root/other-projects/nightly-tasks/diffcol/trunk/model-collect/Customization/archives/HASH0791.dir/doc.xml @ 28933

Revision 28933, 26.0 KB (checked in by ak19, 6 years ago)

AUTOCOMMIT by script. Message: Clean rebuild of model collections 1/2. Clearing out deprecated archives and index.

1<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
2<!DOCTYPE Archive SYSTEM "">
5  <Description>
6    <Metadata name="gsdldoctype">indexed_doc</Metadata>
7    <Metadata name="Language">en</Metadata>
8    <Metadata name="Encoding">utf8</Metadata>
9    <Metadata name="Title">Authorship patterns in Information Systems</Metadata>
10    <Metadata name="URL">http://research/ak19/gs2-svn-22Aug2013/collect/Customization/tmp/1395215016_2/rtf01.html</Metadata>
11    <Metadata name="UTF8URL">http://research/ak19/gs2-svn-22Aug2013/collect/Customization/tmp/1395215016_2/rtf01.html</Metadata>
12    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilename">import/rtf01.rtf</Metadata>
13    <Metadata name="gsdlconvertedfilename">tmp/1395215016_2/rtf01.html</Metadata>
14    <Metadata name="OrigSource">rtf01.html</Metadata>
15    <Metadata name="Source">rtf01.rtf</Metadata>
16    <Metadata name="SourceFile">rtf01.rtf</Metadata>
17    <Metadata name="Plugin">RTFPlugin</Metadata>
18    <Metadata name="FileSize">144917</Metadata>
19    <Metadata name="FilenameRoot">rtf01</Metadata>
20    <Metadata name="FileFormat">RTF</Metadata>
21    <Metadata name="srcicon">_iconrtf_</Metadata>
22    <Metadata name="srclink_file">doc.rtf</Metadata>
23    <Metadata name="srclinkFile">doc.rtf</Metadata>
24    <Metadata name="Identifier">HASH079154443e2ecce7bb4208</Metadata>
25    <Metadata name="lastmodified">1395214928</Metadata>
26    <Metadata name="lastmodifieddate">20140319</Metadata>
27    <Metadata name="oailastmodified">1395215016</Metadata>
28    <Metadata name="oailastmodifieddate">20140319</Metadata>
29    <Metadata name="assocfilepath">HASH0791.dir</Metadata>
30    <Metadata name="gsdlassocfile">doc.rtf:application/rtf:</Metadata>
31  </Description>
32  <Content>&lt;b&gt;Authorship patterns in  Information
35Sally Jo Cunningham and Stuart M. Dillon&lt;p&gt;
36Department of Computer Science&lt;p&gt;
37University of Waikato&lt;p&gt;
38Hamilton, New Zealand&lt;p&gt;
41&lt;b&gt;Abstract:&lt;/b&gt; This paper examines the patterns of multiple authorship in
42five information systems journals. Specifically, we determine the distribution
43of the number of authors per paper in this field, the proportion of male and
44female authors,  gender composition of research teams, and the incidence of
45collaborative relationships spanning institutional affiliations and across
46different geographic regions.&lt;p&gt;
48&lt;b&gt;1.  Introduction&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
50In his seminal work &lt;i&gt;Little Science, Big Science&lt;/i&gt; [16], Derek J. De Solla
51Price drew attention to the 20th century trend of increasing team work in
52scientific research and co-authorship in publication—making a
53tongue-in-cheek prediction that &quot;by 1980 the single author paper will be
54extinct&quot;, and that scientific collaboration would continue to increase so that
55scholarly publications would &quot;move steadily toward an infinity of authors per
56paper&quot; (p. 89). &lt;p&gt;
58Since 1963, Price's conjectures have been measured and, to a large extent,
59verified, for a number of domains in the social sciences, arts, and physical
60sciences.  Characteristics of collaboration in research have been examined in a
61number of ways:  for example,  through bibliographic analysis of readily
62quantifiable variables such as the rate of co-authorship and mean number of
63co-authors per document (for an overview of this type of research, see [10]);
64through studies of the social organizations that support collaboration in
65particular and research in general (such as the ground-breaking work of Crane
66[6]); and by ethnographic descriptions of the patterns of behavior employed by
67researchers in finding collaborators, organizing the research tasks, and
68composing the written documentation of the work (for example, the examination
69of the philosophy research process presented in [19]).&lt;p&gt;
71This paper examines authorship patterns in the field of Information Systems
72(IS).  IS is a relatively young discipline, an interdisciplinary field at the
73conjunction of computer science, management, and the social sciences.  It
74concerns itself primarily managerial, and &quot;people&quot; issues that support
75information management (primarily in an organizational context), and to a
76lesser extent with hardware and software issues. Perhaps because it is an
77emerging, interdisciplinary field, IS has been the focus of few
78bibliometric/scientometric studies. The present work uses bibliometric
79techniques to examine the extent of collaborative authorship in the field, the
80geographic distribution of co-authors, and gender patterns in publication and
83&lt;b&gt;2.  Methodology&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
85The journals and time periods examined for this study are listed in Table 1.
