Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research

We aimed to assess which factors correlate with collaborative behavior and whether such behavior associates with scientific impact (citations and becoming a principal investigator). We used the R index which is defined for each author as log(Np)/log(I1), where I1 is the number of co-authors who appear in at least I1 papers written by that author and Np are his/her total papers. Higher R means lower collaborative behavior, i.e. not working much with others, or not collaborating repeatedly with the same co-authors. Across 249,054 researchers who had published ≥30 papers in 2000–2015 but had not published anything before 2000, R varied across scientific fields. Lower values of R (more collaboration) were seen in physics, medicine, infectious disease and brain sciences and higher values of R were seen for social science, computer science and engineering. Among the 9,314 most productive researchers already reaching Np ≥ 30 and I1 ≥ 4 by the end of 2006, R mostly remained stable for most fields from 2006 to 2015 with small increases seen in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Both US-based authorship and male gender were associated with higher values of R (lower collaboration), although the effect was small. Lower values of R (more collaboration) were associated with higher citation impact (h-index), and the effect was stronger in certain fields (physics, medicine, engineering, health sciences) than in others (brain sciences, computer science, infectious disease, chemistry). Finally, for a subset of 400 U.S. researchers in medicine, infectious disease and brain sciences, higher R (lower collaboration) was associated with a higher chance of being a principal investigator by 2016. Our analysis maps the patterns and evolution of collaborative behavior across scientific disciplines.

[1]  Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote,et al.  Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Andrea Schiffauerova,et al.  How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks? , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[3]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[4]  M. Newman.  Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[6]  H. Zuckerman.  Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. , 1967, American sociological review.

[7]  Eldon Y. Li,et al.  Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective , 2013 .

[8]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Hendrik P. van Dalen,et al.  Wage Structure and the Incentive Effect of Promotions , 2004 .

[10]  Erin E Leahey,et al.  Straight from the source: Accounting for scientific success , 2013 .

[11]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity , 2005 .

[12]  G. Hickey,et al.  Evaluating the social capital accrued in large research networks: The case of the Sustainable Forest Management Network (1995-2009) , 2010 .

[13]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research , 2011, Scientometrics.

[14]  Vesna Oluic-Vukovic,et al.  Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship , 1986, Scientometrics.

[15]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science , 2013, Nature.

[16]  Raphael Heiko Heiberger,et al.  Choosing Collaboration Partners. How Scientific Success in Physics Depends on Network Positions , 2016, ArXiv.

[17]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Gender differences in research collaboration , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[18]  Richard Heidler,et al.  Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields , 2010, Scientometrics.

[19]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact , 2008, PloS one.

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[21]  Miranda Lee Pao,et al.  Collaboration in computational musicology , 1982, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[22]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[23]  María Bordons,et al.  The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists? , 2014, Scientometrics.

[25]  Daniel A. McFarland,et al.  Ties That Last , 2013 .

[26]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  How Are Academic Age, Productivity and Collaboration Related to Citing Behavior of Researchers? , 2012, PloS one.

[27]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[28]  F. J. Rijnsoever,et al.  Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration , 2011 .

[29]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Including cited non-source items in a large-scale map of science: What difference does it make? , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[30]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996–2011 , 2013, European journal of clinical investigation.

[31]  Yu. V. Mokhnacheva.  The influence of various forms of co-authorship on the scientific productivity of Russian scientists in the field of molecular biology , 2015, Scientific and Technical Information Processing.

[32]  P. Boardman,et al.  Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital☆ , 2010 .

[33]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  A study of research collaboration in the pre‐web and post‐web stages: A coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  V. Larivière,et al.  Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century , 2016, PloS one.

[35]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[36]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[37]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[38]  Zeeya Merali.  Physics: The Large Human Collider , 2010, Nature.

[39]  Adam Worrall,et al.  Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[40]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Citation Metrics: A Primer on How (Not) to Normalize , 2016, PLoS biology.

[41]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Sixty-four years of informetrics research: productivity, impact and collaboration , 2014, Scientometrics.