Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 231–245 | Cite as

Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship

  • D. deB Beaver
  • R. Rosen
Article

Abstract

A review of selected parameters of the growth of scientific collaboration over the last century provides further confirmation of the dependency of teamwork on the increasing professionalization of science. Analysis reveals significant inaccuracies in current views of the recency and prevalence of collaborative research, and affords a more correct picture of twentieth century developments. A change in the growth rate of the practice of scientific collaboration at about the time of World War I, and indications of associations of teamwork with financial support and research publication in leading journals are discussed. Characteristics of the natural history of scientific collaboration signify that collaboration reflects relationships of dependency within a hierarchically stratified professional community, and serves as a means of professional mobility. As such, it continues to fulfil its original functions.

Keywords

Growth Rate Natural History Twentieth Century Financial Support Century Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. 1.
    D. deB. BEAVER, R. ROSEN, Studies in Scientific Collaboration Part I, The Professional Origins of Scientific Co-authorshipScientometrics, 1 (1978) No.1, 65–84. and Studies in Scientific Collaboration Part II, Scientific Co-authorship, Research Productivity and Visibility in the French Scientific Elite, 1799–1830;Scientometrics, 1 (1978) No.2, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. BEN-DAVID,The Scientist's Role in Society, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 1971, p. 107.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. deB. BEAVER, R. ROSEN, Studies in Scientific Collaboration Part I, The Professional Origins of Scientific Co-authorship;Scientometrics, 1 (1978) No. 1, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1973, p. 201.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. CRANE, Collaboration, Communication and Influence: A study of the Effects of Formal and Informal Collaboration among Scientists, mimeo, 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    It may be of some interest to note, however, that of the patents cited inChemical Abstracts for 1970, 40% were jointly held.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. ZUCKERMAN, Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965, p. 80.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The percentage displayed byZeitschrift may reflect either the shift of center of gravity of research to the U.S., or the possibility it isn't a core journal. Absent from these statistics are French journals, which we have not examined. Our theory, however, would lead us to predict that the relatively depressed state of science in France “in the age of the scientific state” would result in its best journals exhibiting a below average frequency of teamwork.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cf. H. ZUCKERMAN,op. cit., Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965, p. 78, 79, 83, 94.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See E. GARFIELD, Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation,Science, 178 (3 Nov. 1972) 474, (Fig. 4).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See D. deB. BEAVER, R. ROSEN, Studies in Scientific Collaboration Part I,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) No. 1, 65–84. (Table 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    On this see D. deS. PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, New York, Columbia University Press, 1963, p. 88–89, and his Research on Research, in: D. L. ARM, (Ed.),Journeys in Science: Small Steps—Great Strides, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1967, p. 5–6. See also H. ZUCKERMAN,op. cit. Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965, p. 82, and B. L. CLARKE, Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Papers,Science, 143 (1964) 824.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For this figure, we are aware that the conflation of statistics from different sources represents a potential methodological difficulty, but are convinced that whatever degree of mismatching may exist is trivial. We have tried different weightings of the abstracting literature statistics, with virtually indistinguishable results. What is particularly interesting is the possibility that these data depict a logistic curve, already abundantly testified to in studies of the science of science; if so, the growth of collaboration is rapidly approaching its saturation limit.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. ZUCKERMAN,op. cit., Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965, p. 62.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cf. H. ZUCKERMAN,op. cit., Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965, p. 106–107; also I. H. PAGE, Some Perils of Authorship,Science, 144 (April 10, 1964), editorial.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. S. L. CARDWELL,The Organization of Science in England: A Retrospect, Melbourne, Heinemann, 1957, p. 124–174.Google Scholar
