Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Even though there is a rich discussion in the literature about co-authorship practices, many of the existing studies do not offer a dynamic picture of co-authorship patterns and experiences across disciplines. To address the research gap, our study aims to explore several key dimensions of the social dynamics in co-authorship practices. In particular, we examine cohort differences in collaboration patterns across disciplines and cohort differences in negative collaboration experiences across disciplines. To conduct our analyses, we use data from a national survey of scholars and engineers in 108 top research universities. Our results indicate that the number of collaborators at one’s own university is correlated with an increase in negative collaboration experiences, while an increase in collaborators at other universities is not correlated with an increase in negative collaboration experiences. In addition, we conclude that junior scholars are more likely to have negative collaboration experiences than their senior peers. This result is true even after controlling for gender and discipline.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://sciencewatch.com/articles/single-author-papers-waning-share-output-still-providing-tools-progress.

  2. Due to questionnaire design, we only have data for number of coauthors affiliated with respondent’s university, at a different university, at a firm or industry for the most recent article (Table 4). Therefore, in Tables 3 and 6 we do not have data for number of coauthors with different affiliations.

References

  • Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Badar, K., Hite, J. M., & Badir, Y. F. (2014). The moderating roles of academic age and institutional sector on the relationship between co-authorship network centrality and academic research performance. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(1), 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, A. H., Ault, R. W., & Kaserman, D. L. (1988). The rising incidence of co-authorship in economics: Further evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 539–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(3), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15, 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 430–463.

    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 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Assessing research collaboration studies: A framework for analysis. In Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda (pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06468-0_1.

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., Youtie, J., Slade, C. P., & Rimes, H. (2015). Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines. Science and Public Policy,. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2015). Trouble in paradise: Problems in academic research co-authoring. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Gómez, I., Méndez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 24(2), 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunson, J. C., Fassino, S., McInnes, A., Narayan, M., Richardson, B., Franck, C., & Laubenbacher, R. (2014). Evolutionary events in a mathematical sciences research collaboration network. Scientometrics, 99(3), 973–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cainelli, G., Maggioni, M. A., Uberti, T. E., & de Felice, A. (2012). Co-authorship and productivity among Italian economists. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 1609–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calero, C., Buter, R., Valdés, C. C., & Noyons, E. (2006). How to identify research groups using publication analysis: An example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 66(2), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2003). University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science and Public Policy, 30(2), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35(7), 975–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration 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(9), 855–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35(3), 370–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano, D., Giordano, G., & Vitale, M. P. (2011). Issues in the analysis of co-authorship networks. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 1091–1107.

    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 

  • Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA, 280(3), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77(2), 375–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Snijders, T. A. B., & Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(3), 985–1012. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., & Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA, 280(3), 222–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, J., & Carpenter, M. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.

    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 

  • Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., & Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genest, C., & Thibault, C. (2001). Investigating the concentration within a research community using joint publications and co-authorship via intermediaries. Science, Technology and Human Values, 51(2), 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, 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 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. 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. 257–276). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, S., Van Der Leij, M. J., & Moraga-González, J. L. (2006). Economics: An emerging small world. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 403–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 162–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. R. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in Economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, I.-S., Na, S.-H., Lee, S., Jung, H., Kim, P., Sung, W.-K., & Lee, J.-H. (2009). On co-authorship for author disambiguation. Information Processing and Management, 45(1), 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K.-W. (2006). Measuring international research collaboration of peripheral countries: Taking the context into consideration. Scientometrics, 66(2), 231–240. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0017-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R., & Egido, C. (1988). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 1–12). Portland, OR.

  • Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90(2), 631–647. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0493-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia: A study of the evolution of collaboration structures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwok, L. S. (2005). The white bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(9), 554–556.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. M., Ross, S., & Holden, T. (2012). The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications. Higher Education, 64(5), 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., & Zhu, L. (2002). Major factors affecting China’s inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 55(2), 287–316.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41, 1462–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In Models of science dynamics (pp. 195–232). Berlin, Heidelberg; Springer.

  • Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies, toward a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34, 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. E. (2003). Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry, 41(4), 555–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M., & Dillman, D. (2011). Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (NSB). (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014: Chapter 5 academic research and development. VA: Arlington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America (Vol. 101, pp. 5200–5205).

  • O’Brien, T. L. (2012). Change in academic coauthorship, 1953–2003. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(3), 210–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ossenblok, T. L., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. (2014). Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 882–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauber, M., & Ursprung, H. W. (2008). Life cycle and cohort productivity in economic research: The case of Germany. German Economic Review, 9(4), 431–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278(7), 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? JAMA, 264(14), 1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to Rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from Rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83(1), 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The Contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA, 271(6), 438–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, B. (2001). International co-operation in science and in social sciences as reflected in multinational papers indexed in SCI and SSCI. Scientometrics, 52(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship: The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. JAMA, 280(3), 216–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, New Series, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., & Bozeman, B. (2014). Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics, 101(2), 953–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 450, Phoenix, AZ, 85004-0687, USA

    Chin-Chang Tsai, Elizabeth A. Corley & Barry Bozeman

Authors
  1. Chin-Chang Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth A. Corley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Corley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsai, CC., Corley, E.A. & Bozeman, B. Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts. Scientometrics 108, 505–529 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1997-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1997-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation