Collective authorship in Ukrainian science: marginal effect or new phenomenon?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2020.07.034Keywords:
collective authorship, scientometrics, group science, UkraineAbstract
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.
References
Fleck L. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. (ed by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton, foreword by T. Kuhn), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Price D.D.S. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University, 1963. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844
Subramanyam K. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. Journal of information Science. 1983. 6(1): 33–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158300600105
Wuchty S., Jones B.F., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007. 316(5827): 1036–1039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Fortunato S., Bergstrom C.T., Borner K., Evans J.A., Helbing D., Milojevic S., Petersen A.M., Radicchi F., Sinatra R., Uzzi B., Vespignani A. Science of science. Science. 2018. 359(6379): eaao0185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
Holovatch Yu., Krasnytska M., Mryglod O., Rovenchak A. Twenty years of the Journal of physical studies. An attempt at a journalometric analysis. Journal of Physical Studies. 2017. 21(4): 4001-19. (in Ukrainian).
Mryglod O. Scientometric analysis of Condensed Matter Physics journal. Condensed Matter Physics. 2018. 21(2): 22801. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5488/cmp.21.22801
Radchenko A.I., Mryglod O.I. "Mineralogical journal"(Ukraine): 40 years of history. Mineralogical journal. 2019. 41(1): 3–14. (in Ukrainian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/mineraljournal.41.01.003
Collins F.S., Morgan M., Patrinos A. The Human Genome Project: lessons from large-scale biology. Science. 2003. 300(5617): 286–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084564
The Large Hadron Collider. https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron. HERA. http://www.desy.de/research/facilities__projects/hera/index_eng.html
Abramo G., D’Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. The role of geographical proximity in knowledge diffusion, measured by citations to scientific literature. Journal of Informetrics. 2020. 14(1): 101010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101010
Hoekman J., Frenken K., Tijssen R.J. Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research policy. 2010. 39(5): 662–673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012
Kumar S. Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations. Publications. 2018. 6(3): 37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6030037
Beaver D.D. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics. 2001. 52(3): 365–377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337
Milojevic S. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. PNAS. 2014. 111(11): 3984–3989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1309723111
Defining the role of authors and contributors. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Web of Science Core Collection: Group Author field definition and indexing policy. https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-Core-Collection-Group-Author-field-definition-and-indexing-policy?language=en_US
Scientific institutions of NAS of Ukraine. http://www.nas.gov.ua/UA/Structure/Pages/default.aspx
Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS. 2005. 102(46): 16569–16572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Molinari J.F., Molinari A. A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics. 2008. 75(1): 163–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1853-2
Sypsa V., Hatzakis A. Assessing the impact of biomedical research in academic institutions of disparate sizes. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2009. 9(1): 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-33
Bibliometrics of Ukrainian science. Social Communications Research Center. http://www.nbuviap.gov.ua/bpnu/
Ranking of universities according to Scopus 2019. Osvita.ua. http://osvita.ua/vnz/rating/64398/
Merton R.K. The Thomas theorem and the Metthew effect. Social Forces. 1995. 74(2): 379–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2580486
Bornmann L., Marx W. Thomas theorem in research evaluation. Scientometrics. 2020. 123: 553–555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03389-6
