Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2022-04-14 DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00188
M. Thelwall, Nabeil Maflahi
{"title":"Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion","authors":"M. Thelwall, Nabeil Maflahi","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research coauthorship is useful to combine different skill sets, especially for applied problems. While it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields coauthor the most and least. In response, we assess changes in the rate of journal article coauthorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Although all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in coauthorship, in 2020, there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whereas 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever-expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"331-344"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract Research coauthorship is useful to combine different skill sets, especially for applied problems. While it has increased over the last century, it is unclear whether this increase is universal across academic fields and which fields coauthor the most and least. In response, we assess changes in the rate of journal article coauthorship 1900–2020 for all 27 Scopus broad fields and all 332 Scopus narrow fields. Although all broad fields have experienced reasonably continuous growth in coauthorship, in 2020, there were substantial disciplinary differences, from Arts and Humanities (1.3 authors) to Immunology and Microbiology (6 authors). All 332 Scopus narrow fields also experienced an increase in the average number of authors. Immunology and Classics are extreme Scopus narrow fields, as exemplified by 9.6 authors per Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer article, whereas 93% of Trends in Classics articles were solo in 2020. The reason for this large difference seems to be the need for multiple complementary methods in Immunology, making it fundamentally a team science. Finally, the reasonably steady and universal increases in academic coauthorship over 121 years show no sign of slowing, suggesting that ever-expanding teams are a central part of current professional science.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究合著者1900-2020:持续、普遍和持续的扩展
摘要研究合著有助于结合不同的技能,尤其是在应用问题上。虽然它在上个世纪有所增加,但尚不清楚这种增加是否在各个学术领域普遍存在,以及哪些领域的合著者最多和最少。作为回应,我们评估了所有27个Scopus宽领域和所有332个Scopus窄领域1900–2020年期刊文章合著率的变化。尽管所有领域的合著者都经历了合理的持续增长,但在2020年,从艺术和人文学科(1.3位作者)到免疫学和微生物学(6位作者),存在着巨大的学科差异。所有332个Scopus窄域的平均作者数量也有所增加。免疫学和经典学是极其狭窄的领域,如《癌症免疫治疗杂志》每篇文章的9.6位作者所示,而2020年93%的经典趋势文章是单独发表的。这种巨大差异的原因似乎是免疫学需要多种互补的方法,使其从根本上成为一门团队科学。最后,在121年的时间里,学术合著者数量的稳步增长和普遍增长没有放缓的迹象,这表明不断扩大的团队是当前专业科学的核心部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Technological Impact of Funded Research: A Case Study of Non-Patent References Socio-cultural factors and academic openness of world countries Scope and limitations of library metrics for the assessment of ebook usage: COUNTER R5 and link resolver The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account New methodologies for the digital age? How methods (re-)organize research using social media data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1