Joint and multi-authored publication patterns in the Digital Humanities

The stereotype of the multi-authored Digital Humanities paper is well known but has not, until now, been empirically investigated. Here we present the results of a statistical analysis of collaborative publishing patterns in Computers and the Humanities (CHum) (1966-2004); Literary and Linguistic Computing (LLC) (1986-2011); and, as a control, the Annals of the Association of American Geographers (AAAG) (1966-2013) in order to take a first step towards investigat- ing concepts of 'collaboration' in Digital Humanities. We demonstrate that in two core Digital Humanities journals, CHum and LLC, single-authored papers predominate. In AAAG, single-authored papers are also predominant. In regard to multi-authored papers the statistically significant increases are more wide- ranging in AAAG than in either LLC or CHum, with increases in all forms of multi-authorship. The author connectivity scores show that in CHum, LLC, and AAAG, there is a relatively small cohort of authors who co-publish with a wide set of other authors, and a longer tail of authors for whom co-publishing is less common.

[1]  P. Ramsden.  Describing and explaining research productivity , 1994 .

[2]  Robert B. Allen,et al.  Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities , 2014, Electron. Libr..

[3]  Mapheus Smith.  The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. , 1958 .

[4]  Richard A. Wanner,et al.  Research Productivity in Academia: A Comparative Study of the Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. , 1981 .

[5]  Melissa Terras,et al.  Reinventing Research? Information Practices in the Humanities , 2011 .

[6]  Christine L. Borgman,et al.  The Digital Future is Now: A Call to Action for the Humanities , 2009, Digit. Humanit. Q..

[7]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "Digital Humanities" as a topic , 2009, ArXiv.

[8]  Lynne Siemens.  INKE Administrative Structure: Omnibus Document , 2009 .

[9]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and Its Rewards , 2005 .

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

[11]  Eric H. J. Spruyt,et al.  Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[12]  Willard McCarty.  Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities , 2012 .

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

[14]  Philip Rees,et al.  Cross‐national comparison of internal migration: issues and measures , 2002 .

[15]  Peter Stokes,et al.  Digital Humanities 2013 , 2013 .

[16]  Svein Kyvik,et al.  Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000 , 2003, Scientometrics.

[17]  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 .

[18]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities , 2006, Scientometrics.

[19]  K. Fitzpatrick.  Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy , 2011 .

[20]  Lana Bosnjak,et al.  Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines , 2012, Scientometrics.

[21]  Sue Stone,et al.  Humanities scholars: Information Needs and Uses , 1982, J. Documentation.

[22]  Stan Ruecker,et al.  The iterative design of a project charter for interdisciplinary research , 2008, DIS '08.

[23]  G. Laudel.  What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .