Collective authorship in Ukrainian science: marginal effect or new phenomenon?

One of the features of modern science is the formation of stable large collaborations of researchers working together within the projects that require the concentration of huge financial and human resources. Results of such common work are published in scientific papers by large co-authorship teams that include sometimes thousands of names. The goal of this work is to study the influence of such publications on the values of scientometric indicators calculated for individuals, research groups and science of Ukraine in general. Bibliometric data related to Ukraine, some academic institutions and selected individual researchers were collected from Scopus database and used for our study. It is demonstrated that while the relative share of publications by collective authors is comparatively small, their presence in a general pool can lead to statistically significant effects. The obtained results clearly show that traditional quantitative approaches for research assessment should be changed in order to take into account this phenomenon. Keywords: collective authorship, scientometrics, group science, Ukraine.

[1]  Angelos Hatzakis,et al.  Assessing the impact of biomedical research in academic institutions of disparate sizes , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[2]  "Mineralogical Journal (Ukraine)": 40 Years of History , 2019, Mineralogical journal.

[3]  Robert K. Merton,et al.  The Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect , 1995 .

[4]  Jean-François Molinari,et al.  A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions , 2008, Scientometrics.

[5]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  The role of geographic proximity in knowledge diffusion, measured by citations to scientific literature , 2020, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Thomas theorem in research evaluation , 2020, Scientometrics.

[8]  Sameer Kumar,et al.  Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations , 2018, Publ..

[9]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.

[10]  K. Subramanyam,et al.  Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review , 1983 .

[11]  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 .

[12]  R. Tijssen,et al.  Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe , 2010 .

[13]  G. Petsko.  Big science, little science , 2009, EMBO reports.

[14]  Olesya Mryglod,et al.  Scientometric analysis of Condensed Matter Physics journal , 2018, Condensed Matter Physics.

[15]  F. Collins,et al.  The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology , 2003, Science.

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

[17]  L. Evans.  The Large Hadron Collider , 2007 .

[18]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future , 2001, Scientometrics.