Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long term productivity and collaboration in information science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Funding bodies have tended to encourage collaborative research because it is generally more highly cited than sole author research. But higher mean citation for collaborative articles does not imply collaborative researchers are in general more research productive. This article assesses the extent to which research productivity varies with the number of collaborative partners for long term researchers within three Web of Science subject areas: Information Science & Library Science, Communication and Medical Informatics. When using the whole number counting system, researchers who worked in groups of 2 or 3 were generally the most productive, in terms of producing the most papers and citations. However, when using fractional counting, researchers who worked in groups of 1 or 2 were generally the most productive. The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, however, because authors that produce few academic articles within a field may publish in other fields or leave academia and contribute to society in other ways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q., & Rousseau, R. (1995). Fractional counts for authorship attribution: A numerical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(2), 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & van Bochove, C. (2012). On the relationship between author collaboration and impact of scientific publications. In Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 447–448). Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.

  • Crase, D., & Rosato, F. D. (1992). Single versus multiple authorship in professional journals. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dancing, 63(7), 28–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1055–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, S. C., Ni, C., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2012). New methods for an old debate: Utilizing reader response to investigate the relationship between collaboration and quality in academic journal articles. Library & Information Science Research, 34(2), 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, L. F. (2004). Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility. Scientometrics, 61(2), 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, 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(3), 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New directions for higher education, 1998(101), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and ‘periphery effects’ in the citation of New Zealand crown research institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotzsche, P. C., Hróbjartsson, A., Johansen, H. K., Haahr, M. T., Altman, D. G., & Chan, A. (2007). Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), 0040019. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. L. (2007). Collaboration and article quality in the literature of academic librarianship. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 190–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE. (2011). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011-02/.

  • Herbertz, H. (1995). Does it pay to cooperate—A bibliometric case-study in molecular-biology. Scientometrics, 33(1), 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, L. J. (2009). Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: The tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 84(9), 811–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffer, T. B., Dugoni, B. L., Sanderson, A. R., Sederstrom, S., Ghadialy, R., & Rocque, P. (2001). Doctorate recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2000. Survey of Earned Doctorates. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED459639.pdf.

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero Bote, V. P., & de Moya Anegón, F. (2013). Citation increments between collaborating countries. Scientometrics, 94(3), 817–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Brownstein, J., Mills, R., & Kohane, I. (2010). Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS ONE, 5(12), e14279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(438), 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leta, J., & Chaimovich, H. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration: The Brazilian case. Scientometrics, 53(3), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M. (2011). Preliminary findings on whether it is good value for money to fund larger research groups. ISSI Newsletter, 7(3), 57–62.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M. (2015). What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research? Scientometrics, 102(1), 213–225.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1973–1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 434–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2010). Does the higher citation of collaborative research differ from region to region? A case study of Economics. Scientometrics, 85(1), 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2013). The relationship between collaboration and productivity for long-term information science researchers. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger & H. Moed (Eds.), 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference—Proceedings (pp. 1461–1468). Vienna: AIT Austrian Institute of Technology.

  • Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, N., & Guan, J. C. (2005). An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in Molecular Biology. Scientometrics, 65(3), 343–355.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, J. C. R., Fischer, A. L., & Escuder, M. M. L. (2000). Driving factors of high performance in Brazilian management sciences for the 1981–1995 period. Scientometrics, 49(2), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glanzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D., de Solla (1981). Letter to the editor. Science, 212, 987.

  • Smith, J. (1994). Gift authorship: A poisoned chalice? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309(6967), 1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uthman, O. A. (2008). HIV/AIDS in Nigeria: A bibliometric analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases, 8(2), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, E. E. (1997). Impact factor and international collaboration in Chilean physics: 1987–1994. Scientometrics, 38(2), 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, N. H., Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 388–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, H., Ao, X. L., & Ho, Y. S. (2008). Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate pentachlorophenol research. Scientometrics, 75(1), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the first author’s mother, Gertrude Levitt, for her very careful proof-residing and Mahshid Abdoli for her painstaking help with the data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, School of Mathematics and Computing, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK

    Jonathan M. Levitt & Mike Thelwall

Authors
  1. Jonathan M. Levitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Thelwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan M. Levitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levitt, J.M., Thelwall, M. Long term productivity and collaboration in information science. Scientometrics 108, 1103–1117 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation