IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i6d10.1007_s11192-023-04719-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disciplinary collaboration rates in the social sciences and humanities: what is the influence of classification type?

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Arhiliuc

    (University of Antwerp)

  • Raf Guns

    (University of Antwerp)

Abstract

Using different methods to assign disciplines to publications can influence bibliometric analyses. In this study, we test the influence of applying two different types of classification on the disciplinary collaboration rates of researchers from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Two different classification types are contrasted: organisational classification, which assigns discipline(s) based on the discipline of the unit(s) of the authors, and cognitive classification, which considers the discipline(s) assigned to the channel of the publication. The data set is based on a comprehensive local database of SSH research in Flanders, Belgium. Applied to collaboration, the two classification types both show an overall increase in co-authorship in SSH during the studied period. For certain periods, however, they reveal clearly dissimilar trends, especially for publications written by Humanities scholars: while the Humanities according to the cognitive classification have reached a plateau in co-authorship, collaboration rates in the Humanities according to the organisational classification continue to increase. We show that these variations are due to an increase in the proportion of publications of Humanities researchers outside Humanities channels. As such, the comparison of classification types can provide a deeper understanding of disciplinary differences in the evolution of co-authorship.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Arhiliuc & Raf Guns, 2023. "Disciplinary collaboration rates in the social sciences and humanities: what is the influence of classification type?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3419-3436, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04719-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04719-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04719-0
    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/s11192-023-04719-0?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. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Andrea Ciriaco & Murgia, Gianluca, 2017. "The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 1016-1030.
    3. Raf Guns & Linda Sīle & Joshua Eykens & Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C. E. Engels, 2018. "A comparison of cognitive and organizational classification of publications in the social sciences and humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1093-1111, August.
    4. Branco Ponomariov & Craig Boardman, 2016. "What is co-authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1939-1963, December.
    5. Grit Laudel, 2002. "What do we measure by co-authorships?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 3-15, April.
    6. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rørstad, 2013. "A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 307-320, February.
    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. Jeremy P. Birnholtz, 2006. "What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1758-1770, November.
    10. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rørstad, 2013. "A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 307-320, February.
    11. Donald deB. Beaver, 2004. "Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 399-408, August.
    12. Emanuel Kulczycki & Raf Guns & Janne Pölönen & Tim C. E. Engels & Ewa A. Rozkosz & Alesia A. Zuccala & Kasper Bruun & Olli Eskola & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2020. "Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(11), pages 1371-1385, November.
    13. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paul-Hus, Adèle & Mongeon, Philippe & Sainte-Marie, Maxime & Larivière, Vincent, 2017. "The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 80-87.
    2. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    3. Gómez-Ferri, Javier & González-Alcaide, Gregorio & LLopis-Goig, Ramón, 2019. "Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    4. Anna Małgorzata Kamińska & Łukasz Opaliński & Łukasz Wyciślik, 2022. "The Landscapes of Sustainability in the Library and Information Science: Collaboration Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Sameer Kumar, 2018. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, August.
    6. Marek Kwiek, 2020. "Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 57-105, July.
    7. Fatima Baji & Ismail Mostafavi & Parastoo Parsaei-Mohammadi & Zivar Sabaghinejad, 2021. "Partnership ability and co-authorship network of information literacy field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8205-8216, September.
    8. de Frutos-Belizón, Jesús & García-Carbonell, Natalia & Ruíz-Martínez, Marta & Sánchez-Gardey, Gonzalo, 2023. "Disentangling international research collaboration in the Spanish academic context: Is there a desirable researcher human capital profile?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    10. Chao Lu & Yingyi Zhang & Yong‐Yeol Ahn & Ying Ding & Chenwei Zhang & Dandan Ma, 2020. "Co‐contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1162-1178, October.
    11. Liliana Arroyo Moliner & Eva Gallardo-Gallardo & Pedro Gallo de Puelles, 2017. "Understanding scientific communities: a social network approach to collaborations in Talent Management research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1439-1462, December.
    12. Hugo Horta & Shihui Feng & João M. Santos, 2022. "Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 523-543, January.
    13. Rojko, Katarina & Lužar, Borut, 2022. "Scientific performance across research disciplines: Trends and differences in the case of Slovenia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    14. Ch Peidu, 2019. "Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1527-1547, December.
    15. Marjan Cugmas & Franc Mali & Aleš Žiberna, 2020. "Scientific collaboration of researchers and organizations: a two-level blockmodeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2471-2489, December.
    16. Šubelj, Lovro & Fiala, Dalibor & Ciglarič, Tadej & Kronegger, Luka, 2019. "Convexity in scientific collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 10-31.
    17. Elizabeth S. Vieira & Jorge Cerdeira, 2022. "The integration of African countries in international research networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1995-2021, April.
    18. Abramo, Giovanni & Aksnes, Dag W. & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2021. "Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    19. Andrea Fronzetti Colladon & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Peter A. Gloor, 2020. "Predicting the future success of scientific publications through social network and semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 357-377, July.
    20. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2021. "A bibliometric methodology to unveil territorial inequities in the scientific wealth to combat COVID-19," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6601-6624, August.

    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:128:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04719-0. 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.