Scientometrics

, Volume 107, Issue 2, pp 455–476 | Cite as

The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)

Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

This article examines the rise in co-authorship in the Social Sciences over a 34-year period. It investigates the development in co-authorship in different research fields and discusses how the methodological differences in these research fields together with changes in academia affect the tendency to co-author articles. The study is based on bibliographic data about 4.5 million peer review articles published in the period 1980–2013 and indexed in the 56 subject categories of the Web of Science’s Social Science Citation Index. The results show a rise in the average number of authors, share of co-authored and international co-authored articles in the majority of the subject categories. However, the results also show that there are great disciplinary differences to the extent of the rises in co-authorship. The subject categories with a great share of international co-authored articles have generally experienced an increase in co-authorship, but increasing international collaboration is not the only factor influencing the rise in co-authorship. Hence, the most substantial rises have occurred in subject categories, where the research often is based on the use of experiments, large data set, statistical methods and/or team-production models.

Keywords

Co-authorship Social sciences Research collaboration Bibliometrics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor Jesper Schneider for comments and subtracting data from the CWTS database.

References

  1. Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration, (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377. doi: 10.1023/a:1014254214337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebeau, M., & Monson, V. (2011). Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: Historical reflections on current practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 365–388. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biagioli, M. (2012). Recycling texts or stealing time?: Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19(3), 453–476. doi: 10.1017/s0940739112000276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(13), 1758–1770. doi: 10.1002/asi.20380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. doi: 10.1108/00220410810844150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46. doi: 10.3152/147154403781776780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01830.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa, M. M., & Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations. Psychological Science, 3(6), 354–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
  10. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569. doi: 10.1002/Asi.1097.Abs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin, B. (2004). Bowling alone together: Academic writing as distributed cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(6), 557–560. doi: 10.1002/asi.10406.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. doi: 10.1002/asi.10278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. Ps-Political Science & Politics, 31(4), 847–856. doi: 10.2307/420730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henriksen, D. (2015). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). In Y. Tonta, A. A. Salah, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), 15th International conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015 (vol. 1, pp. 209–220): Boğaziçi University Printhouse.Google Scholar
  16. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(96)00917-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533. doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15. doi: 10.3152/147154402781776961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leahey, E., & Reikowsky, R. C. (2008). Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), 425–440. doi: 10.1177/0306312707086190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, W. M. (2000). Publication trends of doctoral students in three fields from 1965 to 1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 139–144. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(2000)51:2<139:aid-asi5>3.0.co;2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., & Zirulia, L. (2013). Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 95, 49–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.08.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L., & Jeroncic, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE,. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.Google Scholar
  25. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norris, R. P. (1993). Authorship patterns in CJNR: 1970–1991. Scientometrics, 28(2), 151–158. doi: 10.1007/Bf02016897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill, G. P. (1998). Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals. Scientometrics, 41(3), 291–298.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 (2005–2009). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280–290. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvs019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ossenblok, T. L. B., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 882–897. doi: 10.1002/asi.23015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piro, F. N., Aksnes, D. W., & Rørstad, 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 and Technology, 64(2), 307–320. doi: 10.1002/asi.22746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pontille, D. (2003). Authorship practices and institutional contexts in sociology: Elements for a comparison of the United States and France. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(2), 217–243. doi: 10.1177/0162243902250905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price, J. H., Dake, J. A., & Oden, L. (2000). Authorship of health education articles: Guests, ghosts, and trends. American Journal of Health Behavior, 24(4), 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SSCI. (2012). Scope Notes 2012. Social Science Citation Index. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/scope/scope_ssci/#BF. Accessed 10 Jan 2015.
  36. Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213–230. doi: 10.1007/Bf02016801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vinkler, P. (1998). Comparative investigation of frequency and strength of motives toward referencing, the reference threshold model: Comments on theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 107–127. doi: 10.1007/Bf02458400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. White, K. D., Dalgleish, L., & Arnold, G. (1982). Authorship patterns in psychology: National and international trends. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20(4), 190–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitley, R. D. (1969). Communication nets in science: Status and citation patterns in animal physiology. Sociological Review, 17(2), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wouters, P. (1999). Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories. Scientometrics, 44(3), 561–580. doi: 10.1007/Bf02458496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.1136099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Business and Social SciencesAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations