Scientometrics

, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 703–723 | Cite as

Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender

Article

Abstract

This paper examines impact of gender both on publication productivity and on patterns of scientific collaborations in social sciences in Turkey. The research is based on bibliographic data on national level publications in Turkey. It consists of 7,835 papers written by 6,738 scientists. The findings suggest that (1) there are gender differences at publication productivity, participation, presence and contribution; that (2) there are significantly different tendencies at keeping established co-authorship ties for inter-gender and intra-gender pairs; that (3) there are significant regularities exhibited by coauthor pairs based on each partner author’s publication productivity and findings further show that (4) regularities are different for inter-gender and intra-gender co-authorships. This study contributes to literature by exemplifying an integrated approach to better examine role of gender in scientific collaborations. In addition to descriptive social network analysis methods, it exploits and adopts parametric models from the literature: (1) Social Gestalt theory, a model based on bi-variate distributions of co-author pairs’ frequencies; (2) Lotka’s power law distribution on publication productivity of single authors; (3) Power law distributions of co-author pairs’ frequencies.

Keywords

Collaboration in sciences Gender Co-authorship networks Interpersonal attraction Social Gestalt model 

References

  1. Anderson, T. W. (1994). An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Carr, P. L., Pololi, L., Knight, S. & Conrad, P. (2009). Collaboration in academic medicine: Reflections on gender and advancement. Academic Medicine, 84 (10), 1447–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Egghe, L., Goovaerts, M. & Kretschmer, H. (2008). Collaboration and productivity. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission. (2009). She figures 2009: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. Guo H., Kretschmer, H. & Liu, Z. (2008). Distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies of the Journal of Information Technology. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2007). Lotka’s distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2008). Varying shapes of co-author pairs distributions. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2009, Invited Keynote Speech). Who is collaborating with whom? Explanation of a fundamental principle: In H. Hou, B. Wang, S. Liu, Z. Hu, X. Zhang, M. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics and 10th COLLNET meeting, 13–16 September 2009, Dalian, China (CD-ROM, unpublished).Google Scholar
  10. Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2012): Who is collaborating with whom in science? Explanation of a fundamental principle. Social Networking, Scientific Research Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Kretschmer, H., Hoffmann, U. & Kretschmer, T. (2006). Collaboration structures between German immunology institutions, and gender visibility, as reflected in the Web. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kretschmer, H., Kundra, R., de Beaver, B. D. & Kretschmer, T. (2012). Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics, 93(1), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kretschmer H. & Isidro F.A. (2005). New indicators for gender studies in Web networks. Information Processing and Management, 41(6).Google Scholar
  14. Kyvik, S. & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science Technology and Human Values, 21 (6), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific production. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, 317–323.Google Scholar
  16. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29 (1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, B. P., Duque, R. & Shrum, W. (2012). Gender, ICTs, and productivity in low-income countries : Panel study. Science Technology Human Values, 37.Google Scholar
  18. Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A. & Parenti, I. V. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H.F. Moed, et al. (Ed.). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 299–314). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5200–5205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman, M. E. J. (2005). Power laws, pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris, S. A. & Goldstein, M. L. (2007). Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: a growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1764–1782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ozbilgin, M. & Healy, G. (2004). The gendered nature of career development of university professors: The case of Turkey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 358–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ozel, B. (2012). Link and node analysis of gender based collaborations in Turkish social sciences. In Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 15–19). New York: IEEE/ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Pololi, L. H., Civian, J. T., Brennan, R. T., Dottolo, A. L. & Krupat, E. (2013). Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: Gender matters. A national study. Journal of General Internal Medicine February, 28 (2), 201-207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wadhwa, N. K., Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2009). Co-author pairs’ frequencies of the National Physical Laboratory India. COLLNET Proceedings 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Woodward, D. & Ozbilgin, M. (1999), Sex equality in the financial services sector in Turkey and the UK. Women in Management Review, 14(8), 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bulent Ozel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hildrun Kretschmer
    • 3
    • 4
  • Theo Kretschmer
    • 4
  1. 1.Computer Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Science and Engineering SchoolReykjavik UniversityReykjavikIceland
  3. 3.WISELAB Dalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  4. 4.COLLNET Center BorgsdorferHohen NeuendorfGermany

Personalised recommendations