A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication

Gordon, Michael D.

doi:10.1007/bf02016697

Cited by 115 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Barabási and Albert, 1999, "(...) a new actor is casted most likely in a supporting role, with more established, wellknown actors (...)"). By contrast, it is more consistent with traditional sociological interpretations where, for instance in scientific communities, the number of papers, thus collaboration events, are simply proportional to research activity (Gordon, 1980). More broadly, these observation cast doubt on usual assertions regarding increasing propensities as a universal phenomenon related to attractivity, rather than a context-dependent process correlated with activity.…”

Section: Dynamic Hierarchiessupporting

confidence: 71%

Social and semantic coevolution in knowledge networks

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-semantic networks involve agents creating and processing information: communities of scientists, software developers, wiki contributors and webloggers are, among others, examples of such knowledge networks. We aim at demonstrating that the dynamics of these communities can be adequately described as the coevolution of a social and a socio-semantic network. More precisely, we will first introduce a theoretical framework based on a social network and a socio-semantic network, i.e. an epistemic network featuring agents, concepts and links between agents and between agents and concepts. Adopting a relevant empirical protocol, we will then describe the joint dynamics of social and socio-semantic structures, at both macroscopic and microscopic scales, emphasizing the remarkable stability of these macroscopic properties in spite of a vivid local, agentbased network dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Dynamic Hierarchiessupporting

confidence: 71%

Social and semantic coevolution in knowledge networks

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, coauthored manuscripts are more likely to be accepted for publication than single-authored manuscripts (Gordon, 1980), to appear in subfields that are more highly funded (Price & Beaver, 1966), to be found in a field's core and most prestigious journals (Beaver & Rosen, 1979b), and to have higher impact scores (Lawani, 1986;Wuchty et al, 2007). Moreover, citations to coauthored articles are more highly correlated with salaries than are citations to single-authored articles (Diamond, 1985), although this and the other relations vary across fields.…”

Section: Collaboration and Coauthorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, coauthoring practices vary across kinds and types of publications (Berelson, 1960). For instance, empirical publications are more likely to be coauthored than conceptual publications in science and in general (Gordon, 1980;Price, 1963), as well as in psychology (Over, 1982;M. Smith, 1958).…”

Section: Collaboration and Coauthorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative analysis and natural history of B. F. Skinner’s coauthoring practices

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes and analyzes B. F. Skinner's coauthoring practices. After identifying his 35 coauthored publications and 27 coauthors, we analyze his coauthored works by their form (e.g., journal articles) and kind (e.g., empirical); identify the journals in which he published and their type (e.g., data-type); describe his overall and local rates of publishing with his coauthors (e.g., noting breaks in the latter); and compare his coauthoring practices with his single-authoring practices (e.g., form, kind, journal type) and with those in the scientometric literature (e.g., majority of coauthored publications are empirical). We address these findings in the context of describing the natural history of Skinner's coauthoring practices. Finally, we describe some limitations in our methods and offer suggestions for future research.

show abstract

“…Las redes sociales resultan especialmente importantes para mejorar la transferencia del conocimiento tácito (Polanyi, 1966;Gordon, 1980;McFadyen y Cannella Jr, 2004). Del mismo modo, la complejidad de determinados proyectos científi-cos y el carácter interdisciplinar de algunas áreas de conocimiento (ej.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Propiedades relacionales de las redes de colaboración y generación de conocimiento científico: ¿Una cuestión de tamaño o equilibrio?

Villanueva-Felez¹,

Fernández-Zubieta²,

Montero³

2014

Rev. esp. doc. cient.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen: El artículo analiza la influencia de las redes de los investigadores en la cantidad y calidad de su producción de conocimiento científico, con datos obtenidos de un cuestionario, cumplimentado por 191 investigadores/académicos españoles especializados en nanotecnología. Se consideran las redes que los investigadores establecen con otros individuos y organizaciones y se examina el efecto de las propiedades relacionales de las redes de colaboración (grado de incrustación y heterogeneidad nodal) en la producción científica, teniendo en cuenta el tamaño de la red. Se observa que el equilibrio en las redes personales y organizativas explica más la cantidad y la calidad de la producción científica que el tamaño de las redes. Las redes personales equilibradas en su fuerza y su diversidad geográfica facilitan la producción científica y, en su aspecto geográfico, su calidad. Las redes organizativas equilibradas en su diversidad institucional, al contrario que en su dimensión geográfica, también facilita la cantidad de producción.Palabras clave: Redes individuales; redes organizativas; científicos; nanotecnología; producción académica. The relational properties of collaborative networks and the generation of scientific knowledge: a question of size or of balance?Abstract: This article analyses the effect of networks of scientists on the quantity and quality of their academic output. Information on the characteristics of the networks comes from a questionnaire completed by 191 Spanish academic scientists working in the field of nanotechnology. The article considers the networks that these scientists establish with other individuals and through organizations and examines how the degree of embeddedness and nodal heterogeneity of these networks affects scientists' output. The findings show that the balance achieved among members of a network -whether individual or organizational--explains more about the quantity and quality of academic output, than the size of the network. Regardless of their size, more integrated and geographically balanced networks of individuals enhance academic production; additionally their geographic balance also serves to enhance the quality of the output. In the case of organizational networks with a well-balanced institutional diversity, there is a greater quantity of academic production, as opposed to those organizational networks characterized by a geographic balance.

show abstract

A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication

Cited by 115 publications

References 8 publications

Social and semantic coevolution in knowledge networks

Social and semantic coevolution in knowledge networks

A quantitative analysis and natural history of B. F. Skinner’s coauthoring practices

Propiedades relacionales de las redes de colaboración y generación de conocimiento científico: ¿Una cuestión de tamaño o equilibrio?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About