, Volume 111, Issue 1, pp 401–416 | Cite as

Identity and publication in non-university settings: academic co-authorship and collaboration

  • Therese Kennelly Okraku
  • Raffaele Vacca
  • James W. Jawitz
  • Christopher McCarty


Increased collaboration between researchers working in university, industry, and governmental settings is changing the landscape of academic science. Traditional models of the interaction between these sectors, such as the triple helix concept, draw clear distinctions between academic and non-academic settings and actors. This study surveyed scientists (n = 469) working outside of university settings who published articles indexed in the Web of Science about their modes of collaboration, perceptions about publishing, workplace characteristics, and information sources. We study the association between these variables, and use text analysis to examine the roles, duties, sites, topics, and workplace missions among non-university based authors. Our analysis shows that 72% of authors working in non-university settings who collaborate and publish with other scientists self-identify as academics. Furthermore, their work life resembles that of those working in university settings in that the majority report doing fundamental research in government research organizations and laboratories. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, this research suggests that peer-reviewed publications are much more dominated by non-university academics than we previously thought and that collaboration as co-authors on academic publications is not likely to be a primary conduit for the transfer of scientific knowledge between academe and industry.


Collaboration Academia Publishing Knowledge transfer 



This research was supported by a National Science Foundation grant from the Science of Science Policy program award number 0738116.

Supplementary material

11192_2017_2280_MOESM1_ESM.docx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 40 kb)


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University-industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29, 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A. (2001). University-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altbach, P. G. (1996). The international academic profession. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  4. Altbach, P. G. (1997). An international academic crisis? The American professoriate in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 126(4), 315–338.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration 1. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2007). The Triple-Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Scientometrics, 70, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharya, S., & Meyer, M. (2003). Large firms and the science-technology interface - patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films. Scientometrics, 58, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W., & Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, Special Issue on Understanding Complex Systems, 10, 57–67.Google Scholar
  9. Butcher, J., & Jeffrey, P. (2005). The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry- academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment. Technovation, 25, 1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, L., & Visser, M. S. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, Burton R. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniquenesses and troubles of American academic professions. Daedalus, 126(4), 21–42.Google Scholar
  12. de Solla Price, D. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6, 553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix–University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST review, 14(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  14. Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frenken, K., Holzl, W., & de Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2008). The governance of University knowledge transfer. Science and Technology Policy Research, 173, 1–29.Google Scholar
  17. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Godin, B. (1996). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25, 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godin, B., Barker, R. S., & Landry, R. (1995). Besides academic publications - which sectors compete, or are there competitors. Scientometrics, 33, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hicks, D. (1995). Tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkins, A. L., Jawitz, J. W., McCarty, C., Goldman, A., & Basu, N. B. (2013). Disparities in publication patterns by gender, race and ethnicity based on a survey of a random sample of authors. Scientometrics96(2), 515–534.Google Scholar
  23. IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  24. Katz, J., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kogan, M. (2000). Higher education communities and academic identity. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(3), 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university- industry-government relations (Introduction to the topical issue). Scientometrics, 70(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.Google Scholar
  28. Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Skar, J., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69, 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis. (1989–2016). VERBI Software—Consult—Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. McCarty, C., & Jawitz, J. (2013). Attitudes about publishing and normal science advancement. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 850–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarty, C., Jawitz, J., Hopkins, A., & Goldman, A. (2013). Predicting author h-index using characteristics of the co-author network. Scientometrics, 96(2), 467–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McMillan, G., & Hamilton, R. (2000). Corporations need to publish—or perish. Research- Technology Management, 43, 8–10.Google Scholar
  33. Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, R. (1990). Capitalism as an engine of progress. Research Policy, 19, 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OED. (2016). Academic, n. and adj. Oxford University Press. Web. 3 January 2017.Google Scholar
  36. Pavitt, K., & Walker, W. (1976). Government policies towards industrial innovation: a review. Research Policy, 5(1), 11–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0,
  38. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods, 15(1), 85–109.Google Scholar
  39. Schimank, U., & Winnes, M. (2000). Beyond Humboldt? The relationship between teaching and research in European university systems. Science and public policy, 27(6), 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao, D. (2005). Challenges of scholarly publications on the web to the evaluation of science–A comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals. Information Processing and Management, 41, 1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Soil and Water Science DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations