Does it make sense to limit the scientific co-authorship? There is no inflation of authors in Social Sciences and Education in Spain

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.2.1499

Keywords:

Bibliometrics, research evaluation, scientific collaboration, Social Sciences, scientific authorship, Spain, co-authorship

Abstract


This paper analyses the evolution of co-authorship in Spain in the Social Sciences for the period from 2000 to 2013. The goal is to explore to what extent limitations on the number of co-authors established by Spanish national evaluation agencies are justified. The analysis of 11,681 papers authored by researchers affiliated to Spanish institutions in 20 subject categories from the social sciences reveals that there is no inflation in the number of authors, team size is similar to that found in foreign papers from similar areas and the number of authors is dependent on international and institutional collaboration. With the exception of the areas of Anthropology and Special Education, the average number of authors by paper is never higher than four. However, the papers receiving more citations are those with a higher number of authors. Overall, our results suggest that there is no justification on limiting the number of co-authors in publications, acknowledging that the criteria employed by Spanish evaluation agencies is to prevent honorary authors. Such limitation endangers institutional and international collaboration, and consequently, can have a potentially damaging impact in research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aguiló Calatayud, V.; González Alcaide, G.; Gómez Ferri, J. (coords.) (2013): La colaboración científica, una aproximación multidisciplinar. Valencia: Nau Llibres.

Amat, C. B.; Robinson-Garcia, N. (2017). Material suplementario al estudio: ¿Tiene sentido limitar la coautoría científica? No existe inflación de autores en Ciencias Sociales y Educación en Espa-a.

Bosch, X. (2011). Exorcising ghostwriting. EMBO Reports, 12 (6), 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.87 PMid:21566647 PMCid:PMC3128288

Cabezas-Clavijo, Á.; Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). Los sexenios de investigación. Editorial UOC.

De Filippo, D.; Marugán, S.; Sanz-Casado, E. (2014). Perfil de colaboración científica del sistema espa-ol de educación superior. Análisis de las publicaciones en Web of Science (2002-2011). Revista Espa-ola de Documentación Científica, 37 (4), e067. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1155

Defazio, D.; Lockett, A.; Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38 (2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.008

Derrick, G.E.; Pavone, V. (2013). Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review. Science and Public Policy, 40 (5), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct007

Franceschet, M.; Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (4), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003

Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980-2013). Scientometrics, 107 (2), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

Hicks, D.; Katz, S.J. (1996). Science policy for a highly collaborative science system. Science and Public Policy, 23 (1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.1.39

Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; de Rijcke, S.; Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520 (7548), 429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a PMid:25903611

Katz, S.J.; Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1

Katz, S.J.; Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40 (3), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459299

Larivière, V.; Desrochers, N.; Macaluso, B.; Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A.; Sugimoto, C.R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 43 (3), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046 PMid:28948891

Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the Crown ? citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.007

Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2016). Resolución de 24 de noviembre de 2016, de la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora, por la que se publican los criterios específicos aprobados para cada uno de los campos de evaluación. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 286, pp. 82964-82983. https://www.boe. es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2016-11189

Rafols, I.; Molas-Gallart, J.; Chavarro, D.; Robinson- Garcia, N. (2016). On the dominance of quantitative evaluation in 'peripheral' countries: Auditing research with technologies of distance.

Rosenzweig, J.S.; Van Deusen, S.K.; Okpara, O.; Datillo, P.A.; Briggs, W.M.; Birkhahn, R.H. (2008). Authorship, collaboration, and predictors of extramural funding in the emergency medicine literature. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 26 (1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2007.02.028 PMid:18082774

Ruiz-Pérez, R.; Delgado López-Cózar, E.D.; Jiménez- Contreras, E. (2010). Principios y criterios utilizados en Espa-a por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para la valoración de las publicaciones científicas: 1989-2009. Psicothema, 22 (4), 898–908. PMid:21044530

Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77 (6), 554-563.

Stokes, T.D.; Hartley, J.A. (1989). Coauthorship, social structure and influence within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 19 (1), 101-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019001003

Van Raan, A.F.J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42 (3), 423-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458380

Wray, K.B. (2002). The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research. Philosophy of Science, 69 (1), 150– 168. https://doi.org/10.1086/338946

Wuchty, S.; Jones, B.F.; Uzzi, B. (2007). The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science, 316 (5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 PMid:17431139

Yegros-Yegros, A.; Tur, E.M.; Amat, C.B. (2012). Número de autores y colaboración institucional en los artículos originales de investigación biomédica espa-ola. Evolución de los valores básicos de referencia en el periodo 1990-2009. Medicina Clínica, 138 (4), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2011.02.006 PMid:21489566

Published

2018-06-30

How to Cite

Robinson-Garcia, N., & Amat, C. B. (2018). Does it make sense to limit the scientific co-authorship? There is no inflation of authors in Social Sciences and Education in Spain. Revista Española De Documentación Científica, 41(2), a201. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.2.1499

Issue

Section

Studies

Most read articles by the same author(s)