A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: The co-author core

Scientometrics

Volumn 95, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 895-909

  Ausloos, M ^a,b  

^a not available   (Belgium)

^b SUPRATECS   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877334132     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0936-x     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 594-607.
2. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273-289.
3. Ausloos, M., Lambiotte, R., Scharnhorst, I. A., & Hellsten, I. (2008). Andrzej Pekalski networks of scientific interests with internal degrees of freedom through self-citation analysis. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 19, 371-384.
4. Beaver, D. de B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaborations (and its study): Past, present and prospective. Scientometrics, 52, 365-377.
5. Beck, I. M. (1984). A method of measurement of scientific production. Science of Science, 4, 183-195.
6. Börner, K., Dall'Asta, L., Ke, W., & Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10, 57-67.
7. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h-index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h-index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.
8. Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., & Scharnhorst, A. (1990). The application of evolution models in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 18, 21-41.
9. Buchanan, R. A. (2006). Accuracy of cited references: The role of citation databases. College and Research Libraries, 67, 292-303.
10. Carbone, V. (2012). Fractional counting of authorship to quantify scientific research output. arxiv: 1106. 0114v1.
11. Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., Gonzàlez-Molina, A., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). New approach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Information Visualization, 9(4), 277-287.
12. Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1990). Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance, 45, 301-309.
13. de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
14. de Solla Price, D. J. (1978). Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.
15. de Solla Price, D. J., & Gürsey, S. (1975). Some statistical results for the numbers of authors in the states of the United States and the nations of the world. In Who is Publishing in Science, 1975 Annual. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
16. Durieux, V., & Gevenois, P. A. (2010). Bibliometric indicators: Quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255(2), 342-351.
17. Egghe, L. (2008). Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1608-1616.
18. Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 65-114.
19. Egghe, L., (2005). Power laws in the information production process. Lotkaian Informetrics.
20. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2012). The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), 1048-1053.
22. Galam, S. (2011). Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index. Scientometrics, 89, 365-379.
23. Gilbert, G. N. (1978). Measuring the growth of science: A review of indicators of scientific growth. Scientometrics, 1, 9-34.
24. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations?. Scientometrics, 61, 395-404.
25. Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometric as a research field: A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Course Handouts. http://nsdl. niscair. res. in.
26. Hagen, N. T. (2009). Credit for coauthors. Science, 323, 583.
27. Hellsten, I., Lambiotte, R., Scharnhorst, A., & Ausloos, M. (2006). A journey through the landscape of physics and beyond-the self-citation patterns of Werner Ebeling. In T. Poeschel, H. Malchow, & L. Schimansky-Geier (Eds.), Irreversible Prozesse und Selbstorganisation (pp. 375-384). Berlin: Logos Verlag.
28. Hellsten, I., Lambiotte, R., Scharnhorst, A., & Ausloos, M. (2007a). Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new method for detecting scientists field mobility? Scientometrics, 72, 469-486.
29. Hellsten, I., Lambiotte, R., Scharnhorst, A., Ausloos, M. (2007b). Self-citations networks as traces of scientific careers. In D. Torres-Salinas, & H. Moed (Ed.), Proceedings of the ISSI 2007, 11th International Conf. of the Intern. Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, CSIC (Vol. 1, pp. 361-367), Madrid, Spain, June 25-27, 2007.
30. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 16569-16572.
31. Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85, 741-754.
32. Hollis, A. (2001). Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Economics, 8, 505-530.
33. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Measuring co-authorship and networking adjusted scientific impact. PLoS One 3. 10. e2778.
34. Jin, B. (2006). h-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8-9.
35. Kealey, T. (2000). More is less. Economists and governments lag decades behind Derek Price's thinking. Nature, 405, 279.
36. Kenna, R., & Berche, B. (2010). Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size. arxiv. org/pdf/1006. 0928.
37. Kretschmer, H. (1985). Cooperation structure, group size and productivity in research groups. Scientometrics, 7, 39-53.
38. Kretschmer, H. (1987). The adaptation of the cooperation structure to the research process and scientific performances in research groups. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 355-372.
39. Kretschmer, H. (1994). Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutional communities. Scientometrics, 30(1), 363-369.
40. Kretschmer, H. (1997). Patterns of behaviour in coauthorship networks of invisible colleges. Scientometrics, 40(3), 579-591.
41. Kretschmer, H. (1999). Collaboration, part II: Reflection of a proverb in scientific communities: Birds of a feather flock together. International Library Movement, 21(3), 113-134.
42. Kretschmer, H. (2004). Author productivity and geodesic distance in co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics, 60, 409-420.
43. Kretschmer, H., & Rousseau, R. (2001). Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 610-614.
44. Kretschmer, H., Kretschmer, U., Kretschmer, Th. (2007). Reflection of co-authorship networks in the Web: Web hyperlinks versus Web visibility rates. Scientometrics 70(2), 519-540.
45. Kwok, L. S. (2005). The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 554-556.
46. Laherrère, J., & Sornette, D. (1998). Stretched exponential distributions in nature and economy: fat tails with characteristic scales. Eur. Phys. J. B, 2, 525-539.
47. Laudel, G. (2001). What do we measure by co-authorships? In M. Davis, & C. S. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 369-384). Sydney: Bibliometrics & Informetrics Research Group.
48. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702.
49. Li, W. (2002). Zipf's law everywhere. Glottometrics, 5, 15-41.
50. Li, W. (2003). http://linkage. rockefeller. edu/wli/zipf/.
51. Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2012). Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: A comparative study of collaborative measures. Journal of Informetrics 6, 27-33 (five measures that quantify the degree of research collaboration, including the collaborative index, the degree of collaboration, the collaborative coefficient, the revised collaborative coefficient, and degree centrality).
52. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces 71(1), 159-178.
53. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317-323.
54. Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Chapter 6, Dynamic Scientific Co-Authorship Networks. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 195-232). Berlin: Springer.
55. McDonald, K. A. (1995). Too many co-authors?. Chronicle of Higher Education, 41, 35-36.
56. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36, 363-377.
57. Nascimento, M. A., Sander, J., & Pound, J. (2003). Analysis of SIGMOD's co-authorship graph. ACM SIGMOD Record Homepage Archive, 32, 8-10.
58. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 5200-5205.
59. Pao, M. L. (1986). An empirical examination of Lotkas law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 26-33.
60. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60, 421-432.
61. Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443.
62. Potter, W. G. (1988). Of making many books there is no end: Bibliometrics and libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14, 238a-238c.
63. Sauer, R. D. (1988). Estimates of the returns to quality and coauthorship in economic academia. The Journal of Political Economy, 96, 855-866.
64. Schreiber, M. (2007). Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index. Europhysics Letters, 78, 30002.
65. m for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10(040201), 1-9.
66. Schreiber, M. (2008b). A modification of the h-index: The h(m)-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 211-216.
67. Schreiber, M. (2010a). How to modify the g-index for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 42-54.
68. Schreiber, M. (2010b). Twenty Hirsch index variants and other indicators giving more or less preference to highly cited papers. Annalen der Physik (Berlin) 522(8), 536-554.
69. Schreiber, M., Malesios, C. C., & Psarakis, S. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 347-358.
70. Sekercioglu, C. H. (2008). Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science, 322, 371.
71. Sekercioglu, C. H. (2009). Response from Cagan H. Sekercioglu to Hagen (2009). Science, 30, 583.
72. Slone, R. M. (1996). Coauthors contributions to major papers published in the AjR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship. American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), 167, 571-579.
73. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41, 643-681.
74. Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547-1550.
75. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
76. Vitanov, K., & Ausloos, M. (2012). Knowledge epidemics and population dynamics models for describing idea diffusion. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (Chap. 3, pp. 69-125). Berlin: Springer.
77. Vučković-Dekić, L. (2003). Authorship-coauthorship. Archive of Oncology, 11(3), 211-212.
78. Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 574-582.
79. Yablonsky, A. I. (1980). On fundamental regularities of the distribution of scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 2, 3-34.
80. Zhang, C. T. (2009a). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports 10, 416-417.
81. Zhang, C. T. (2009b). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One 4(5), e5429.
82. Zhang, R. (2009). An index to link scientific productivity with visibility. arxiv. org/pdf/0912. 3573.
83. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
84. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152-168.