Search

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate—about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 2016 and 2017, the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology's Scholarly Journals Commission authorized the publication of four English-language journals in accounting and finance. By the end of 2022, these journals collectively produced 853 papers. This study explores and analyses the network of scholarly collaboration among authors contributing to papers published in English-language accounting and finance journals endorsed by the Ministry of Science from their inaugural issues to the latest one in 2022. This investigation delves into research output volume authorship patterns and identifies prolific contributors, shedding light on the collaborative networks within accounting and finance studies in Iran. Employing scientometric indexes and social network analytics, this research takes a pragmatic approach and utilizes network analysis software such as UCINet and VOSviewer for visualization and analysis. The findings of this study disclose that 2,438 authors contributed to a total of 853 papers. Among these authors, only 53 papers (6%) were authored by international professors. Examining authorship patterns reveals that a mere 8% of the papers (72 items) were individually authored, while the remainder involved collaboration: 25% (213 papers) were co-authored by pairs, 42% (354 papers) were the result of collaborative efforts among three scholars, and the remaining 25% were produced by groups involving more than three scholars. The most prolific monograph authors, credited with three monographs each, are Mohammad Izadikhah and Reza Jamei. The most productive authors are Fraydoon Rahnamay Roodposhti, Hashem Nikoomaram, and Mirfeiz Fallah Shams, with 28, 24, and 19 papers, respectively. Notably, these authors have published over 80% of their works in the journal they manage, specifically the International Journal of Finance and Managerial Accounting. The analysis of the scholarly collaboration network reveals a collaboration encompassing 1,406 scholars, of which 1,002 (71%) have contributed to only one paper. The network, with a compression index 0.018, demonstrates low coherence and includes numerous isolated nodes. However, the International Journal of Finance and Managerial Accounting stands out with a compression index of 0.051, indicating the highest level of coherence among journals. Regarding coauthorship, the most central scholars in the network are Fraydoon Rahmany Roodposhti, Hashem Nikoomaram, and Hamidreza Vakilifard. Notably, Fraydoon Rahmany Roodposhti and Hashem Nikoomaram have the highest number of collaborations in the network, with ten joint efforts. Visualizing the scholarly collaboration network yields valuable insights for policymakers within English-language accounting and finance journals. It aids in strategic planning by offering a comprehensive view of collaborations, contributing to a deeper understanding of this overlooked aspect of research partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

h-index takes no care of co-authorship; neither the number of co-authors nor their contributions. Many indices were proposed to take the effect of multiple co-authorship papers. The current Mo-index is based on the idea of distributing the citations of a paper between authors as a weighted value of the h-index of each author. The main advantage of the Mo-index is the distribution of the large number of citations between authors instead of being equally distributed and ignoring the rest of them by the calculation of the h-index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IPPTA (Indian Pulp and Paper Technical Association) Journal is a well-known journal in the Indian pulp and paper fraternity with a publishing history of fifty-five years. This study presents a bibliometric overview of articles published in the IPPTA Journal during 2005-2019. This is the first bibliometric study of a journal completely dedicated to pulp and paper research. The bibliometric analysis included analysis of article distribution, subject classification, authorship pattern, author productivity and collaboration, geographical distribution, references, keywords, prominent institutions, and citations. It also accounts for Lotka's law of scientific productivity, relative growth rate, doubling time, frequently contributing authors and top-cited articles. It was found that during this period 830 articles were published in IPPTA Journal. The average number of articles published per year in the journal is ~56. A total of 2361 authors from 27 countries and 339 unique institutes were identified in these articles. These articles contained 1009 unique keywords, used 5968 references, and received 561 citations. 74.10% of articles were contributed by joint authors. Out of the total 5968 references cited in this journal during the period of study, 48.51% were sourced from journal articles. The overall degree of collaboration, modified collaboration coefficient, average author per article, productivity per article, and collaboration index were calculated to be 0.7410, 0.5030, 2.8446, 0.3515, and 3.8390, respectively. Nonetheless, highlighting various interesting features, this analysis also detected certain inadequacies that need to be resolved for further improvement of this journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The value of large‐scale collaborations for solving complex problems is widely recognized, but many barriers hinder meaningful authorship for all on the resulting multi‐author publications. Because many professional benefits arise from authorship, much of the literature on this topic has focused on cheating, conflict and effort documentation. However, approaches specifically recognizing and creatively overcoming barriers to meaningful authorship have received little attention.We have developed an inclusive authorship approach arising from 15 years of experience coordinating the publication of over 100 papers arising from a long‐term, international collaboration of hundreds of scientists.This method of sharing a paper initially as a storyboard with clear expectations, assignments and deadlines fosters communication and creates unambiguous opportunities for all authors to contribute intellectually. By documenting contributions through this multi‐step process, this approach ensures meaningful engagement by each author listed on a publication.The perception that co‐authors on large authorship publications have not meaningfully contributed underlies widespread institutional bias against multi‐authored papers, disincentivizing large collaborations despite their widely recognized value for advancing knowledge. Our approach identifies and overcomes key barriers to meaningful contributions, protecting the value of authorship even on massively multi‐authored publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) is a globally recognised publication outlet for the field of Computer Science, including in South Africa. In this study, spanning from 1973 to 2022, we investigated the research participation of South African based authors in LNCS. The publication output and citation impact of these authors were compared to the global Computer Science and LNCS output. The authorship patterns and collaborative behaviour of South African LNCS papers were explored, and a keyword or topic analysis also conducted. Of the total of 518 662 LNCS papers published globally between 1973 and 2022, South African based researchers contributed 1150 papers (0.22%). The LNCS papers from South Africa exhibit a strong collaborative publication culture, with 1043 (91%) co-authored and 107 (9%) singleauthored works. Local LNCS researchers prefer institutional collaboration (43%), followed by international (37%) and national collaboration (11%). Europe emerged as the most significant collaboration partner for LNCS researchers in South Africa. Of the 1150 papers, 836 (73%) had received citations, while 314 (27%) had not. On average, papers published by South African based authors received 6.05 citations, compared to the global LNCS average of 9.49 citations per paper. A keyword analysis revealed that the majority of papers by South African authors focus on artificial intelligence. The results indicate that, although LNCS serves as a reputable dissemination platform for Computer Science research output both globally and locally, South African authors should consider publishing more journal articles to build and improve their researcher profiles. Significance: * The study shows that LNCS is the most frequent publication outlet for Computer Science researchers, globally and in South Africa. * The study offers insight into the publication output, authorship patterns, collaborative behaviour and citation impact of South African based Computer Science researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Journal of Market Research (IJMR) is celebrating its sixty-fifth anniversary. Over the past decade, the journal has experienced significant growth in readership, impact factor, citations, and submissions. While the majority of accepted papers come from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany, the journal aims to bridge the gap between academia and practice in the field of market research. In order to enhance its relevance and accessibility, IJMR will transition to an online-only format, adopt an interdisciplinary focus, provide guidelines for more user-friendly article formats, and publish a list of research priorities based on the perspectives of leading practitioners. [Extracted from the article]

By examining publication data for seven top business and economics journals over the period 1980–2015, we find that the proportion of solo papers declined while papers with more than three authors increased, on average. We also find positive correlation between the proportion of solo papers and a journal's acceptance rate. The rise in multi-authored papers can be explained as a response to the benefits conferred by research collaboration and the publish-or-perish culture that has led to tough competition for limited space in reputed journals. While research collaboration is beneficial, we put forward a case for the advantages of solo papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structured measurements have been widely used to measure the impact of scholarly entities based on scholarly networks. Existing methods use heterogeneous scholarly networks and the PageRank algorithm to quantify the impact of scientific collaboration. However, by ignoring important higher-order relationships in citation networks, the impact of scientific collaboration is quantified by relying on first-order relationships, which leads to indistinguishable self-citations. In this paper, to address these shortcomings, we propose a Motif-based Scientific Collaboration Impact Rank framework, named as MSCIRank, which leverages the triangular motifs from the reconstructed collaboration-citation networks and integrates the first-order and higher-order relationships in the PageRank algorithm to quantify the impact of scientific collaboration and scholarly papers. MSCIRank consists of two models, i,e, linear and non-linear. Extensive experiments have demonstrated the effectiveness of MSCIRank. The experimental results show that MSCIRank is better than SCIRank in identifying Nobel Prize papers in terms of Recall. The MSCIRank model can weaken or strengthen the impact of self-citation. Linear MSCIRank is consistent with Pareto's principle, while non-linear MSCIRank is inconsistent. In addition, the average impact of pairs of co-authors with high impact in the linear MSCIRank is much higher than that in the non-linear MSCIRank. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper aims to find out the factors that are likely to increase the citation impact of Turkey-addressed international papers. Method: For this purpose, we downloaded bibliographic records of some 226,000 TR-addressed papers that were published between 2006 and 2015, there from selected a sample (2%) using stratified probabilistic sampling technique, and obtained relevant data from various sources such as the number of citations and coauthors, journal impact factors (JIF) and journal quartiles pertaining to each paper in the sample. We then identified 19 independent variables on article, journal, cooperation, support and access levels and analyzed the data using the hurdle model. Findings: The strongest factors increasing the number of citations of TR-addressed papers are five-year JIFs and journal quartiles (Q1) in which TR-addressed papers appeared and the number of references in papers' reference lists. These factors also reduce the number of papers with zero citations. Papers published in cooperation with other countries collect higher numbers of citations. Factors such as the subjects of papers, whether papers received monetary support or not, and methods by which papers can be accessed (open or closed access) have no impact on the number of citations received. Implications: Findings indicate that academic promotion and support policies encouraging publishing in high impact journals while forestalling publishing in low impact journals should be developed in order to increase the scientific impact of TR-addressed papers. Originality: This is the first study using hurdle model to investigate the direct impact of several article, journal, collaboration, monetary support and access level explanatory variables on the number of citations that TR-addressed papers receive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a longitudinal bibliometric study of articles from six major universities published over 130 years of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). The Scopus API (Application Programming Interface) was used to download bibliographic metadata in multiple tables to create a relational database for automated data extraction and manipulation scripts to analyze publishing and citation indicators. The study examined several correlations between average number of institutional, non-institutional, single-and multiple- authored, and international authors per paper and citation counts; open access trends; and page count indicators. Also reported are the characteristics of highly cited papers and the average number of citations for articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlike mammals, adult zebrafish are capable of regenerating their hearts without scarring after injury -- a process that has great therapeutic potential. A new paper in Development investigates the role of Prxx1b, a transcription factor that is expressed in epicardial heart tissue after injury, to understand its role in the scar-free regeneration of the adult zebrafish heart. To hear more about the study, we caught up with joint first authors, Dennis De Bakker and Mara Bouwman, and the corresponding author, Jeroen Bakkers, the group leader at the Hubrecht Institute and professor of Molecular Cardiogenetics at the University Medical Center in Utrecht, The Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces a team-based model of researchers in a specialty and investigates the manifestation of such teams in a specialty's literature. The proposed qualitative behavioral model, with its mathematical expression as a growth model, is significant because it simultaneously describes the two phenomena of collaboration and author productivity (Lotka's law) in a specialty. The model is nested: A team process models the creation of research teams and the success-breeds-success process of their production of articles, while at a lower level the productivity of authors within teams is also modeled as a success-breeds-success process. Interteam collaboration (weak ties) is modeled as random events. This simple growth model is shown to faithfully mimic six network metrics of bipartite article-author networks. The model is demonstrated on three example article collections from specialties that have a wide range of degree of collaboration: (a) a distance education collection with low collaboration degree, (b) a complex networks collection with typical collaboration degree, and (c) an atrial ablation collection with heavy collaboration degree. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzed the trend in authorship patterns and collaborative research in the field of gravity with a sample of 122,133 research papers indexed in the Web of Science database. The study reveals that although multiple authorship is dominant, solo research also exists. The proportion of single-authored papers has shown a declining trend during the period 2000-2019. The collaboration index and the number of authored papers with two or more authors has been has been rising during the study period. Scientists who are working in gravity research prefer collaborative work. The average author per paper and average paper per author during the study period is 3.91 and 0.26 respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author congratulates David Gems and co-authors on a brilliant discovery — direct proof of acute phenoptosis in the nematode — but argues that the authors underappreciate the significance of their work by suggesting that phenoptosis is a rare natural phenomenon not typically observed in mammals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We study how scholar collaboration varies across disciplines in science, social science, arts and humanities and the effects of author collaboration on impact and quality of co-authored papers. Impact is measured with the aid of citations collected by papers, while quality is determined by the judgements expressed by peer reviewers. To this end, we take advantage of the dataset provided by the first-ever national research assessment exercise of Italian universities, which involved 20 disciplinary areas, 102 research structures, 18,500 research products, and 6661 peer reviewers. Collaboration intensity neatly varies across disciplines: it is inescapable is most sciences and negligible in most humanities. We measured a general positive association between cardinality of the author set of a paper and citation count as well as peer quality of the contribution. The correlation is stronger when the affiliations of authors are heterogeneous. There exist, however, notable and interesting counter-examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study is an evaluation of the authorship and collaboration pattern in the International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology (IJIDT) during 2011-2022. A total of 563 contributions were published during the study period out of which 175 articles are published by a single author and 388 articles are published by two or more two authors. It is clear from the study that multiple authorship patterns are prominent in the IJIDT journal. In the study it has been counted that the average degree of collaboration was 1.81, the average collaboration coefficient was 0.40, the average modified collaboration coefficient was 0.40, the average relative growth rate was 0.21, and the average time to double was 5.15. The highest activity index for India is counted in the years 2015, 2016, and 2021 respectively, and the lowest activity index is counted in 2014. The highest world activity index has been counted in the year 2014 which is 265.07 and the lowest is 0.00 in the years 2105, 2016, and 2021 respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Polish court case Case II CSK 527/10, which dealt with joint authorship entitlements for editors of scientific papers. Topics include the rights of attribution, if deletions of text can be considered as contributing to authorship under Polish copyright law, and the Polish Copyright Law Act (CLA).

An editorial is presented which discusses the collaborative writing with multiple authors which has additional challenges including varied levels of engagement of coauthors, provision of fair credit through authorship or acknowledgements and acceptance of diversity of work styles. Also discussed are the 10 simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper which include to build a writing team wisely; to create a data management plan and to jointly decide on authorship guidelines.

• Dynamic academic networks are introduced for predicting future influence of entities. • Every researcher or venue per year is treated as a separate entity. • Seven types of relations among papers, authors, and venues are extracted and used for prediction. • Both publication age and recent citations are considered for a balanced treatment of old and new papers. Performance evaluation and prediction of academic achievements is an essential task for scientists, research organizations, research funding bodies, and government agencies alike. Recently, heterogeneous networks have been used to evaluate or predict performance of multi-entities including papers, researchers, and venues with some success. However, only a minimum of effort has been made to predict the future influence of papers, researchers and venues. In this paper, we propose a new framework WMR-Rank for this purpose. Based on the dynamic and heterogeneous network of multiple entities, we extract seven types of relations among them. The framework supports useful features including the refined granularity of relevant entities such as authors and venues, time awareness for published papers and their citations, differentiating the contribution of multiple coauthors to the same paper, amongst others. By leveraging all seven types of relations and fusing the rich information in a mutually reinforcing style, we are able to predict future influence of papers, authors and venues more precisely. Using the ACL dataset, our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach considerably outperforms state-of-the art competitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last two decades, all branches of science and technology have rapidly progressed, including the medical area. In Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, the increased growth of technology and science production has led to this rapid medical progress. Recent evidence has revealed that the increase in the number of scientific papers generated in Iran after the Iraqi imposed war against Iran has been eight times that in six main countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria. Although Iran's output in sciences has been still small in comparison to developed countries, it has significantly grown in the last decade, which is hoped to continue to increase and improve. The current paper shows a portion of the science production in Iran over the past two years based on papers published in the European Journal of Translational Myology in 2020 and 2021. Although the Issue 32 (1), 2022 in a special section contains several typescripts from Iran, they were not included in our analysis since they have not been yet indexed in the Scopus database. However, our report would encourage researchers of diverse nationalities to take part in research works and author joint papers. Further, this paper can be used to rate the universities and research centers regarding their science output, as well as being beneficial to university students, lecturers, and governments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cheung Kong Scholars Program has become a nationally important, high-level talent plan. In this study, we determined whether the research output and coauthorship pattern of Cheung Kong Scholars changed after their receipt of the award. We selected the 83 recipients of the 2005 Cheung Kong Scholars Award and identified a total of 11,522 Science/Social Sciences Citation Index papers published between 1996 and 2015 by these awardees. The analysis was divided into two 10-year periods—the preaward (1996–2005) and postaward (2006–15) periods—to investigate changes in the scholars' research performance. The results revealed that the number of papers authored by each Cheung Kong Scholar increased significantly, and there were also significant increases between the two periods in terms of average citation count and journal impact factor, suggesting that the quality of the scholars' papers improved in tandem with the quantity. Second, a quadrant chart revealed that individuals exhibited different trends in productivity and impact, but their impacts' distribution in the postaward period was much more concentrated than that in the preaward period. Third, the scholars' coauthorship patterns changed significantly after receiving the award—not only their number of coauthors per paper significantly increased but also their authorship role changed significantly. In both number and proportion, they became less likely to act as the first author, but more likely to be listed as the last author. Furthermore, they published more papers as corresponding author, and more papers as the first, corresponding, or last author, though their proportion did not change significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to analyze India's publications on organic chemistry and related fields at the micro, meso, and macro levels. The study attempts to map and visualize the publications in organic chemistry from 2016 to 2020 to identify the country co-authorship, author co-authorship, bibliographic coupling of authors, keyword co-occurrence, etc. Performance analysis techniques incorporating publication-related metrics, citation-related metrics, and citation and publication-related metrics (number of cited publications, citations per publication, h-index) were utilized to analyze the publications. Further, science mapping techniques are used to investigate citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis. Moreover, enriched bibliometric techniques meant for computational evaluation like network analysis, including cluster analysis and visualization, were used in later phases using the software VOSviewer and Biblioshiny. VOSviewer, a bibliometric mapping tool, is extensively used in scientometric studies. For analysis of performance and visualization of research hotspots in Organic Chemistry, Biblioshiny web interface through R-studio is used, which is performing intensive data mining. A total of 1804 journals are encountered in the period taken for study which obeys a non-exponential growth with the highest number of papers (370) in the year 2017 and the least (344) in the year 2020 and as per the forecasting, the highest number of publications are expected in the year 2021 (349). Analysis of prolific authors reveals that A Kumar is the most productive author in the period with 47 publications and an h-index of 12 and KR Prabhu of IISc. Bangalore is the most impactful author with 387 citations and 27.64 CPP. Journal of Organic Chemistry is the most productive journal. Trending topics of research like azo dyes and metal-organic frameworks indicate the industrial and commercial importance of organic compounds. No similar studies have been found with matching objectives with this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the research on interdisciplinarity (RID), measures for evaluating the interdisciplinarity of scientific entities (e.g., papers, authors, journals or research areas) have been proposed for a long time. The author interdisciplinarity is very different from the other types of interdisciplinarity because of the complex interpersonal relationships between the connected authors. However, previous work has failed to uncover the distinctiveness of author interdisciplinarity and has regarded it as equivalent to other types of interdisciplinarity. In this work, an extended Rao–Stirling diversity measure is proposed, which incorporates the co-author network and a network similarity measure to specifically evaluate the author interdisciplinarity. Moreover, betweenness centrality is used for improving network similarity measure, because of its intrinsic advantage of expressing how an entity loads on different factors in a network, which is highly in line with the characteristic of interdisciplinarity. An experiment on the papers about Public Administration in the Web of Science is conducted; based on the final results, a deeper investigation is performed into by typical authors. The work proposes a novel idea for measuring author interdisciplinarity, which can promote the study of interdisicplinarity measuring in RID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social entrepreneurship plays an important role in the maintenance of economic prosperity and brings benefits to society. The role of social entrepreneurship is growing in the light of challenges of the global economy, increasing uncertainty of the environment, the growth of social problems, and the emergence of crises in the 2020s. These derive an increase in economic and psychological challenges. Social entrepreneurship is known as the driver for solving global problems of society. The entrepreneurial ecosystem serves as a source of entrepreneurial opportunity, as a breeding ground for entrepreneurship. Therefore, exploring the topic of social entrepreneurship in the context of the entrepreneurial ecosystem becomes relevant. Social entrepreneurship, with respect to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, has been extensively explored. However, despite a growing body of publications, to the best of our knowledge, no bibliometric analysis is available on the topic. This analysis is important to understand what trends in the development of social entrepreneurship and the ecosystem exist, what further research directions can be recommended, and how the relationship between social entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem has been studied. This study aims to close the gap, consolidate research, and identify the state of the art in the field. In total, 357 publications from the Scopus database were selected for the period of 2009–2022. The study used social network analysis (bibliographic coupling network, co-citation network, citation network, and co-authorship network) and semantic analysis (semantic network) through VOSviewer version 1.6.19 and Gephi version 0.10.1 software. The results showed a growth of publications during this period, allowing us to observe influential journals, the most productive and cited authors, leading countries and universities, impactful papers, networks of collaborations, and co-citations of scholars. The paper with the highest degree of centrality is "Ecosystems in Support of Social Entrepreneurs: A Literature Review" while Sustainability is the most influential journal in the field. The analysis identified six thematic clusters within the research topic. The study contributes to the literature by presenting the research agenda, structure, characteristics of social entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial ecosystem research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the increase in the number of collaborative and multi-authored papers in the field of applied ecological research. Topics include the changes in manuscript submission patterns, technological innovations in the field of ecological research, and various trends in data collection. The article also discusses career opportunities for scientists.

Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers—orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Descriptive bibliometric analysis seeks to present the characteristics of published scientific papers that examine the phenomena of "women", "entrepreneurship" and "education". Using standard bibliographic and bibliometrics indicators, the specifics of publications from the point of publishing dynamics, belonging to different scientific areas, characteristics of a publication source, individual or joint authorship, geographical distribution, published content and citation metrics are presented. The research results rely on analytical tools provided by Scopus and BibExcel, while a Wordcloud text generator was used to create some of the graphical presentations. A total of 330 papers dated in the period from 1976 to 2020, were published in a total of 198 journals indexed in the SCOPUS database. Created as a result of individual research work or in collaboration with 811 different authors, the content of these works falls into one of 22 categories of research areas. The observed papers were cited by 4976 other documents indexed in the Scopus database. This study should be considered as a systematization of articles published in eminent scientific journals and should motivate other authors to conduct further researches in the field of bibliometrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper collectively authored by Norbert Pap, Máté Kitanics, Péter Gyenizse, Gábor Szalai and Balázs Polgár on the environmental features of the medieval village called Földvár was published in the 2019/2 issue of the review Történelmi Szemle. Its title promised to finally localise the central area of the 1526 battle of Mohács. Measured to this promise, the content is rather disappointing. The previous results of the research into the location of the medieval village of Földvár, thought to have lain in the centre of the battle, were not determined by the fact that these were formulated by persons with military experience or by civilians. And yet Pap and his co-authors, by localising Földvár into the vicinity of today's Sátorhely, lock into a research strand of military historical background which they previously blamed for the neglect of written sources and whose methods it was they declared aim to pass by. Those researchers, however, whether soldiers or civilians, who did use the evidence offerred by the charter material, all excluded Sátorhely from the possible localisations of Földvár. The long sections in the paper that deal with medieval charters and early medieval written sources are completely useless, since they use their testimony fairly selectively, and thus the site that can in fact be surmised on the basis of the medieval written evidence, namely the area around today's Udvar, did not even come to their minds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mike Thelwall was honoured with the Derek John de Solla Price Award (2015) at his 50 years age and at 20 years of research publishing career. The first contribution of the author was in 2000 at the age of 35. His publications were analysed by year, growth of publication pattern, collaboration pattern, authorship pattern, channels of communications used and keywords etc. He had 297 publications during 2000-2015 in domains: Computer Science (237), Social Sciences (183), Decision Sciences (50), Mathematics (45), Engineering (11), Medicine(7), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (6), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (6), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3), Physics and Astronomy (3), Arts and Humanities (2), Business Management and Accounting (2), Psychology (1) and Multidisciplinary (1). Collaborative authorship pattern is found to be in the team size of 2-above 5. Fifty-seven are single authored papers, 136 two authored, 63 three authored, 21 four authored, 7 five authored and 13 above five authored. Two and Three authored papers constitute nearly 67 percent of the total authorship of his papers while single author papers are nearly 19 percent of the total authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., "senior") authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year‐on‐year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all‐male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non‐English‐speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English‐speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role. We examine gender differences and geographic variation in first, last, and corresponding authorship in the ecology and evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How is credit for group work allocated when individual contributions are not observed? I use data on academics' publication records to test whether demographic traits like gender influence how credit is allocated under such uncertainty. While solo-authored papers send a clear signal about ability, coauthored papers are noisy, providing no specific information about each contributor's skills. I find that men are tenured at roughly the same rate regardless of coauthoring choices. Women, however, are less likely to receive tenure the more they coauthor. The result is much less pronounced among women who coauthor with other women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Visualizing into social science research, the present study examines the trend in social science research out put, degree of collaboration in research, extent of authors' productivity, growth pattern of literature and farreaching productive regions at length. The central theme of the approach resultantly discovers and indicates the current research process and status at global scenario. Finally, the study shows the researchers participation in research and development, and research out put have set the pace vertically as determining a modern convenience of 21st century, causes encouragement to novice researchers. Summarizing the consequences of the study it is discovered that, single authorship is most dominant in 1st journal 'SSR', while in 2nd journal 'WSIF' the single authorship is dominated by multi authorship which signifies both journals are disconcerting one another in this context. Addressing the productivity of geographical regions the study investigates and explores that, USA with 86.8% papers is the top most productive country in 1st journal, whereas Australia having 27.8% in 2nd journal got 1st rank respectively among 11 and 20 participative countries of both journals. The study further reveals that, with the march of time the research out put has incorporated vigorous changes and has grown a highest up to 59.4 and 54.6 per cent papers under latest time zones as compared to other respective time zones at both journals. Besides, the study also denotes that, the principal productive institutions and prime productive authors of most productive countries hold prolific ranks in both the journals as compared to others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper gives an overview of topics that have been highlighted at the previous five QQML conferences. Based on the classification of conference papers, we will show how much interest there was in particular topics, the institutions that authors came from, etc. We will also give a historiograph presentation of how specific research topics appeared through time. We will use statistical indicators relating to the number and type of conference papers, topics, keywords and co-authorship to show and analyse productivity in the field of information sciences taken as a whole. In this context, we will particularly analyse institutions and countries that authors came from. Finally, we will especially single out those indicators that expressly show the conferences' impact over this five-year period. The aim of the paper is to show the significance of conferences in the development of the fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study explores the communication and collaboration patterns in Dr. Ajay Kumar Sood's publications. The complete list of research publications was extracted from the Web of Science (WOS) database, i.e., 431 publications. Many scientific indicators were used, such as year-wise distribution, authorship and collaboration patterns of publications, journal preferred, etc. The results indicate that Dr Ajay Kumar Sood published only five articles as a single author and 426 in collaboration, which makes up 98 percent of the total output. He has collaborated with more than 3077 researchers during the period under study. The Degree of Collaboration (DC) was 0.99, and the Collaborative Coefficient (CC) was 0.75. Physical Review B was the frequently consulted journal by Sood, having an impact factor of 3.908 with 54 articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author name disambiguation is an important research topic in the academic information retrieval community. Existing methods rely either on feature engineering on rich attributes information or on relationship information to obtain documents' similarity, but seldom consider the complementarity and the correlation between them. The feature engineering on attributes, especially on rich text information, could capture the global semantic concepts, while the relationship information could encode local structural proximity in multiple academic networks. To bridge the gap between semantic and relationship information in author name disambiguation, this paper presents a joint representation learning approach, which could encode both semantic and relationship information into a common low dimensional space. Specifically, the proposed method consists of four modules: (1) semantic embedding module; (2) relationship embedding module; (3) semantic and relationship joint embedding module; and (4) clustering module. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed joint representation learning approach consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on three benchmarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: An author’s first paper is often the most difficult to write. However, the appropriate dissemination of the results, including the presentation of findings for peer review, is an important responsibility of all who conduct research. Key issues include the choice of which journal to submit to, and the determination of co-authorship status. Each facet of the paper (Title, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References, Abstract) requires attention, as does the covering letter to the journal editor. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Information about the journal is presented, including rules on plagiarism, forced joint authorship and article sale.

In this "paper," we share our process of exploring the possibilities for the emergence of new ways of knowing-thinking-doing response-able collaboration. In an effort to come "together-apart" as author-collaborators, working from our different positionings and locations in the world, we shared text and images of the various ways the ideas from individual papers (nodal points) and our diffractive processes were moving (with) us. Sharing these creative respondings, new relations co-emerged through the texts-images and the various diffractive patterns that traveled widely through screens, devices, bodies, from New Zealand and Australia, to Iran, London, Finland, Canada, and the West and East Coasts of the United States. Paying attention to the fine details, difference emerged, as did new forms of more-than-human connection. The visual and written respondings were then cut together-apart (literally, metaphorically and methodologically) to represent the multiplicities of the diffractive process, bodies, hauntings, absences and excess, and the tensions and affective vulnerabilities that co-emerged through our process. We present four visual montages of the diffractive patterns that surfaced from the individual papers as nodal points and our creative collaborative processes of becoming-with the special issue. We conclude with some final thoughts on the process of diffracting the special issue, inviting the reader to join us in imagining new lines of flight, alternative possibilities for becoming a more response-able, more-than-human academic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measuring publication success of a researcher is a complicated task as publications are often co‐authored by multiple authors, and so, it requires comparison of solo publications with joint publications. In this paper, like Price (1981), we argue for an egalitarian perspective in accomplishing this task. More specifically, we justify the need for an ethical perspective in quantifying academic author by identifying certain ethical difficulties of some popular contemporary indices used for this purpose. And then we show that for any given dataset of research papers, the unique method satisfying the ethical notions of identity independence and performance invariance must be the egaliatarian E‐index proposed by Bose, Pal, and Sappington (2010) and Price (1981). In our setting, this egalitarian method divides authorship of joint projects equally among authors and sums across all publications of each author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study is aimed to find out the authorship pattern and the collaboration trends in the field of phonology. In the study, Collaborative index, Degree of collaboration, Collaborative Coefficient, Relative growth rate and Doubling time these Scientometric indicators were used. The study found that the Degree of Collaboration is 0.5 which reveals the average relationship between singled authored papers and muli-authored papers. Collaboration Coefficient and Modified Collaboration Coefficient is less than 0.5, it means there were fewer trends of authors collaboration. But the study found slight growth from 1013 to 2015 and again decreased. As per the study Goswami, U was the first ranked author, Lingua was the first ranked journal and USA was the first ranked Country between 2000 and 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study provides a complete view of authorship and collaborative patterns of global synthetic biology research. Data for the study was obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database of Clarivate Analytics from 2005 to 2019. This study finds that the average number of authors per paper in the present data set is 4.56. The average productivity per author is 0.22, which shows that the number of authors and publications is increasing. The authorship pattern showed a remarkable increase in the number of multi-authored publications. The current data show a positive correlation between the number of publications and the number of authors. Further, the study finds higher rates of mean values of collaboration indicators (CI = 4.5576, DC = 0.8863, CC = 0.6483, and MCC = 0.6495) also proved the better rates of collaborations among authors in this field. The study concludes that synthetic biology researchers prefer team research over solo research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the emergence of the novel Coronavirus disease from Wuhan, China, in early December 2019, scientists every where in the world have focused on this infection to find a way to deal with it. Due to the rapid growth in the literature on this disease, the WHO took the initiative to collate the emerging publications and created "WHO COVID-19 Database". A scientometric study was conducted to better understand the nature of medical literature on COVID-19 included in the WHO COVID-19 Database, and this article aims to provide an analysis of the coverage of those publications focusing on the twelve months, from December 2019 to November 2020. A total of 35,791 full-text research articles on Coronavirus infections has been published across the world. These publications were originated from 57 countries, indicating the international spread of COVID-19 research. The USA was the largest contributor with 12,989 articles, followed by UK and Netherlands. All the publications mentioned above are written in 15 different languages where English has become the dominant language out of all those languages with 93.25%. According to the findings, the co-authorship network of 3 authors Eric J. Rubin, Lindsey R. Baden and Stephen Morrissey has made the highest contribution with 34 papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med). The journal with the highest number of publications on COVID-19 research was the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health - online). The classification of study type reveals that the maximum number of articles are published on risk factors. This study showed that core journals publishing COVID-19 research are scattered among journals, closely conforming to Bradford's Law of scattering. The Lotka's Law on authorship productivity has been tested to confirm the law's applicability to the present dataset. According to the test, there is a variation of author productivity between the observed percentage and expected percentage of authors as in Lotka's Law. This study will help the research community to get the required information for their research. Further, the information in this paper will encourage the researchers in finding more facts on COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Co-authorship networks are graphs in which the nodes of the graph represent authors and two authors are connected by an edge if they have written one or more papers together. When applied to the authorship of scholarly papers, analysing the structure of a co-authorship network can provide useful insights into the way in which research is carried out in a particular field. We examine two co-authorship networks in our article, constructed from papers written on the subjects of chemistry and mathematics during the period 1990 to 2005, in which at least one of the authors was South African. Local results are compared with other studies conducted in much larger discipline-wide networks. We find that many of the same patterns exist locally, with the main difference being a far more fragmented South African mathematics network. We discuss some tentative implications of these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By examining the ethnic identity of authors in over 2.5 million scientific papers written by US-based authors from 1985 to 2008, we find that persons of similar ethnicity coauthor together more frequently than predicted by their proportion among authors. The greater homophily is associated with publication in lower-impact journals and with fewer citations. Meanwhile, papers with authors in more locations and with longer reference lists get published in higher-impact journals and receive more citations. These findings suggest that diversity in inputs by author ethnicity, location, and references leads to greater contributions to science as measured by impact factors and citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]