  17. 16a.
    J. G. CROWTHER,The Social Relations of Science, London, Macmillan, 1942, p. 456–548.Google Scholar
  18. 16b.
    A. H. DUPREE,Science in the Federal Government, Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1957, p. 271–301.Google Scholar
  19. 16c.
    H. F. HEATH,Industrial Research and Development in the United Kingdom, Faber and Faber, London, 1946, Chapters 7 and 8.Google Scholar
  20. 16d.
    H. S. MILLER, Science and Private Agencies, in: D. D. VAN TASSEL, M. G. HALL (Eds),Science and Society in the United States, Homewood, Ill., Dorsey Press, 1966, p. 191.Google Scholar
  21. 16e.
    H. S. MILLER,Dollars for Research, Seattle, Univ. of Washington Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  22. 16f.
    C. W. PURSELL Jr., Science and Government Agencies In: D. D. VAN TASSEL, M. G. HALL (Eds),Science and Society in the United States, Homewood, Ill., Dorsey Press, 1966, p. 223.Google Scholar
  23. 17.
    J. G. Crowther,op. cit., p. 491–504, and D. S. L. CARDWELL,op. cit., The Origanization of Science in England: A Retrospect, Melbourne, Heinemann, 1957, p. 134–137.Google Scholar
  24. 18.
    D. S. L. CARDWELL,op. cit., p. 134.Google Scholar
  25. 19.
    D. S. L. CARDWELL,op. cit.. passim.Google Scholar
  26. 20.
    See, for example, R. SHRYOCK, American Indifference to Basic Science during the Nineteenth Century,Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences, 28 (1948–49) 3–18; A. H. DUPREE,op. cit. Science in the Federal Government, Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1957, p. 271–301. H. S. MILLER,Dollars for Research.Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    For the 1930's, see J. G. CROWTHER,op. cit.The Social Relations of Science, London, Macmillan, 1942, p. 456–548. for the 1950's and early 60's, see D. S. GREENBERG,.Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    D. S. GREENBERG,op. cit., p. 288.Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    ,op. cit.The Politics of Pure Science, New York, New American Library, 1967. p. 288.Google Scholar
  30. 24.
    D. CRANE, Scientists at Major and Minor Universities: A Study of Productivity and Recognition,American Sociological Review, 30 (1965) 699–714.Google Scholar
  31. 25.
    D. deS. PRICE,op. cit., p. 8.Google Scholar
  32. 26.
    The relative insulation of the U.S. from the locations of combat masks the effect for the abstracting journals particularly for World War I; the effect is most pronounced for the European journals counted directly.Google Scholar
  33. 27.
    W. HIRSCH, J. F. SINGLETON, Research Support, Multiple Authorship and Publication in Sociological Journal, 1936–1964, unpublished preprint, 1965, p. 1.Google Scholar
  34. 28.
    A. E. NUDELMAN, C. E. LANDERS, The Failure of 100 Divided by 3 to Equal 331/3,The American Sociologist, 7 (Nov. 1972) 9.Google Scholar
  35. 29.
    In Table 3, journals are arranged by subjects according to the list headings in the 1970 Guide to theScience Citation Index published by the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pa. The number of authors in every journal is taken from a printout of the 1970Science Citation Index Tapes, which contains statistics of the number of articles published in the source journals processed in theSCI. It is to be noted that the count has been edited; anonymous articles have been subtracted from the total number of articles in the journal and do not affect the average. For permission to publish this table, grateful acknowledgement is due to the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), and to Prof. D. deS. PRICE of Yale University, who first utilized this table, and kindly made it available to us. For further information about SCI, see E. GARFIELD, Science Citation Index, a New Concept in Indexing,Science, 144 (1964) 649–654.Google Scholar
  36. 30.
    For other distinctions between science and technology, see D. deS. PRICE, The Difference Between Science and Technology, published by the Thomas Alva Edison Foundation 1968; M. KRANZBERG, The Disunity of Science-Technology,American Scientists, 56 (Spring, 1968) 21–34, and N. W. STORER,op. cit., p. 91–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. deB Beaver
    • 1
  • R. Rosen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of History of ScienceWilliams CollegeWilliamstown(USA)
  2. 2.New York City(USA)

Personalised recommendations