The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications

Lewis, Jenny M.; Ross, Sandy; Holden, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9521-8

Cited by 105 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, further discussion with the authors involved revealed that these co-authors were clearly involved in planning and shaping the work and defining the future directions of the interdisciplinary research. This supports comments by Lewis et al (2012) that in some cases a suggestion by a colleague during a casual conversation may radically change the course and outcomes of a research project. Because there is considerable opportunity for interaction between researchers in this Programme, we feel confident that the list of joint authors reflects a minimum level of collaboration and imagine that a larger number of researchers have been engaged in each piece of work than is reflected by the author list.…”

Section: Innovative Sciencesupporting

confidence: 79%

Emerging outcomes from a cross-disciplinary doctoral programme on water resource systems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdisciplinary research and education programmes in water science are intended to produce groundbreaking research, often with an emphasis on societal relevance, and prepare future water resource experts to work across disciplines. This paper explores the emerging outcomes from an ongoing doctoral programme currently in its seventh year. Within the programme, there is both cross-disciplinary and mono-disciplinary research. Three questions are explored: (i) whether cross-disciplinary research leads to more innovative scientific findings than monodisciplinary research, (ii) whether cross-disciplinary researchers develop professional skills that benefit their future careers, and (iii) whether cross-disciplinary research produces findings of greater societal relevance than monodisciplinary research. Various indicators are used to measure research and education outcomes. Analysis of journal impact factors and citation rates of Institute of Scientific Information indexed publications suggests that crossdisciplinary research findings are more innovative. Comparison between graduate research profile and their career destinations suggests that researchers who learn to work across the disciplines continue to work this way in their post-doctoral positions. Analysis of media interest in research findings or their impact on policy suggests

show abstract

Section: Innovative Sciencesupporting

confidence: 79%

Emerging outcomes from a cross-disciplinary doctoral programme on water resource systems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, mathematicians traditionally focused on producing single-authored papers, but they are more willing to published coauthored papers in recent years (Brunson et al 2014;Genest and Thibault 2001;Newman 2004). Social sciences and humanities fields, which typically have lower co-authorship rates than the natural sciences, have also demonstrated an increase in co-authorship patterns over time (Cronin et al 2003;De Stefano et al 2011;Endersby 1996;Larivière et al 2006;Lewis et al 2012;Moody 2004;Ossenblok et al 2014;Wuchty et al 2007). For example, Web of Science data shows that the percentage of single-authored papers in the social sciences has dropped from 72 percent in 1981 to just 38 percent in 2012.…”

Section: Collaboration and Scientific Disciplines Research Collaboratmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though there is a rich discussion in the literature about co-authorship practices, many of the existing studies do not offer a dynamic picture of co-authorship patterns and experiences across disciplines. To address the research gap, our study aims to explore several key dimensions of the social dynamics in co-authorship practices. In particular, we examine cohort differences in collaboration patterns across disciplines and cohort differences in negative collaboration experiences across disciplines. To conduct our analyses, we use data from a national survey of scholars and engineers in 108 top research universities. Our results indicate that the number of collaborators at one's own university is correlated with an increase in negative collaboration experiences, while an increase in collaborators at other universities is not correlated with an increase in negative collaboration experiences. In addition, we conclude that junior scholars are more likely to have negative collaboration experiences than their senior peers. This result is true even after controlling for gender and discipline.

show abstract

“…This pointed towards a new form of academic misconduct! Lewis et al (2012) criticised this erroneous measurement of research collaboration through co-authorship of papers arguing that collaboration should be used as a strategy for enriching research and not for maximising research output. Couture and Rymer (1991) made a distinction between collaborative authorship (writing collectively) and interactive writing (involving soliciting views and comments from others), to support their thesis that collaborative writing is rarely practiced.…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles to Research and Publication in Zimbabwean Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of the Research and Intellectual Expo

Garwe¹

2015

IRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study was aimed at exploring the quantum and quality of research in higher education institutions (HEIs) in light of the stringent requirements for staff appointment, tenure and promotion. The case study method which falls within the qualitative research paradigm was employed. Documentary analysis was used to determine the trends in the number of articles submitted to the Research and Intellectual Expo (RIE) and those that are eventually published in the Journal of Zimbabwe studies from 2011 to 2014. In addition, interviews with 111 respondents (25 peer reviewers, 11 members of the Journal's editorial staff, 45 academics, 10 Research Directors and 20 members of the organising Committee) were performed for purposes of obtaining explanations and justifications for the trends obtained from the case study. Results indicate that although the number of articles submitted to the RIE had increased over the years (from 218 in 2011 to 498 in 2014), there are serious deficiencies in research and writing skills among academics in HEIs. However, variations in publication rates exist depending on academic field with those in the science-related disciplines producing better quality research articles than those in education, arts, humanities and social sciences. The major reasons for rejection of papers were poor research and writing skills as well as plagiarism. New forms of academic dishonesty namely: 'ghost' researches and unjustified multiple authorship were unearthed. The major challenge faced by the academics in conducting research was the pressure to publish in an environment characterised by high teaching loads and inadequate resources. The paper recommends collaboration by key stakeholders in imparting research and academic writing skills to and academics.

show abstract

The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications

Cited by 105 publications

References 23 publications

Emerging outcomes from a cross-disciplinary doctoral programme on water resource systems

Emerging outcomes from a cross-disciplinary doctoral programme on water resource systems

Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts

Obstacles to Research and Publication in Zimbabwean Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of the Research and Intellectual Expo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About