Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 1395–1421 | Cite as

What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science

Article

Abstract

The number of co-authors has in the social sciences has been rising over the last decades, but a deeper understanding of why this rise is occurring is lacking. Previous studies of co-authorship in the social sciences often refer to the physical or life sciences or anecdotal evidence to explain these changes. This article examines the relationship between changes in co-authorship and research in Danish Economics and Political Science to gain greater insights into whether there are changes in the research or in researchers’ behavior. The analysis shows that articles with empirical research, quantitative research and/or survey are more likely to have a higher number of coauthors than articles based on theoretical, interview, and qualitative research. Furthermore, international and interinstitutional Danish articles tend to have more coauthors than interinstitutional articles. The analysis also reveals that the average number of authors increases for articles with all types of research and research approaches. This indicates that the collaboration behavior of the researchers is changing.

Keywords

Co-authorship Social sciences Research collaboration Bibliometrics Internationalization Scholarly communication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank; Carter Bloch for his many comments during the research process that substantially improved the article; Annette Bruun Andersen for language revision; Jesper Schneider for data extraction; Qi Wang for her help calculating the interdisciplinary variable; Emil Bargmann Madsen for checking some of my coding; Fereshteh Didegah for her comments and being an awesome officemate. In addition to Vincent Larivière, Stefanie Haustein and the rest of the amazing Montreal group for giving me a great environment and comments during the data collection and coding. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the great comments from the referees that help to improve the article.

References

  1. Adams, W. C., Infeld, D. L., Minnichelli, L. F., & Ruddell, M. W. (2014). Policy journal trends and tensions: JPAM and PSJ. Policy Studies Journal, 42, S118–S137.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, A. H., Ault, R. W., & Kaserman, D. L. (1988). The rising incidence of co-authorship in economics—Further evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 539–543.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1926798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, L. M., & Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and team science: From theory to practice. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 60(5), 768–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. (2008). Allocating the credit in collaborative research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(01), 246–247.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508280364.Google Scholar
  5. Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, C. L., Chan, K. C., & Lai, P. (2006). Marketing journal coauthorships: An empirical analysis of coauthor behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305279951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CERN (2017). The birth of the web. https://home.cern/topics/birth-web. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.
  8. Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627–648.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01830.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.  https://doi.org/10.1002/Asi.1097.Abs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 31(4), 847–856.  https://doi.org/10.2307/420730.Google Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2013). Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 96(1), 381–394.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x.Google Scholar
  13. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662–673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist, 39(4), 290–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9042-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2011). The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship. Scientometrics, 89(3), 967–983.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0474-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar, S., & Ratnavelu, K. (2016). Perceptions of scholars in the field of economics on co-authorship associations: Evidence from an international survey. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0157633.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Neill, G. P. (1998). Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals. Scientometrics, 41(3), 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Engels, T. C. E., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280–290.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Piette, M. J., & Ross, K. L. (1992). An analysis of the determinants of co-authorship in economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 277–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1992.10844762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rutledge, R. W., Karim, K. E., & Reinstein, A. (2011). What factors influence the number of coauthors in the published research of the most productive authors in accounting literature? A long-term study. In V. Arnold, D. Bobek, B. D. Clinton, A. Lillis, R. Roberts, C. Wolfe, & S. Wright (Eds.), Advances in accounting behavioral research (Vol. 14, pp. 191–225). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  26. Sacco, W., & Milana, S. (1984). Increase in number of authors per article in ten APA journals: 1960–1980. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(1), 77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01315100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schymura, M., & Loschel, A. (2014). Incidence and extent of co-authorship in environmental and resource economics: evidence from the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Scientometrics, 99(3), 631–661.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1248-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. (2004). Patterns of co-authorship among economics departments in the USA. Applied Economics, 36(4), 327–333.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840410001674259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 185–208.  https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtg.2005.007050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zawacki-Richter, O., & von Prümmer, C. (2010). Gender and collaboration patterns in distance education research. Open Learning, 25(2), 95–114.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680511003787297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627–657.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005632319799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zutshi, A., McDonald, G., & Kalejs, L. (2012). Challenges in collaborative writing: addressing authorship attribution. European Business Review, 24(1), 28–46.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341211191535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish Centre for Studies in Research & Research Policy, Department of Political Science, BSSAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations