Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010)

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 882-897

  Ossenblok, Truyken L B ^a   Verleysen, Frederik T ^a   Engels, Tim C E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b ANTWERP MARITIME ACADEMY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIBLIOGRAPHIES; INFORMATION SERVICES; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; COAUTHORSHIP; JOURNAL ARTICLES; WEB OF SCIENCE;

INTERNET PROTOCOLS;

EID: 84901486876     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23015     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adams, J., & Testa, J. (2011). Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), The 13th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 13-18.
2. Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421-433.
3. Aksnes, D.W., Schneider, J.W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractional counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 36-43.
4. Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagne, E., Côte, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68, 329-342.
5. Beaver, D.D. (2001). Reflections in scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present and future. Scientometrics, 52, 365-377.
6. Benavent-Pérez, M., Gorraiz, J., & Gumpenberger, C. (2012). The different flavors of research collaboration: A case study of their influence on university excellence in four world regions. Scientometrics, 93(1), 41-58. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0638-4
7. Biagioli, M., & Galison, P. (2003). Scientific authorship. Credit and intellectual property in science. New York, NY: Routledge.
8. 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, 1758-1770.
9. Borgman, C.L. (2009). The digital future is now: A call to action for the humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3, 1-21.
10. Bukova, H. (2010). Studying research collaboration: A literature review. Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems, 10. Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3
11. Butler, L. (2003a). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications-The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32, 143-155.
12. Butler, L. (2003b). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12, 39-46.
13. Butler, L. (2010). Impact of performance-based research funding systems: Areview of the concerns and the evidence. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Ed.), Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions: Workshop proceedings (pp. 127-165). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
14. Costas, R., & Van Bockhoven, C. (2012). On the relationship between author collaboration and impact of scientific publications. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 447-448). Montreal, Canada: Science-Metrix and OST.
15. Cronin, B., Shaw, D.,& La Barre, K. (2003). Acast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 855-871.
16. Egghe, L. (1991). Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing & Management, 27, 177-202.
17. Endersby, J.W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375-392.
18. Engels, T.C.E., Ossenblok, T.L.B., & Spruyt, E.H.J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000-2009. Scientometrics, 93, 373-390.
19. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitave science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies on S& T systems (pp. 257-276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
20. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 65, 323-342.
21. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473-496). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
22. Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41, 251-261.
23. Katz, J.S., & Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
24. Kretschmer, H., & Aguillo, I.F. (2004). Visibility of collaboration on the web. Scientometrics, 61, 405-426.
25. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58, 35-48.
26. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68, 519-533.
27. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorship? Research Evaluation, 11, 3-15.
28. Liao, C.H., & Yan, H.R. (2012). Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: A comparative study of collaborative measures. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 27-33.
29. Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Borner, & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics. Understanding complex systems (pp. 195-232). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
30. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31-40.
31. Newman, M.E.J. (2004). Co-authorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 1010, 5200-5205.
32. Ossenblok, T.L.B., & Engels, T.C.E. (2012). Ameasure of collaboration for edited books in the social sciences and humanities. Abstracts for the NordForsk Workshop on Bibliometrics for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Retrieved from http://blogs.helsinki.fi/nordforskssh2012/ files/2012/03/ NordForsk-SSH-Workshop-abstracts1.pdf
33. 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, 280-290.
34. Piro, F.N., Aksnes, D.W., & Rorstad, K. (2013). A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 64, 307-320.
35. Rousseau, R. (2011). Comments on the modified collaborative coefficient. Scientometrics, 87, 171-174.
36. Schneider, J.W. (2009). An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science, 8, 364-378.
37. Sivertsen, G. (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter, 6, 22-28.
38. Verleysen, F.T., & Engels, T.C.E. (2012). Historical publications at Flemish universities, 2000-2009. An analysis on the basis of the Flemish Academic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Belgian History, 42, 110-143.
39. 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, 185-208.