IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v61y2024i1d10.1007_s12597-023-00673-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does co-authorship advance research in operations literature? Evidence from bibliographic analysis of performance measurement studies dating from 2005 to 2020

Author

Listed:
  • Hanan Alhaddi

    (Hult International Business School)

Abstract

Academic research in operations research has been advancing over the past several decades and attracting a research community from a broad spectrum of academic disciplines. With a focus on the field of performance measurement within operations research, several structured literature reviews have been conducted to assess the field’s maturity. However, more attention needs to be paid to evaluating the effectiveness of scholarly collaboration and co-authorship in advancing academic theory in this space. Based on an examination of bibliographic-based data for performance measurement research published from 2005 to 2020, this paper reports on key themes. It suggests that while the field continues to be multidisciplinary, more progress has yet to be seen relative to its academic professionalism. One possible contributing factor is the enduring pressure to publish within the academic community. This manifests itself in an overwhelming portion of the research being published by authors with only one publication, as well as an increase in the number of authors per publication. This paper informs the research community by providing additional insight into the extent of scholarly collaboration and its role in advancing research in the field, particularly as it relates to the need to adopt novel theoretical perspectives. Despite the increasing trend in publishing activities, the general need for more consensus on the theoretical foundation among authors informs the need for a more purposeful and meaningful scholarly collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanan Alhaddi, 2024. "Does co-authorship advance research in operations literature? Evidence from bibliographic analysis of performance measurement studies dating from 2005 to 2020," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(1), pages 263-281, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:61:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s12597-023-00673-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-023-00673-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-023-00673-w
    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/s12597-023-00673-w?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. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    2. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Managi, Shunsuke & Matousek, Roman, 2012. "The technical efficiency of the Japanese banks: Non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable output," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Paolo Taticchi & Kashi R. Balachandran, 2008. "Forward performance measurement and management integrated frameworks," International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(2), pages 140-154, October.
    4. Medoff, Marshall H., 2003. "Collaboration and the quality of economics research," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 597-608, October.
    5. Branco Ponomariov & Craig Boardman, 2016. "What is co-authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1939-1963, December.
    6. Paolo Taticchi & Kashi R. Balachandran, 2008. "Forward performance measurement and management integrated frameworks," International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(2), pages 140-154, October.
    7. Paradi, Joseph C. & Rouatt, Stephen & Zhu, Haiyan, 2011. "Two-stage evaluation of bank branch efficiency using data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 99-109, January.
    8. Liang Liang & Feng Yang & Wade Cook & Joe Zhu, 2006. "DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 35-49, July.
    9. Hollis, Aidan, 2001. "Co-authorship and the output of academic economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 503-530, September.
    10. Wouters, Marc & Wilderom, Celeste, 2008. "Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(4-5), pages 488-516.
    11. Chenhall, Robert H., 2005. "Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 395-422, July.
    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. Lukas Kuld & John O'Hagan, 2017. "Rise of Multi-authored Papers in Economics: Demise of the 'Lone Star' and Why?," Trinity Economics Papers tep0517, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    2. Vadim Y. Kuperman & Gerald H. Sokol, 2024. "On the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(4), pages 2205-2225, April.
    3. Vaneet Bhatia & Sankarshan Basu & Subrata Kumar Mitra & Pradyumna Dash, 2018. "A review of bank efficiency and productivity," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 55(3), pages 557-600, November.
    4. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo & Sapio, Alessandro, 2013. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-36.
    5. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    6. Doumpos, Michalis & Zopounidis, Constantin & Gounopoulos, Dimitrios & Platanakis, Emmanouil & Zhang, Wenke, 2023. "Operational research and artificial intelligence methods in banking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 1-16.
    7. Dimes, Ruth & de Villiers, Charl, 2024. "Hallmarks of Integrated Thinking," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(1).
    8. Eduardo A. Haddad & Jesus P. Mena-Chalco, Otávio J.G. Sidone, 2016. "Produção Científica e Redes de Colaboração dos Docentes Vinculados aos Programas de Pós-graduação em Economia no Brasil," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2016_10, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    9. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2018. "Citations in Economics: Measurement, Uses, and Impacts," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(1), pages 115-156, March.
    10. Gómez-Ferri, Javier & González-Alcaide, Gregorio & LLopis-Goig, Ramón, 2019. "Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    11. Coccorese, Paolo & Dell’Anno, Roberto & Restaino, Marialuisa, 2024. "Are outstanding researchers also top teachers? Exploring the link between research quality and teaching quality," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Chenhall, Robert H. & Moers, Frank, 2015. "The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-13.
    13. Damien Besancenot & Kim Van Huynh & Francisco Serranito, 2015. " Thou shalt not work alone ," Working Papers hal-01175758, HAL.
    14. Bosquet, Clément & Combes, Pierre-Philippe, 2013. "Do large departments make academics more productive? agglomeration and peer effects in research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58306, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Ali Sina Önder & Sascha Schweitzer & Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2021. "Field Distance and Quality in Economists’ Collaborations," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-04, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    16. Clément Bosquet & Pierre-Philippe Combes, 2015. "Do large departments make academics more productive? Sorting and agglomeration economies in research," THEMA Working Papers 2015-16, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    17. Xiaohong Liu & Feng Yang & Jie Wu, 2020. "DEA considering technological heterogeneity and intermediate output target setting: the performance analysis of Chinese commercial banks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 291(1), pages 605-626, August.
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5f4gqlbaf382ua75f8et967s6a is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Albornoz, Facundo & Cabrales, Antonio & Hauk, Esther & Warnes, Pablo E., 2017. "Intergenerational field transitions in economics," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-5.
    20. repec:hal:journl:hal-01292851 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4jn6cjcel9913942jpruv3pju6 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Jenny Bourne & Nathan Grawe & Nathan D. Grawe & Michael Hemesath & Maya Jensen, 2022. "Scholarly Activity among Economists at Liberal Arts Colleges: A Life Cycle Analysis," Working Papers 2022-01, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    23. Fatima Baji & Ismail Mostafavi & Parastoo Parsaei-Mohammadi & Zivar Sabaghinejad, 2021. "Partnership ability and co-authorship network of information literacy field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8205-8216, September.

    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:opsear:v:61:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s12597-023-00673-w. 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.