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.
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    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. Hector Gonzalo Ordóñez‐Matamoros & Susan E. Cozzens & Margarita Garcia, 2010. "International Co‐Authorship and Research Team Performance in Colombia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 415-431, July.
    2. Ajoy Mallik & Nripendranath Mandal, 2014. "Bibliometric analysis of global publication output and collaboration structure study in microRNA research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2011-2037, March.
    3. Jesús Rey-Rocha & María José Martín-Sempere & Belén Garzón, 2002. "Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(1), pages 137-156, September.
    4. Yinian Gu, 2004. "Global knowledge management research: A bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(2), pages 171-190, October.
    5. Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez & Carlos Olmeda-Gómez & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "Detecting, identifying and visualizing research groups in co-authorship networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 307-319, February.
    6. Yanhua Zhuang & Xingjian Liu & Thuminh Nguyen & Qingqing He & Song Hong, 2013. "Global remote sensing research trends during 1991–2010: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 203-219, July.
    7. Tasso Brandt & Torben Schubert, 2013. "Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 541-565, February.
    8. Patricia J Garcia & Walter H Curioso, 2008. "Strategies for Aspiring Biomedical Researchers in Resource-Limited Environments," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-3, August.
    9. Zewen Hu & Angela Lin & Peter Willett, 2019. "Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Carter Bloch & Jesper W Schneider & Thomas Sinkjær, 2016. "Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    11. Sabrina J. Mayer & Justus M. K. Rathmann, 2018. "How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1663-1693, December.
    12. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi, 2017. "The determinants of research performance in European universities: a large scale multilevel analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1147-1178, September.
    13. Theresa Velden & Asif-ul Haque & Carl Lagoze, 2010. "A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 219-242, October.
    14. Yinian Gu, 2004. "Information management or knowledge management? An informetric view of the dynamics of Academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 285-299, November.
    15. Svein Kyvik & Ingvild Reymert, 2017. "Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 951-967, November.

    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. Manning, Stephan, 2017. "The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1399-1415.
    2. Qingzhou Luo & Jianhong Cecilia Xia & Gaby Haddow & Michele Willson & Jun Yang, 2018. "Does distance hinder the collaboration between Australian universities in the humanities, arts and social sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 695-715, May.
    3. Antje Klitkou & Stian Nygaard & Martin Meyer, 2007. "Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 491-518, February.
    4. Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez & Claudia N. Gonzalez-Brambila & Francisco Veloso, 2016. "Using co-authorship and citation analysis to identify research groups: a new way to assess performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1171-1191, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    7. Duk Hee Lee & Il Won Seo & Ho Chull Choe & Hee Dae Kim, 2012. "Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 925-942, June.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Wah Yun Low & Kwan Hoong Ng & M. A. Kabir & Ai Peng Koh & Janaki Sinnasamy, 2014. "Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1521-1533, February.
    11. Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2006. "Implementing a 'bottom-up,' multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 51-69.
    12. Jesús Rey-Rocha & Irene López-Navarro & M. Teresa Antonio-García, 2015. "Opening doors to basic-clinical collaboration and translational research will improve researchers’ performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2057-2069, December.
    13. Mohammadi, Ali & Broström, Anders & Franzoni, Chiara, 2015. "Work Force Composition and Innovation: How Diversity in Employees’ Ethnical and Disciplinary Backgrounds Facilitates Knowledge Re-combination," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 413, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    14. Tianwei He, 2009. "International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 571-582, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Letina, Srebrenka, 2016. "Network and actor attribute effects on the performance of researchers in two fields of social science in a small peripheral community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 571-595.
    17. Hoekman & Frenken, 2013. "Proximity and Stratification in European Scientific Research Collaboration Networks: A Policy Perspective," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 13-04, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Nov 2013.
    18. 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.
    19. Xuefeng Wang & Rongrong Li & Shiming Ren & Donghua Zhu & Meng Huang & Pengjun Qiu, 2014. "Collaboration network and pattern analysis: case study of dye-sensitized solar cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1745-1762, March.
    20. Bosetti, Valentina & Cattaneo, Cristina & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Migration of skilled workers and innovation: A European Perspective," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 311-322.

    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.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.