IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v49y2000i1d10.1023_a1005665309719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research

Author

Listed:
  • Per O. Seglen

    (Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU))

  • Dag W. Aksnes

    (Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU))

Abstract

To analyse the relationship between research group size and scientific productivity within the highly cooperative research environment characteristic of contemporary biomedical science, an investigation of Norwegian Microbiology was undertaken. By an author-gated retrieval from ISI's database National Science Indicators on Diskette (NSIOD), of journal articles published by Norwegian scientists involved in microbiological research during the period 1992–1996, a total of 976 microbiological and 938 non-microbiological articles, by 3,486 authors, were obtained. Functional research groups were defined bibliometrically on the basis of co-authorship, yielding a total of 180 research groups varying in size from one author/one article to 180 authors/83 articles (all authors associated with a group during the whole five-year period were included, hence the large group size). Most of Norwegian microbiological research (73% of the microbiology articles) appears to be performed by specialist groups (with ≥70% of their production as microbiology), the remainder being published by groups with a broader biomedical research profile (who were responsible for 95% of the non-microbiological articles). The productivity (articles per capita) showed only moderate (Poisson-distributed) variability between groups, and was remarkably constant across all subfields, at about 0.1 article per author per year. No correlation between group size and productivity was found.

Suggested Citation

  • Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:49:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1005665309719
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1005665309719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1005665309719
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1005665309719?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dag W. Aksnes & Terje Bruen Olsen & Per O. Seglen, 2000. "Validation of Bibliometric Indicators in the Field of Microbiology: A Norwegian Case Study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 7-22, August.
    2. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    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. Anne-Wil Harzing & Wilfred Mijnhardt, 2015. "Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 727-749, January.
    2. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.
    3. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2016. "National, disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact: Evidence from a geometric field normalised citation indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 48-61.
    4. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2016. "iSEER: an intelligent automatic computer system for scientific evaluation of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 477-498, May.
    5. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2015. "How to Receive More Funding for Your Research? Get Connected to the Right People!," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo & J. Sylvan Katz, 2017. "The scaling relationship between degree centrality of countries and their citation-based performance on Management Information Systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1285-1299, September.
    7. Pentti Riikonen & Mauno Vihinen, 2008. "National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 207-222, November.
    8. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    9. Eustache Mêgnigbêto, 2018. "Correlation Between Transmission Power and Some Indicators Used to Measure the Knowledge-Based Economy: Case of Six OECD Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(4), pages 1168-1183, December.
    10. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    11. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    12. Laurent R. Bergé, 2017. "Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 785-815, November.
    13. Lemarchand, Guillermo A., 2012. "The long-term dynamics of co-authorship scientific networks: Iberoamerican countries (1973–2010)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 291-305.
    14. Jan Resenga Maluleka & Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha & Isola Ajiferuke, 2016. "Factors influencing research collaboration in LIS schools in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 337-355, May.
    15. Ernest Miguélez & Rosina Moreno, 2013. "Do Labour Mobility and Technological Collaborations Foster Geographical Knowledge Diffusion? The Case of European Regions," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 321-354, June.
    16. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jae Young Choi, 2012. "The taxonomy of research collaboration in science and technology: evidence from mechanical research through probabilistic clustering analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 719-735, June.
    17. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    18. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    19. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    20. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:49:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1005665309719. 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.