IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i4d10.1007_s11192-022-04277-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research contribution pattern analysis of multinational authorship papers

Author

Listed:
  • Hsuan-I Liu

    (National Applied Research Laboratories)

  • Mu-Hsuan Huang

    (National Taiwan University
    National Taiwan University)

Abstract

Most research evaluations in the past adopted simple counting method to calculate the number of collaborative countries within a paper, however, the information related to the author is either neglected or excluded. Therefore, this study takes the “author” as the unit of analysis to conduct a country-level research evaluation, which mainly focus on the global publishing trend of multinational authorship papers, and their research contribution patterns that derived from the transformation of author roles. It also compares the citation impact of the four contribution patterns between China and the United States. The findings revealed that multinational authorship has become a growing trend, and China had the highest number of multinational authorship papers among all the studied nations. As for the research contribution patterns, the numbers of the dominant and the supervisory pattern papers continue to increase, while the primary and the contributory pattern papers are gradually decreasing. However, China is different from other countries. China has a high proportion of dominant, supervisory and primary pattern papers, which suggests that China gradually plays a critical role in international scientific collaboration. Nonetheless, a high degree of dominance or leadership in scientific collaboration activities does not translate into high citation impacts. It is only until 2016 that the citation impact of China’s supervisory papers exceeded the United States, as well as the dominant and primary papers in 2018. As for the contributory papers, the performance of the United States was far ahead for the past decade.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsuan-I Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Research contribution pattern analysis of multinational authorship papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1783-1800, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04277-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04277-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04277-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04277-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabel Iribarren-Maestro & María Luisa Lascurain-Sánchez & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2009. "Are multi-authorship and visibility related? Study of ten research areas at Carlos III University of Madrid," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(1), pages 191-200, April.
    2. Marianne Gauffriau & Peder Olesen Larsen & Isabelle Maye & Anne Roulin-Perriard & Markus Ins, 2008. "Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 147-176, October.
    3. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    4. Siluo Yang & Dietmar Wolfram & Feifei Wang, 2017. "The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1273-1296, March.
    5. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chang, Yu-Wei, 2018. "Multi-institutional authorship in genetics and high-energy physics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 505(C), pages 549-558.
    7. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chi-Shiou Lin & Dar-Zen Chen, 2011. "Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(12), pages 2427-2436, December.
    8. Ch Peidu, 2019. "Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1527-1547, December.
    9. Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2017. "A first look at multiple institutional affiliations: a study of authors in Germany, Japan and the UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 285-295, April.
    10. Sameer Kumar, 2018. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, August.
    11. Mu‐Hsuan Huang & Chi‐Shiou Lin & Dar‐Zen Chen, 2011. "Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(12), pages 2427-2436, December.
    12. Waltman, Ludo, 2012. "An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 700-711.
    13. Teja Tscharntke & Michael E Hochberg & Tatyana A Rand & Vincent H Resh & Jochen Krauss, 2007. "Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-2, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pär Sundling, 2023. "Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2737-2762, May.
    2. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    3. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    4. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    5. Hagen, Nils T., 2014. "Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 310-317.
    6. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 872-894.
    7. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2010. "The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 540-553.
    8. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    9. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: an empirical investigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 909-925, February.
    10. Edson Melo Souza & Jose Eduardo Storopoli & Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves, 2022. "Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2249-2276, May.
    11. Sandro Tarkhan-Mouravi, 2020. "Traditional indicators inflate some countries’ scientific impact over 10 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 337-356, April.
    12. António Osório, 2018. "On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2161-2173, September.
    13. Lin, Chi-Shiou & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2013. "The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 611-621.
    14. Maria-Victoria Uribe-Bohorquez & Juan-Camilo Rivera-Ordóñez & Isabel-María García-Sánchez, 2023. "Gender disparities in accounting academia: analysis from the lens of publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3827-3865, July.
    15. Díaz-Faes, Adrián A. & Costas, Rodrigo & Galindo, M. Purificación & Bordons, María, 2015. "Unravelling the performance of individual scholars: Use of Canonical Biplot analysis to explore the performance of scientists by academic rank and scientific field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 722-733.
    16. Alfredo Yegros-Yegros & Giovanna Capponi & Koen Frenken, 2021. "A spatial-institutional analysis of researchers with multiple affiliations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Jingda Ding & Chao Liu & Qiao Zheng & Wei Cai, 2021. "A new method of co-author credit allocation based on contributor roles taxonomy: proof of concept and evaluation using papers published in PLOS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7561-7581, September.
    18. Philippe Mongeon & Elise Smith & Bruno Joyal & Vincent Larivière, 2017. "The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, September.
    19. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2019. "Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 804-816.
    20. Dragan Ivanović & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2014. "Independent publications from Serbia in the Science Citation Index Expanded: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 603-622, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04277-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.