, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 257–271 | Cite as

Authorship trends in software engineering

  • João M. FernandesEmail author


This paper aims to examine authorship trends in software engineering, especially those related to the number of authors, of scientific publications. We collected and mined around 70.000 entries from DBLP for 122 conferences and journals, for the period 1971–2012, in order to process several bibliometric indicators. We provide evidence that the number of authors of articles in software engineering is increasing on average around +0.40 authors/decade. The results also indicate that until 1980, the majority of the articles have a sole author, while nowadays articles with 3 or 4 authors represent almost half of the total.


Scientific authorship Number of authors Scientific publication Software engineering 

Mathematics Subject Classfication




Thanks to Armando Freitas for his contribution to the Ruby crawler. The graphics were produced with the Matpotlib library available for the Python language. This work was supported by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia in the scope of the project: PEst-OE/EEI/UI0319/2014


  1. Abt, H. A. (1981). Some trends in American astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93(553), 269. doi: 10.1086/130820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ausloos, M. (2013). A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: The co-author core. Scientometrics, 95(3), 895–909. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0936-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific articles. Emergency Medicine, 15(1), 263–270. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00432.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavez, C., Kulesza, U., Soares, S., Borba, P., Lucena, C. J. P., Masiero, P. C., et al. (2011). The AOSD research community in Brazil and its crosscutting impact. SBES, 2011, 72–81.Google Scholar
  5. Cohoon, J. M., Nigai, S., & Kaye, J. (2011). Gender and computing conference papers. Communications of the ACM, 54(8), 72–80. doi: 10.1145/1978542.1978561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freyne, J., Coyle, L., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2010). Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(11), 124–132. doi: 10.1145/1839676.1839701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., & Kitas, G. D. (2013). Authorship problems in scholarly journals: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatology International, 33(2), 277–284. doi: 10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature, 450(7173), 1165. doi: 10.1038/4501165a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship. Science, 337(6098), 1019. doi: 10.1126/science.1224988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hagen, N. H. (2014). Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias. Scientometrics, 8(2), 310–317. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.003.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy, D. (2003). Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science, 301(5634), 733. doi: 10.1126/science.301.5634.733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ley, M. 2009. DBLP: Some lessons learned. In Proceedings of the VLDB endowment (PVLDB 2009), (Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1493–1500).Google Scholar
  14. Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2012). Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index. Scientometrics, 91(1), 37–49. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0571-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marcos, E., Vara, J. M., & Castro, V. (2012). Author order: What science can learn from the arts. Communications of the ACM, 55(9), 39–41. doi: 10.1145/2330667.2330680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moreira, J. E., Salapura, V., Almási, G., Archer, C., Bellofatto, R., Bergner, P., et al. (2007). The Blue Gene/L supercomputer: A hardware and software story. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 35(3), 181–206. doi: 10.1007/s10766-007-0037-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Science Foundation, 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, chap. 5.Google Scholar
  18. Newman, M. E. J. 2004. Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In Ben-Naim, E., Frauenfelder, H., Toroczkai, Z. (Eds.), Complex networks, Lecture notes in physics. Springer, (Vol. 650, pp. 337–370). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-44485-5_16.
  19. Nuseibeh, B. (2011). Editorial: What makes a publication archival? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(2), 145. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2011.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patterson, D. A. (2004). The health of research conferences and the dearth of big idea articles. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 23–24. doi: 10.1145/1035134.1035153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ren, J., & Taylor, R. N. (2007). Automatic and versatile publications ranking for research institutions and scholars. Communications of the ACM, 50(6), 81–85. doi: 10.1145/1247001.1247010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278(7), 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solomon, J. (2009). Programmers, professors, and parasites: Credit and co-authorship in computer science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 467–489. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9119-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. The Atlas Collaboration. (2008). The ATLAS experiment at the CERN large hadron collider. Journal of Instrumentation, 3(8), S08003. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003.Google Scholar
  25. The Gusto Investigators. (1993). An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329(10), 673–682. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309023291001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vardi, M. Y. (2009). Conferences vs. journals in computing research. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 5. doi: 10.1145/1506409.1506410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wong, W. E., Tse, T. H., Glass, R. L., Basili, V. R., & Chen, T. Y. (2011). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2003–2007 and 2004–2008). Journal of Systems and Software, 84(1), 162–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.09.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zetterström, R. (2004). The number of authors of scientific publications. Acta Paediatrica, 93(5), 581–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb02980.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 416–417. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Informática/Centro AlgoritmiUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations