|
|
|
| High Citation or Zero Citation: Exploring the Optimal Scale of Research Cooperation Based on the Citation of Scientific Publication —Evidence from the Financial Times TOP 45 Journals |
| Ma Rongkang1,2, Li Zhenzhen1 |
1.School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024
2.Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Industrial Transit at Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Utilizing the datasets obtained from the Financial Times top 45 journals between 1997 and 2013, this paper examines the relationship between the number of authors and the number of citations a paper received (high citations or zero citation). This study then reveals the optimal scale of research cooperation in the field of business. The results demonstrate the following. First, compared with single-author manuscripts, those involving multiple authors have a considerably positive impact on the total number of citations. Further, the former has a higher probability of being a high-citation paper, while a lower probability of being a zero-citation paper. Second, there is a significant inverted U-shaped relationship between the number of authors and the total number of citations, which is in accordance with the relationship between the number of authors and the probability of being high-citation papers. However, the relationship between the number of authors and the probability of zero-citation papers is also U-shaped. The optimal number of authors that results in a high-citation paper in the field of business is approximately three authors. Finally, the optimal number of authors coordinating to publish a paper in the field of business in term of high-citation and zero-citation papers gradually increases from 2-3 to 3-4 with time.
|
|
Received: 24 October 2019
|
|
|
|
1 Hamermesh D S. Citations in economics: Measurement, uses, and impacts[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2018, 56(1): 115-156.
2 Acedo F J, Barroso C, Casanueva C, et al. Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2006, 43(5): 957-983.
3 Wuchty S, Jones B F, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge[J]. Science, 2007, 316(5827): 1036-1039.
4 Gl?nzel W, Czerwon H J. A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 37(2): 195-221.
5 Aman V. How collaboration impacts citation flows within the German science system[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3): 2195-2216.
6 Tahmooresnejad L, Beaudry C. The importance of collaborative networks in Canadian scientific research[J]. Industry and Innovation, 2018, 25(10): 990-1029.
7 邱均平, 曾倩. 国际合作是否能提高科研影响力——以计算机科学为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(10): 1-5.
8 Terjesen S, Politis D. From the editors: In praise of multidisciplinary scholarship and the polymath[J]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2015, 14(2): 151-157.
9 Barnett A H, Ault R W, Kaserman D L. The rising incidence of co-authorship in economics: Further evidence[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1988, 70(3): 539-543.
10 Liu C W, Olivola C Y, Kovács B. Coauthorship trends in the field of management: Facts and perceptions[J]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2017, 16(4): 509-530.
11 Certo S T, Sirmon D G, Brymer R A. Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008[J]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2010, 9(4): 591-606.
12 Asubiaro T. How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: A bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(3): 1261-1287.
13 Ductor L. Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity?[J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2015, 77(3): 385-407.
14 刘则渊. 科学合作最佳规模现象的发现[J]. 科学学研究, 2012, 30(4): 481-486.
15 谢娟, 龚凯乐, 成颖, 等. 使用数据与引用数据间的补充或替代关系探讨[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(5): 486-494.
16 贾茜, 李亚婷, 张斌. 科学合作的形成及其影响因素[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2014, 37(6): 40-45.
17 谢彩霞. 科学合作方式及其功能的科学计量学研究[D]. 大连: 大连理工大学, 2006.
18 Beaver D D B. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future[J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 52(3): 365-377.
19 Polyakov M, Polyakov S, Iftekhar M S. Does academic collaboration equally benefit impact of research across topics? The case of agricultural, resource, environmental and ecological economics[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(3): 1385-1405.
20 Puuska H M, Muhonen R, Leino Y. International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2): 823-839.
21 刘俊婉. 科学合作对高被引科学家论文产出力的影响分析[J]. 情报科学, 2014, 32(12): 77-81.
22 何汶, 刘颖, 杨红梅. 图书情报学高被引论文国际合著及贡献研究——基于文献计量学角度[J]. 图书情报知识, 2017(2): 83-93.
23 Gl?nzel W, Schubert A. Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry[J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 50(2): 199-214.
24 Gl?nzel W. Seven myths in bibliometrics about facts and fiction in quantitative science studies[J]. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2008, 2(1): 9-17.
25 Bornmann L, Schier H, Marx W, et al. What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(1): 11-18.
26 钟镇. 学术论文合著规模与引文影响力的相关性分析——以图书情报学为例[J]. 情报杂志, 2013, 32(12): 127-131, 164.
27 钟镇. 农业经济与政策Web of Science期刊论文合著规模与绩效的相关性分析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2014, 25(12): 1513-1518.
28 杨瑞仙, 李贤. 科学合作与论文影响力之间的相关性研究[J]. 现代情报, 2019, 39(4): 125-133.
29 王黎明, 张啸岳, 俞立平. 论文作者数与被引频次关系的再思考[J]. 情报杂志, 2019, 38(9): 166-170, 157.
30 Walters G D. The citation life cycle of articles published in 13 American Psychological Association journals: A 25-year longitudinal analysis[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(8): 1629-1636.
31 张雪, 张志强, 陈秀娟. 基于期刊论文的作者合作特征及其对科研产出的影响——以国际医学信息学领域高产作者为例[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(1): 29-37.
32 魏瑞斌. 论文标题特征与被引的关联性研究[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(11): 1148-1156.
33 Gnewuch M, Wohlrabe K. Title characteristics and citations in economics[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(3): 1573-1578.
34 Vanclay J K. Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(2): 265-271. |
|
|
|
