IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v102y2015i1d10.1007_s11192-014-1385-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers

Author

Listed:
  • João Carlos Nabout

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás)

  • Micael Rosa Parreira

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás)

  • Fabrício Barreto Teresa

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás)

  • Fernanda Melo Carneiro

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Unidade Universitária de Iporá)

  • Hélida Ferreira Cunha

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás)

  • Luciana Souza Ondei

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás)

  • Samantha Salomão Caramori

    (Universidade Estadual de Goiás)

  • Thannya Nascimento Soares

    (Universidade Federal de Goiás)

Abstract

The global number of papers in different areas has increased over the years. Additionally, changes in academic production scenarios, such as the decrease in the relative number of single-authored (SA) papers, have been observed. Thus, the aims of this study are to assess the trend of SA papers in four subareas of biology and also to estimate the year when 0.1 % of papers in these subareas will be SA (considering two adjusted models). The subareas investigated were Ecology, Genetics, Zoology and Botany. Our hypothesis is that all subareas show a decay in the number of SA papers. However, this pattern is more pronounced in subareas that were originally interdisciplinary (Genetics and Ecology) than in disciplinary areas (Zoology and Botany). In fact, SA papers have declined over the years in all subareas of biology, and according to the best model (Akaike Criteria), the first area that will have 0.1 % SA papers is Genetics, followed by Ecology. A partial regression indicates that the decrease in SA papers can be related to the increase in the number of authors and number of citations, suggesting the greater scientific impact of interdisciplinary research. However, other variables (e.g., political, linguistic and behavioral) can contribute to the decrease in SA papers. We lastly conclude that the number of SA papers in all subareas of biology in the coming years might continue decreasing and becoming rare, perhaps even to the point of extinction (to use a very common term in biology). In addition, all subareas of biology have become more interdisciplinary, combining the knowledge of various authors (and perhaps authors from different areas). The consequence of this approach is increasingly collaborative work, which may facilitate the increased success of the group.

Suggested Citation

  • João Carlos Nabout & Micael Rosa Parreira & Fabrício Barreto Teresa & Fernanda Melo Carneiro & Hélida Ferreira Cunha & Luciana Souza Ondei & Samantha Salomão Caramori & Thannya Nascimento Soares, 2015. "Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 357-364, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1385-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1385-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1385-5
    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/s11192-014-1385-5?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. John Hudson, 1996. "Trends in Multi-authored Papers in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 153-158, Summer.
    2. Pauline Mattsson & Patrice Laget & Anna Nilsson & Carl-Johan Sundberg, 2008. "Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 555-574, June.
    3. André Andrian Padial & João Carlos Nabout & Tadeu Siqueira & Luis Mauricio Bini & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, 2010. "Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 1-12, October.
    4. John Whitfield, 2008. "Collaboration: Group theory," Nature, Nature, vol. 455(7214), pages 720-723, October.
    5. Helmut A. Abt, 2007. "The future of single-authored papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(3), pages 353-358, December.
    6. Milena Holmgren & Stefan A Schnitzer, 2004. "Science on the Rise in Developing Countries," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-1, January.
    7. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    8. Jiann-wien Hsu & Ding-wei Huang, 2011. "Correlation between impact and collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 317-324, February.
    9. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    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. Ding-wei Huang, 2015. "Temporal evolution of multi-author papers in basic sciences from 1960 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2137-2147, December.
    2. Abdelghani Maddi & Lesya Baudoin, 2022. "The quality of the web of science data: a longitudinal study on the completeness of authors-addresses links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6279-6292, November.
    3. Stéphane Fay & Sébastien Gautrias, 2015. "A scientometric study of general relativity and quantum cosmology from 2000 to 2012," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 471-484, October.
    4. François Brischoux & Frédéric Angelier, 2015. "Academia’s never-ending selection for productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 333-336, April.
    5. de Mesnard, Louis, 2017. "Attributing credit to coauthors in academic publishing: The 1/n rule, parallelization, and team bonuses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 778-788.
    6. João Carlos Nabout & Fabrício Barreto Teresa & Karine Borges Machado & Vitor Hugo Mendonça Prado & Luis Mauricio Bini & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, 2018. "Do traditional scientometric indicators predict social media activity on scientific knowledge? An analysis of the ecological literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1007-1015, May.
    7. Micael Rosa Parreira & Karine Borges Machado & Ramiro Logares & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho & João Carlos Nabout, 2017. "The roles of geographic distance and socioeconomic factors on international collaboration among ecologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1539-1550, December.
    8. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.

    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. Ding-wei Huang, 2015. "Temporal evolution of multi-author papers in basic sciences from 1960 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2137-2147, December.
    2. I. Jarić & J. Gessner, 2012. "Analysis of publications on sturgeon research between 1996 and 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 715-735, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    5. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    6. Ahmad Jafari Samimi, 2011. "Scientific Output and GDP: Evidence from Countries around the World," Journal of Education and Vocational Research, AMH International, vol. 2(2), pages 38-41.
    7. Berna Beyhan & M. Teoman Pamukçu, 2011. "Nanotechnology research in Turkey: A university-driven achievement," STPS Working Papers 1107, STPS - Science and Technology Policy Studies Center, Middle East Technical University, revised Jul 2011.
    8. Celis, Sergio & Kim, Jeongeun, 2018. "The making of homophilic networks in international research collaborations: A global perspective from Chilean and Korean engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 573-582.
    9. José Miguel Aguilera & Felipe Larraín, 2021. "Natural laboratories in emerging countries and comparative advantages in science: Evidence from Chile," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(6), pages 732-753, November.
    10. Dorte Henriksen, 2018. "What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1395-1421, March.
    11. Zhang, Mengya & Zhang, Gupeng & Liu, Yun & Zhai, Xiaorong & Han, Xinying, 2020. "Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Ahmad Jafari Samimi, 2011. "Scientific Output: Evidence from Iran and the Middle East," Journal of Education and Vocational Research, AMH International, vol. 2(4), pages 138-142.
    13. João Carlos Nabout & Fabrício Barreto Teresa & Karine Borges Machado & Vitor Hugo Mendonça Prado & Luis Mauricio Bini & José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, 2018. "Do traditional scientometric indicators predict social media activity on scientific knowledge? An analysis of the ecological literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1007-1015, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter, 2012. "A forward diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, February.
    16. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Lazăr Vlăsceanu, 2014. "Fragmented Romanian Sociology: Growth and Structure of the Collaboration Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    17. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.
    18. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    19. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.

    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:102:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1385-5. 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.