Determinants of Coauthorship for the Most Productive Authors of Accounting Literature

Journal of Education for Business

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 130-134

  Rutledge, Robert ^a   Karim, Khondkar ^b  

^a TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

article length; coauthorship; half life factor; journal quality; prolific authors

Indexed keywords

EID: 80155168791     PISSN: 08832323     EISSN: 19403356     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.3.130-134     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Beaver, D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present and future. Scientometrics, 52, 365-377.
2. Blank, R. M. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review.American Economic Review, 81, 1041-1067.
3. Butcher, J., & Jeffrey, P. (2005). The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment. Technovation, 25, 1273-1280.
4. Cranfield University, School of Management. (2003). Journal recommendations for academic publication. Unpublished working paper, Cranfield University School of Management, Bedfordshire, UK.
5. Durden, G. C., & Perri, T. J. (1995). Coauthorship and publication efficiency. Atlantic Economic Journal, 23(1), 69-76.
6. Glanzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50, 461-473.
7. Handgraaf, M. J. J., & van Raaij, W. F. (2005). Fear and loathing no more: The emergence of collaboration between economists and psychologists. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 387-397.
8. Hasselback, J. R., Reinstein, A., & Schwan, E. S. (2003). Prolific authors of accounting. Advances in Accounting, 20, 95-125.
9. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 153-158.
10. Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 147-149.
11. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632-662.
12. Laband, D. N., & Wells, J. M. (1998). The scholarly journal literature of economics: A historical profile of the AER, JPE, and QJE. American Economist, 42(2), 47-58.
13. Leff, D. (2005). Making an impact: The rise of the impact factor as a measure of journal quality. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(1), 29-30.
14. Manton, E. J., & English, D. E. (2007). The trend toward multiple authorship in business journals. Journal of Education for Business, 82(3), 164-168.
15. Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. E. (2003). Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry, 40, 539-555.
16. McDowell, J. M., & Melvin, M. (1983). The determinants of co-authorship: An analysis of the economics literature. Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(1), 155-160.
17. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213-238.
18. 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, 627-657.
19. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1973). Age, aging, and age structure in science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 497-560). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.