86Journal articles, rather than books or technical reports, were chosen for
87analysis because the journal is the primary source of information in IS, making
88up the bulk of documents cited [7]. Five journals were selected for study,
89based on the criteria that they well known internationally, cover a relatively
90broad set of topics in the IS field,  have author information available, and
91are published in the English language. It should be noted, however, that the
92journals selected tend to the management end of IS.&lt;p&gt;
97Journal title                              abbreviation      years         
98Journal of Systems Management              JSM               1989-1995     
99Information Systems Research               ISR               1990-1995     
100Strategic Information Systems              SIS               1991-1995     
101Management Information Systems Quarterly   MISQ              1989-1995     
102Decision Support Systems                   DSS               1989-1995     
106Table 1. Journals analyzed in this study&lt;p&gt;
108The following definitions and guidelines were used in gathering data from the
109five journals:&lt;p&gt;
111·author:  All individuals identified as authors in the heading of the
112paper were included, and counted equally.  Some journal volumes apparently
113enforced an alphabetic name ordering on authors, while other journals—or
114even other volumes of the same journal—did not; for this reason we did not
115attempt to record the rank orderings of authors. Only personal (rather than
116corporate) authors were included in this study.&lt;p&gt;
118·article:  All refereed papers from each issue of each journal were
119considered for inclusion in the study. All other articles (book reviews,
120editorials, letters to the editor, reports of conferences, etc.) were excluded.
121While all refereed articles were included in the examination of co-authorship
122rates, some of these papers were omitted from the remainder of the study
123because the gender and/or the affiliation of one or more authors could not be
126·gender:  Where possible, the gender of an author was determined from
127the author's biography or picture.  If this information was not available or
128was inconclusive, the gender was inferred from the author's personal name(s).
129If any doubt remained for any co-author of an article (that is, if the author
130was listed only by initials or had an ambiguous personal name), then that
131article was omitted from the study of author gender.&lt;p&gt;
133·institution:  For co-authored articles, we noted whether or not all
134authors were affiliated with the same institution (generally a university or
135company).  A single institution could have more than one physical location.&lt;p&gt;
137·geographic area:  Co-authored articles were examined to determine
138whether all authors' institutions are from the same geographic region. This
139somewhat subjective category was defined as follows:  for highly populated and
140physically large countries such as the United States, authors were considered
141to be from the same region if their institution were located in the same or
142adjacent states; for lightly populated or physically compact countries (such as
143New Zealand or the Netherlands, respectively), the entire country was
144considered to be a single geographic region.&lt;p&gt;
146&lt;b&gt;3.  Results&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
148This section discusses the amount of collaboration in publishing, the
149geographic/institutional spread of co-author affiliation, and the gender of
150authors in the IS literature.&lt;p&gt;
152&lt;i&gt;degree of collaborative authorship&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
154Tables 2—4 summarize authorship collaboration in IS. Approximately 38% of
155the articles have a single author; the majority of he papers are co-authored,
156with two or three authors (Table 2). The maximum number of authors for a single
157paper was six, found in a vanishingly small minority of the articles (less than
1580.5%).  Viewed strictly in terms of the percentage of co-authored papers (Table
1593), it is readily apparent that co-authorship is the norm for all journals,
160over the entire period of study.  The journal with the smallest degree of
161co-authorship, the &lt;i&gt;Journal of Systems Management&lt;/i&gt; (JSM), saw its
162percentage of collaboratively written articles rise from approximately
163one-third to one-half; the remainder of the journals have a co-authorship rate
164ranging from 40% to 100%. The percentage of co-authored papers has risen
165slightly between 1989 and 1995 in four of the five journals—perhaps
166reflecting the trend to increased co-authorship reported in other fields, as
167the subjects matured  [3].&lt;p&gt;
172number of        number of          percentage     
173authors          articles                         
1741                368                37.74%         
1752                391                40.10%         
1763                171                17.54%         
1774                37                 3.80%         
1785                4                  0.41%         
1796                4                  0.41%         
180Total            975                100.00%       
184Table 2.  Distribution of number of co-authors per paper&lt;p&gt;
188            JSM         ISR         SIS         MISQ        DSS         average     
1891989        36%                                 68%         73%         59%         
1901990        29%         75%                     68%         57%         57%         
1911991        39%         92%         60%         77%         71%         68%         
1921992        41%         100%        40%         81%         68%         66%         
1931993        48%         92%         63%         89%         70%         72%         
1941994        46%         90%         67%         82%         70%         71%         
1951995        54%         87%         58%         87%         79%         75%         
