring understanding to the structure of research collaborative ties. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for describing what influences the formation of different research collaboration patterns.

The authors use social network analysis (SNA) to analyze the co-authorship ego networks of the ten most central authors in 24 years of papers (703 papers and 1,118 authors) published in the Proceedings of CASCON, a computer science conference. In order to understand what lead to the formation of the different CANs the authors examined, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with these authors.

Based on this examination, the authors propose a typology that differentiates three styles of co-authorship: matchmaking, brokerage, and teamwork. The authors also provide quantitative SNA-based measures that can help place researchers’ CAN into one of these proposed categories. Given that many different network measures can describe the collaborative network structure of researchers, the authors believe it is important to identify specific network structures that would be meaningful when studying research collaboration. The proposed typology can offer guidance in choosing the appropriate measures for studying research collaboration.

The results presented in this paper highlight the value of combining SNA analysis with interviews when studying CAN. Moreover, the results show how co-authorship styles can be used to understand the mechanisms leading to the formation of collaborative ties among researchers. The authors discuss several potential implications of these findings for the study of research collaborations.

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.

In the context of organisation studies, Shotter and colleagues have used the notion of practical authorship of social situations and identities to explain the work of managers and leaders. This notion and contemporary theories of authorship in literary scholarship can be linked to the authoring of documents in the context of document studies to explain the impact and use of documents as instruments of management and communication. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The conceptual discussion is supported by an empirical interview study of the information work of N=16 archaeologists.

First, the making of documents and other artefacts, their use as instruments (e.g. boundary objects (BOs)) of management, and the practical authorship of social situations, collective and individual identities form a continuum of authorship. Second, that because practical authorship seems to bear a closer affinity to the liabilities/responsibilities and privileges of attached to documents rather than to a mere attribution of their makership or ownership, practical authorship literature might benefit of an increased focus on them.

This paper shows how practical authorship can be used as a framework to link making and use of documents to how they change social reality. Further, it shows how the notion of practical authorship can benefit of being complemented with insights from the literature on documentary and literary authorship, specifically that authorship is not only a question of making but also, even more so, of social attribution of responsibilities and privileges.

This paper shows how the concepts of documentary and practical authorship can be used to complement each other in elaborating our understanding of the making of artefacts (documentary) BOs and the social landscape.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of collaboration among researchers in Library Hi Tech based on the co-authorship network analysis.

The Library Hi Tech publications were retrieved from Web of Science database between 2006 and 2017. Social network analysis based on co-authorship was analyzed by using BibExcel software and a visual knowledge map was generated by Pajek. Three important social capital indicators: degree centrality, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality were calculated to indicate the co-authorship. Cohesive subgroup analysis which includes components and k-core was then applied to show the connectivity of co-authorship network of Library Hi Tech.

The results indicated that around 42 percent of the articles were written by single author, while an increasing trend of multi-authored articles suggesting the collaboration among researchers in librarian research field becomes popular. Furthermore, the social network analysis identified authorship network with three core authors – Markey, K., Fourie, I. and Li, X. Finally, six core subgroups each included six or seven tightly connected researchers were also identified.

This study contributed to the existing literature by revealing the co-authorship network in librarian research field. Key researchers in the major subgroup were identified. This is one of the limited studies that describe the collaboration network among authors from different perspectives showing a more comprehensive co-authorship network.

Increasing pressure to enhance research coupled with a desire for a broadening of academic input, are prompting greater levels of collaboration. Research collaboration can generate notable benefits but can also pose a variety of challenges. The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons, facilitators, benefits and challenges of academic collaboration. It also provides suggestions to manage identifiable risks and enhance team dynamics.

This is a conceptual paper exploring prior literature in relation to the contentious points of research collaboration, particularly in regard to authorship attribution.

The authors present two checklists that researchers can utilise to ensure the successful completion of collaborative projects. The checklists incorporate the main factors required for effective collaborative work and research, and form a foundation for discussion among team members.

The paper draws upon experiences, observations, academic literature and protocols, and provides strategies and recommendations to enhance collaboration and authorship attribution. The two checklists presented in the paper are value‐adding for team members.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the leadership role of authors, institutions, and countries based on research co-authorship networks in the field of operations management (OM) and ranks European authors, institutions, and countries using network centrality measures. It also identifies the primary research areas of each of the leading European authors and maps the areas that European research in general has focussed most on.

Based on co-authorships in publications appearing in a representative set of three leading OM journals over the 15-year period of 1998-2012, network measures of total degree centrality and betweenness centrality are used to identify influential European agents serving as leaders and bridge builders in OM research. Keyword analysis is used to identify the dominant areas of OM research in Europe as well as the primary areas of research of the leading authors.

With UK, Spain, The Netherlands, and Italy accounting for the dominant share of authorship of papers in the journal set, many authors and institutions from these countries are also found to rank high on network centrality measures. While certain authors, institutions, and countries are found ranking high on total degree centrality based on number of direct connections in the network, others are found to play uniquely important roles as gatekeepers and bridge builders in network relationships. The body of research is found to be focussed most on the area of supply chain management. It is also found to be focussed more on manufacturing than service.

The examination of networks in this study based on co-authorships in publications in the set of three leading journals: Journal of Operations Management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, and Production and Operations Management, is not all encompassing as there are likely other co-authorship relationships of OM researchers that go beyond publications in this set of journals.

Co-authorship of papers in the leading academic journals in a discipline provides a window on patterns of collaboration among key researchers within that academic community. The findings of this study inform the community of stakeholders on who the leading European agents in OM research are, what the primary areas of research of the leading European authors are, and areas that European research has focussed most on.

This is the first study of its kind that identifies and maps key European authors, institutions, and countries based on the analysis of co-authorship networks of researchers who have published in a set of leading OM journals that are considered to be among the most relevant outlets in the field of OM. It also maps the primary areas of research.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the research contributions of authors and subauthors in order to outline how authorship, as opposed to acknowledgment, is awarded in the lab-based life sciences.

The work tasks described in author contribution statements and acknowledgments sections of research articles published in Nature Chemical Biology were classified according to a three-layered taxonomy: core layer; middle layer; outer layer.

Most authors are core or middle layer contributors, i.e. they perform at least one core or middle layer task. In contrast, most subauthors are outer layer contributors. While authors tend to be involved in several tasks, subauthors tend to make single contributions. The small but significant share of authors performing only outer layer tasks suggests a disconnect in author attribution between traditional author guidelines and scientific practice. A level of arbitrariness in whether a contributor is awarded authorship or subauthorship status is reported. However, this does not implicate first or last authorships.

Data from one journal only are used. Transferability is limited to research in high impact journals in the lab-based life sciences.

The growth in scientific collaboration underlines the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the distinction between authorship and subauthorship in terms of the types of research contributions that they de facto represent. By utilizing hitherto unexplored data sources this study addresses a gap in the literature, and gives an important insight into the reward system of science.