Coauthorship Patterns and Trends in the Sciences (1980-1998): A Bibliometric Study With Implications for Database Indexing and Search Strategies

By Wolfgang Glänzel. Library Trends, 2002

325 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The present study aims at describing both the common and the distinguishing features of coauthorship trends and patterns in selected science fields. The relation between coauthorship schemes and other bibliometric features, such as publication activity and citation impact are analyzed. I show that, while copublication activity has grown considerably, the extent of coauthorship and its relation with productivity and citation impact largely varies among fields. Besides universally valid tendencies, subject specific features can be found.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/07b2af2a0cf4b8d565eb4b7f3af927a42b237bfc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time (2009, unknown): “…result of very different types of collaboration practices (agreements between labs, recruitment, materials or facilities support, etc.) leading to publication co-authorship, and that not all forms collaboration not captured by co-authorship [CRONIN, 2001; GLÄNZEL, 2002; LAUDEL, 2002; RAFOLS, 2007].”
Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks (2011, methodology): “The most commonly used methods for studying collaboration networks have been: bibliometrics (Bordons & Gómez, 2000; Glänzel, 2002; Glänzel & Schubert, 2004); social network analysis/network science (Barabási et al., 2002; Kretschmer, 1997; Newman, 2001c, 2004a; Wagner, 2008; Wagner & Leydesdorff,…”