Co-Authorship Networks of Scientific Collaboration

Authors: Juha Kettunen

Abstract:

This study analyzes collaborative and networked academic authorship in higher education. The literature review shows evidence that single authorship has made a gradual paradigm shift to joint authorship. The empirical evidence from the Turku University of Applied Sciences indicates that collaborative authorship has notably increased in the last few years. Co-authorship has extended outside the institution to other domestic and international academic organizations. Co-authorship not only increase the merits of academic scholars but builds and maintains networks of research and development. The results of this study help the authors, editors and partners of research and development projects to have a more concrete understanding of how co-authorship has developed and spread beyond higher education institutions.

Keywords: Co-authorship, social networking, higher education, research and development.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1126710

References:

[1] W, Brent, M. D. Beasley, and S. M. Wright, “Looking forward to promotion: Characteristics of participants in the prospective study of promotion in academia,” J Gen Intern Med, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 705–710, Sept. 2003.
[2] P. A. Thomas, M. Diener-West, M. I. Canto, D. R. Martin, W. S. Post, and M. B. Streiff, “Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,” Acad Med, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 258–264, March 2004.
[3] J. D. Wren, K. Z. Kozak, K. R. Johnson, S. J. Deakyne, L. M. Schilling, and R. P. Dellavalle, “The write position,” EMBO Rep, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 988–991, Nov. 2007.
[4] D. J. Price, “Networks of scientific papers,” Science, vol. 149, no. 30, 510–515, July 1965.
[5] L. Egghe, and R. Rousseau, Introduction to Informetrics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.
[6] W. Glänzel, “Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies,” Libr Trends, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 461–473, Winter 2002.
[7] B. Cronin, D. Shaw, and K. A. La Barre, “Cast of thousands: Co-authorship and sub-authorship collaboration in the twentieth century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy,” J Am Soc Inf Sci Tech, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 855–871, July 2003.
[8] T. L. B. Ossenblok, F. T. Verleysen, and T. C. E. Engels, “Patterns of co-authorship in journal articles in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010),” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 882–897, May 2014.
[9] K. Pyhältö, J. Stubb, and K. Lonka, “Developing scholarly communities as learning environments for doctoral students,” International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 221-234, 2009.
[10] B. Kamler, “Rethinking doctoral publication practices,” Stud High Educ, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 283–294, May 2008.
[11] D. N. Laband, and R. D. Tollison, “Intellectual collaboration,” J Politic Econ, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 632–662, June 2000.
[12] P. Thagard, “Collaborative knowledge,” Noûs, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 242–261, June 1997.
[13] N. Nersessian, “The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory,” Organ Stud, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 125–145, Jan. 2006.
[14] A. E. Austin, “Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career,” J High Educ, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 94–122, Jan./Feb. 2002.
[15] A. E. Austin, “Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education,” International Journal of Academic Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 173–183, 2009.
[16] D. D. Beaver, “Reflections on scientific collaborations (and its study): Past, present and prospective,” Scientometrics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 365–377, Nov. 2001.
[17] E. J. Manton, and D. E. English, “The trend toward multiple authorship in business journals,” Journal of Education for Business, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 164–168, Jan. 2007.
[18] J. Moody, “The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999,” Am Sociol Rev, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 213–238, Apr. 2004.
[19] J. Kettunen, “Innovation pedagogy for universities of applied sciences,” Creative Education, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 56–62, 2011.
[20] M. Kantola, and J. Kettunen, “Integration of education with research and development and the export of higher education,” On the Horizon, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 7–16, 2012.
[21] J. Kettunen, L. Kairisto-Mertanen, and T. Penttilä, “Innovation pedagogy and desired learning outcomes in higher education,” On the Horizon, 21(4), pp. 333–342, 2013.
[22] S. Paavola, L. Lipponen, and K. Hakkarainen, “Modeling innovative knowledge communities,” Rev Educ Res, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 557-576, Dec. 2004.
[23] M. K. Florence, and L. D. Yore, “Learning to write like a scientist,” J Res Sci Teach, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 637–668, July 2004.
[24] Lee. A., and D. Boud, “Framing doctoral education as practice,” in Changing Practices of Doctoral Education, D. Boud, and A. Lee, Eds. London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 10–25.
[25] O. Persson, W. Glänzel, and R. Danell, “Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies,” Scientometrics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 421–432, Aug. 2004.
[26] G. C. Durden, and T. J. Perri, “Coauthorship and publication efficiency,” Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 69–76, Mar. 1995.
[27] T. Braun, A. Schubert, and W. Glänzel, “Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals,” Scientometrics, vol. 51, no. 3, 499–510, July 2001.
[28] B. Cronin, “Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?” J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 558–569, March 2001.
[29] R. Rutledge, and K. Karim, “Determinants of coauthorship for the most productive authors of accounting literature,” Journal of Education for Business, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 130–134, Jan./Feb. 2009.
[30] D. Leff, “Making an impact: The rise of the impact factor as a measure of journal quality,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 29–30, Jan. 2005.
[31] R. M. Sloan, “Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship,” Am J Roetgenol, vol. 167, no. 3, pp. 571–579, Sept. 1996.
[32] G. Laudel, “What do we measure by co-authorships?” Res Evaluat, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–15, Apr. 2002.
[33] W. Glänzel, and A. Schubert, “Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship,” in Handbook of Quantitave Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies on S&T Systems, H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, and U. Schmoch, Eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp. 257–276.
[34] J. Kettunen, “The performance-based funding scheme of higher education institutions,” International Journal of Learning and Teaching, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 104–109, Dec. 2015.