Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp 239–250 | Cite as

A Bibliometric Study of Authorship and Collaboration Trends Over the Past 30 Years in Four Major Musculoskeletal Science Journals

  • Arielle F. Russell
  • Randall T. LoderEmail author
  • Andrew S. Gudeman
  • Peter Bolaji
  • Piiamaria Virtanen
  • Elizabeth C. Whipple
  • Melissa A. Kacena
Original Research


This study explored changes in bibliometric variables over the last 30 years for four major musculoskeletal science journals (BONE®), Calcified Tissue International® (CTI®), Journal of Bone and Mineral Research® (JBMR®), and Journal of Orthopaedic Research® (JOR®), with a specific focus on author gender. Bibliometric data were collected for all manuscripts in 1985 (BONE®, CTI®, JOR®), 1986 (JBMR®), 1995, 2005, and 2015; 2776 manuscripts met inclusion criteria. Manuscripts from Europe were more often published in BONE® or CTI®, while those from North America in JBMR® or JOR®. All journals demonstrated an increase over time in the number of authors (3.67–7.3), number of countries (1.1–1.4), number of institutions (1.4–3.1), and number of references (25.1–45.4). The number of manuscript pages increased (6.6–8.9) except for JOR® which showed a decline. CTI® had the lowest number of authors (4.9 vs. 5.6–6.8). There was a change in the corresponding author position from first to last for all journals; this change was highest for CTI® (35%) and lowest for BONE® (14.0%). All journals demonstrated an increase over time in female authors; however, CTI® was the highest amongst these four journals. The percentage of female first authors rose from 24.6 to 44.3% (CTI® 29.1–52.3%). The percentage of corresponding female authors rose from 17.5 to 33.6% (CTI® 22.9–40.0%). The proportion of female authors is increasing, likely reflecting the increasing number of women obtaining doctorates in science, medicine, and engineering.


Gender Authorship trends Bibliometrics Geographic region Time Musculoskeletal 



The authors acknowledge the work of many individuals that tabulated the data for the three other journals. These individuals are James P. Fischer, Austin E. Wininger, Elive F. Likine, Andrew S. Gudeman, Alexander R. Brinker, Jonathan Ryu, Kevin A. Maupin, Faisal Khan, Morgan M. Sandelski, Jeffrey D. Rytlewski, Jennifer Lamb, Christina Pedro, Michael B. N. Adjei, Abhijit Seetharam, Mohammed T. Ali, Christine Y. Wan, Katherine E. Schultz, and Shatoria Lunsford. This work was supported in part by the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine (MAK, RTL), the Garceau Professorship Endowment and Rapp Pediatric Orthopaedic Research Fund, Riley Children’s Foundation (RTL), and the Ruth Lilly Medical Library (ECW). This work was also supported by the Ralph W. and Grace M. Showalter Research Trust (MAK).

Author Contributions

RTL, MAK, and ECW designed the study. All authors contributed to the study conduct. AFR, ASG, PB, and PV participated in data collection. Data analysis, interpretation and reporting of the work, as well as initial drafting of the manuscript was conducted by AFR, ASG, RTL, MAK, and ECW. All authors revised the paper critically for intellectual content and approved the final version. All authors agree to be accountable for the work and to ensure that any questions relating to the accuracy and integrity of the paper are investigated and properly resolved. RTL is responsible for the overall content of the paper and is the guarantor.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Arielle F. Russell, Randall T. Loder, Andrew S. Gudeman, Peter Bolaji, Piiamaria Virtanen, Elizabeth C. Whipple, Melissa A. Kacena declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable to this study.

Human and Animal Rights

Not applicable to this study.

Informed Consent

Not applicable to this study.

Supplementary material

223_2018_492_MOESM1_ESM.xls (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 22 KB)
223_2018_492_MOESM2_ESM.xls (30 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLS 29 KB)
223_2018_492_MOESM3_ESM.doc (228 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 228 KB)
223_2018_492_MOESM4_ESM.doc (74 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 73 KB)
223_2018_492_MOESM5_ESM.doc (178 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOC 178 KB)


  1. 1.
    Shen H (2013) Mind the gender gap. Nature 495(7439):22–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaw AK, Stanton DE (2012) Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proc R Soc B 279:3736–3741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leslie S-J, Cimpian A, Meyer M, Freeland E (2015) Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347:262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conti A, Visentin F (2015) Science and engineering Ph.D. students’ career outcomes by gender. PLoS ONE 10:e0133177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salinas PC, Bagni C (2017) Gender equality from a European perspective: myth and reality. Neuron 96:721–729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lautenberger DM, Dandar VM, Raezer CL, Sloane RA (2014) The state of women in academic medicine. The pipeline and pathways to leadership. American Association of Medical Colleges, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leboy PS, Madden JF (2012) Limitations on diversity in basic science departments. DNA Cell Biol 31:1365–1371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halperin EC (1999) Publish or perish—and bankrupt the medical library while we’re at it. Acad Med 74:470–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neill US (2008) Publish or perish, but at what cost? J Clin Invest 118:2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, Henault LE, Chang Y, Starr R, Tarbell NJ, Hylek EM (2006) The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med 355:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504:211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Lee R, Ellemers N (2015) Gender contribution to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Nat Acad Sci 112:12349–12353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaatz A, Lee Y-G, Potvien A, Magua W, Filut A, bhattacharya A, Leatherberry R, Zhu X, Carnes M (2016) Analysis of national institutes of health RO1 application critiques, impact, and criteria scores: does the sex of the principal investigator make a difference? Acad Med 91:1080–1088. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duch J, Zeng XHT, Sales-Pordo M, Radicchi F, Otis S, Woodruff TK, Amaral LAN (2012) The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Corell SJ, Bergstrom CT (2013) The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE 8:e66212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cislak A, Formanowicz M, Saguy T (2018) Bias against research on gender bias. Scientometrics 115:189–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wininger AE, Fischer JP, Likine EF, Gudeman AS, Brinker AR, Ryu J, Maupin KA, Lunsford S, Whipple EC, Loder RT, Kacena MA (2017) Bibliometric analysis of female authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over JBMR®’s 30-year history. J Bone Miner Res 32:2405–2414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan F, Sandelski MM, Rytlewski JD, Lamb j, Pedro C, Adjei MBN, Lunsford S, Fischer JP, Wininger AE, Whipple EC, Loder RT, Kacena MA (2018) Bibliometric analysis of authorship trends and collaboration dynamicsover the past three decades of BONE’s publication history. Bone 107:27–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seetharam A, Ali MT, Wang CY, Schultz KE, Fischer JP, Lunsford S, Whipple EC, Loder RT, Kacena MA (2018) Authorship trends in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research: a bibliometric analysis. J Orthop Res. (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hall KL, Vogel AL, Huang GC, Serrano KJ, Rice EL, Tsakraklides SP, Fiore SM (2018) The science of team science: a review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psychol 73:532–548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Börner K, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, Spring B, Stokols D, Trochim W, Uzzi B (2010) Advancing the science of team science. Clin Transl Sci 3:263–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mimouni M, Zayit-Soudry S, Segal O, Barak Y, Nemer AY, Shylman S, Geffen N (2016) Trends in authorship of articles in major ophthalmology journals by gender, 2002–2014. Ophthalmology 123:1824–1828. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costas R, Bordons M (2011) Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics 88:145–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mattsson P, Sundberg CJ, Laget P (2011) Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics 87:99–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riesenberg D, Lundberg GD (1990) The order of authorship: who’s on first? JAMA 264:1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baerlocher MO, Newton M, Gautam T, Tomlinson G, Detsky AS (2007) The meaning of author order in medical research. J Invest Med 55:174–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Romanovsky AA (2012) Revised h index for biomedical research. Cell Cycle 11:4118–4121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shapiro DW, Wenger NS, Shapiro MF (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA 271:438–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aboukhalil R (2014) The rising trend in authorship. The Winnower 2:e141832.26907. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parker M, Kingori P (2016) Good and bad research collaborations: researchers’ views on science and ethics in global health research. PLoS ONE 11:e1063579. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Warner ET, Carapinha R, Weber GM, Hill EV, Reede JY (2015) Faculty promotion and attrition: the importance of coauthor network reach at an academic medical center. J Gen Int Med 31:60–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zeng XHT, Duch J, Sales-Pardo M, Mareira JAG, Radicchi F, Ribeiro HV, Woodruff TK, Amaral LAN (2016) Differences in collaboration patterns across discipline, career stage, and gender. PLoS Biol 14:e1002573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kovacs J (2017) Honorary authorship and symbolic violence. Med Health Care Philos 20:51–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Herz W, Haider H, Al-Bahhar M, Sadeq A (2014) Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: how common is it and why does it exist? J Med Ethics 40:346–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kwok LS (2005) The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. J Med Ethics 31:554–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Birnholtz JP (2006) What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. J Am Soc Inf Sci 57:1758–1770. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Kularni AV, Devereaus PJ, Leece P, Bajammal S, Heels-Ansdell D, Busse JW (2014) Perceptions of authors’ contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. J Clin Epidemiol 67:1049–1054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012) Education at a Glance 2012: OECD IndicatorsGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Connor MI (2016) Medical school experiences shape women students’ interest in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop 474:1967–1972. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Massen JJM, Bauer L, Spurny B, Burgnyar T, Kret ME (2017) Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists. Sci Rep 7(1–5):12927. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Madlock-Brown C, Eichmann D (2016) The scientometrics of successful women in science. In IEEE/ACM International Conferences on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM); San Francisco, California. pp. 654–660Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cullen DL, Luna G (1993) Women mentoring in academe: addressing the gender gap in higher education. Gend Educ 5:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bozeman B, Gaughan M (2011) How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Res Policy 40:1393–1402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lundberg GD (1998) Writing is all. Lancet 352:898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA-M (2016) Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994–2014). BMJ 352:i847. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Ruth Lilly Medical LibraryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Riley Children’s HospitalIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations