IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v99y2014i2d10.1007_s11192-014-1230-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Binary scientific star coauthors core size

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Ausloos

    (rue de la Belle Jardinière, 483/0021
    Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)

Abstract

It is examined whether the relationship J ∝ A/r α , and the subsequent coauthor (CA) core notion (Ausloos, Scientometrics 95(3):895–909, 2013), between the number (J) of joint publications (JPs) by a “main scientist” [leading investigator (LI)] with her/his CAs can be extended to a team-like system. This is done by considering that each CA can be so strongly tied to the LI that they are forming binary scientific star (BSS) systems with respect to their other collaborators. Moreover, publications in peer review journals and in “proceedings”, both often thought to be of “different quality”, are separately distinguished. The role of a time interval for measuring J and α is also examined. New indirect measures are also introduced. For making the point, two LI cases with numerous CAs are studied. It is found that only a few BSS need to be usefully examined. The exponent α turns out to be “second scientist” weakly dependent, but still “size” and “publication type” dependent, according to the number of CAs or JP. The CA core value is found to be (CA or JP) size and publication type dependent, but remains in an understandable range. Somewhat unexpectedly, no special qualitative difference on the BSS CA core value is found between publications in peer review journals and in proceedings. In conclusion, some remark is made on partner cooperation in BSS teams. It is suggested that such measures can serve as criteria for distinguishing the role of scientists in a team.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Ausloos, 2014. "Binary scientific star coauthors core size," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 331-351, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:99:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1230-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1230-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1230-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/s11192-014-1230-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. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(5), pages 830-837, March.
    3. Alesia Zuccala, 2006. "Modeling the invisible college," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 152-168, January.
    4. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    5. Hollis, Aidan, 2001. "Co-authorship and the output of academic economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 503-530, September.
    6. Olle Persson & Wolfgang Glänzel & Rickard Danell, 2004. "Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 421-432, August.
    7. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Manuel Torralbo & Mónica Vallejo, 2004. "Reconsidering Price's model of scientific growth: An overview," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 301-321, November.
    8. Bolle, Friedel & Ockenfels, Peter, 1990. "Prisoners' Dilemma as a game with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 69-84, March.
    9. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    10. Schreiber, M. & Malesios, C.C. & Psarakis, S., 2012. "Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-358.
    11. R. Kenna & B. Berche, 2011. "Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 527-540, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ausloos, Marcel, 2015. "Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 438(C), pages 568-578.
    2. Ausloos, M., 2015. "Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 422(C), pages 136-142.
    3. Marcel Ausloos, 2014. "Zipf–Mandelbrot–Pareto model for co-authorship popularity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1565-1586, December.

    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. Hassan Bougrine, 2014. "Subfield effects on the core of coauthors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1047-1064, February.
    2. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    3. Miśkiewicz, Janusz, 2013. "Effects of publications in proceedings on the measure of the core size of coauthors," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(20), pages 5119-5131.
    4. Rotundo, Giulia, 2014. "Black–Scholes–Schrödinger–Zipf–Mandelbrot model framework for improving a study of the coauthor core score," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 404(C), pages 296-301.
    5. Ausloos, Marcel, 2015. "Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 438(C), pages 568-578.
    6. Ausloos, M., 2015. "Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 422(C), pages 136-142.
    7. Christopher McCarty & James W. Jawitz & Allison Hopkins & Alex Goldman, 2013. "Predicting author h-index using characteristics of the co-author network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 467-483, August.
    8. Antonio Fernandez-Cano & Inés M. Fernández-Guerrero, 2017. "A multivariate model for evaluating emergency medicine journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 991-1003, February.
    9. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    10. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    11. Jiang Wu, 2013. "Geographical knowledge diffusion and spatial diversity citation rank," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 181-201, January.
    12. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    13. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    14. Georgios Stoupas & Antonis Sidiropoulos & Antonia Gogoglou & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2018. "Rainbow ranking: an adaptable, multidimensional ranking method for publication sets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 147-160, July.
    15. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    16. Jens Peter Andersen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2011. "Price revisited: on the growth of dissertations in eight research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 371-383, August.
    17. Du Jian & Tang Xiaoli, 2013. "Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 277-295, July.
    18. Samreen Ayaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2016. "Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1511-1524, December.
    19. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    20. Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010. "Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.

    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:99:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1230-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.