IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i3d10.1007_s11192-025-05271-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are there too many papers by the same authors within the same conference proceedings? Norms and extremities within the field of human–computer interaction

Author

Listed:
  • Frode Eika Sandnes

    (Oslo Metropolitan University)

Abstract

A substantial portion of computer science research is published in conference proceedings. An academic conference allows researchers to meet, network, learn, exchange ideas, seek inspiration and share their experiences and findings. This study was triggered by an impression that some authors publish several papers within the same conference, sometimes filling an entire session. Such back-to-back presentations by the same author can be monotonous to witness. This study therefore set out to assess if this repeat author impression is supported by empirical evidence. An analysis was performed based on Scopus data for 31 key conferences within human–computer interaction. The results indeed confirm the phenomenon of repeat authors within conference proceedings. The maximum number of papers with the same author was six contributions based on the conference median, that is, in 16 of the 31 conferences at least one author was listed as co-author on at least six contributions. In the most extreme instance one author was listed on 32 contributions within the same conference. Papers by repeat authors often shared similar contents. The multiple co-author phenomenon was prominent in both highly ranked conferences as well conferences with a lower rank. Conference chairs (gatekeepers) were overrepresented among authors with multiple papers as more than 50% of gatekeepers across 23 of 31 conferences had more than one contribution within the conference they organised. An analysis of a large multi-conference showed that publishing across different proceedings volumes under the same conference umbrella is common and that such multi-authorships are obfuscated from the statistics if considering each volume in isolation. Implications of this study is that conference organisers should draw attention towards the overall author profile and consider ceilings on the number of papers permissible for each author. Moreover, organizers should reflect over the appropriateness of themselves publishing (many) papers within their own conferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Frode Eika Sandnes, 2025. "Are there too many papers by the same authors within the same conference proceedings? Norms and extremities within the field of human–computer interaction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1659-1699, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05271-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05271-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05271-9
    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/s11192-025-05271-9?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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research productivity; Academic reputation; Conference experience; Conference quality; Paper quality; Peer-review quality; Multi-conference; Hyperprolific authors; Gatekeepers;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:130:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05271-9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.