IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v119y2019i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03109-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fragmented publishing: a large-scale study of health science

Author

Listed:
  • Tove Faber Frandsen

    (University of Southern Denmark)

  • Mette Brandt Eriksen

    (University of Southern Denmark)

  • David Mortan Grøne Hammer

    (University of Southern Denmark
    Goethe-Universität)

  • Janne Buck Christensen

    (South-West Jutland Hospital)

Abstract

Fragmented or multiple publishing is generally considered negative, as authors may inflate their number of articles through duplicate publications and salami publications. However, there are valid and defensible arguments for a single research study generating multiple publications. The existing literature confirm the existence of fragmented publishing; however, the extent of the phenomenon is questioned. The present study is a large-scale analysis within the health sciences of more than 50,000 studies and the resulting publications. The data allows us to analyze differences across subdisciplines as well as over time. The results show that the majority of the fragmented publications are journal articles. This study also shows that the extent of fragmented publishing is tied to subdisciplines. Increased as well as decreased fragmented publishing are found when we compare across the subdisciplines as the development is tied to subdisciplines. The implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Tove Faber Frandsen & Mette Brandt Eriksen & David Mortan Grøne Hammer & Janne Buck Christensen, 2019. "Fragmented publishing: a large-scale study of health science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1729-1743, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:119:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03109-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03109-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03109-9
    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/s11192-019-03109-9?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. Daniele Fanelli & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Sergey Kolesnikov & Eriko Fukumoto & Barry Bozeman, 2018. "Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1995-2017, September.
    3. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    4. Antonio García-Romero & José Manuel Estrada-Lorenzo, 2014. "A bibliometric analysis of plagiarism and self-plagiarism through Déjà vu," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 381-396, October.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2007. "Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(8), pages 1100-1107, June.
    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. Frode Eika Sandnes, 2021. "Everyone onboard? Participation ratios as a metric for research activity assessments within young universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6105-6113, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Tom Coupé & W. Robert Reed, 2021. "Do Negative Replications Affect Citations?," Working Papers in Economics 21/14, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    3. Ajiferuke, Isola & Famoye, Felix, 2015. "Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 499-513.
    4. Alexandre Truc, 2023. "Neuroeconomics: Hype or Hope? An Answer," Post-Print hal-04719266, HAL.
    5. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    6. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    7. Peter Harremoës, 2019. "Replication Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, July.
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Rüdiger Mutz, 2021. "Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Yu, Xiaoyao & Szymanski, Boleslaw K. & Jia, Tao, 2021. "Become a better you: Correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    10. Behzad Gholampour & Sajad Gholampour & Alireza Noruzi & Clément Arsenault & Thomas Haertlé & Ali Akbar Saboury, 2022. "Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1841-1865, April.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Irina Nast & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejec," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(3), pages 415-432, December.
    12. Khosrowjerdi, Mahmood & Bornmann, Lutz, 2021. "Is culture related to strong science? An empirical investigation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    13. Fuyuki Yoshikane, 2013. "Multiple regression analysis of a patent’s citation frequency and quantitative characteristics: the case of Japanese patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 365-379, July.
    14. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    15. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.
    16. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.
    17. Alexander Kruggel & Victor Tiberius & Manuela Fabro, 2020. "Corporate Citizenship: Structuring the Research Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    19. Ekaterina Dyachenko & Iurii Agafonov & Katerina Guba & Alexander Gelvikh, 2024. "Independent Russian medical science: is there any?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5577-5597, September.
    20. Timur Gareev & Irina Peker, 2023. "Quantity versus quality in publication activity: knowledge production at the regional level," Papers 2311.08830, arXiv.org.

    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:119:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03109-9. 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.