199Table 3. Percentage of co-authored articles&lt;p&gt;
204          Mean      Variance    Std dev    std error   Number of       
205                                                       articles         
206JSM       1.50      .466        .682       .039        308             
207ISR       2.175     .604        .777       .079        97               
208SIS       1.739     .655        .809       .086        88               
209MISQ      2.251     .954        .977       .075        171             
210DSS       2.071     .866        .931       .053        311             
211Total     1.903     .799        .894       .029        975             
215Table 4a.  Mean number of co-authors per paper&lt;p&gt;
217&lt;IMG SRC=&quot;_httpdocimg_/rtf011.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
218Table 4b. T-test of mean number of co-authors&lt;p&gt;
220The mean number of authors per article ranged from 1.5 (for the Journal of
221Systems Management) to 2.175 (for Information Systems Research), with an
222overall mean of 1.903 (Table 4a). As was noted when considering the
223distribution of numbers of co-authors in Table 2, while collaboration is the
224norm, the size of the research team in IS is relatively small.  Differences in
225mean between the journals was generally not statisticaly significant, with the
226exception of ISR/DSS and ISR/MISQ (Table 4b).&lt;p&gt;
228&lt;i&gt;institutional affiliation and geographic region&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
230Table 5 presents the institutional and geographical commonalities found amongst
231co-authors. As noted in Section 2, at this point we use a subset of the
232articles examined in this study:  those papers for which we could identify the
233institutional affiliation and gender of all authors. For nearly half of the
234co-authored articles of this subset—46%—all authors for an article
235are either affiliated with the same institution &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; are resident in the
236same geographic region. Just over half of the multiply authored papers, then,
237involve a collaboration across significant distances.  For nearly one-third
238(32%) of the co-authored papers, all authors are affiliated with the same
239institution—again, indicating a significant degree of collaboration across
240institutional boundaries.  The collaborative relationships of working groups
241are thus surprisingly dispersed, suggesting that IS is a field with a healthy
242&quot;invisible college&quot;.   &lt;p&gt;
246                       JSM       ISR       SIS       MISQ      DSS       average     
247                       1989-     1990-     1991-     1989-     1989-                 
248                       1994      1994      1994      1994      1994                 
249Co-authored articles     147       71 80     35 62     128       133       514 861   
250occurrences out of     364 40%   89%       56%       166 77%   189 70%   60%         
252co-authors from same       95        15        20        48        61        239     
253institution OR same    147 65%   71 21%    35 58%    128 38%   133 46%   514 46%     
254geographical area                                                                   
255occurrences out of                                                                   
257co-authors from same       34        1         5         11        23        74     
258area,  different       147 23%   71 1%     35 14%    128 9%    133 17%   514 14%     
260occurrences out of                                                                   
265Table 5. Percentage of co-authors from the same institution or geographical
268&lt;i&gt;gender of authors&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
270Gender was recorded for &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; authors for whom it was explicitly stated or
271could be inferred; this could be determined for 861 papers, with 1021 authors.
272As no attempt was made to maintain a list of names, it is unknown how many
273unique individuals are represented in that total.  Approximately four-fifths of
274the authors were male (Table 6), with male authors being in the majority for
275each journal. &lt;p&gt;
280Gender      Number       Percentage     
281male        804          78.7%           
282female      217          21.3%           
286Table 6. Gender of authors&lt;p&gt;
288The preponderance of male authors appears to mirror the under-representation of
289women in the Management/IS disciplines of academia, in which opportunities for
290publication and research are more likely than in commercial enterprises ([12],
291[21]).  IS departments are generally located within the business or management
292faculty in universities, where women tend to be over-represented as
293instructors, lecturers, contract researchers, and other untenured staff
294positions.  In the mid-eighties in the US, for example, women held 52% of the
295instructor and lower teaching positions and 36% of the assistant professorships
296in business schools, but accounted for only 6% of the full  [2].  These lower
297level positions provide fewer opportunities for research funding, and generally
298involve a higher teaching load (with proportionally less time for research).&lt;p&gt;
300Next, we examine the question of whether or not males and female have the same
301patterns of collaboration and co-authorship (Table 7). The percentage of male
302authors who published a single-authored paper is 37.31% ([343 male single
303authors] / [804 male authors]); the percentage of female authors who published
304solo is 18.89% ([41 single author females] / [217 female authors]).  The
305percentage of male authors involved in male-only co-authored papers is 42.66%
306([343 / 804]), while the percentage of female authors who published in
307female-only groups is 6.91% (15/217). Clearly, then, a female author is more
308likely to co-publish than a male author, and more likely to publish in mixed
309gender research teams.&lt;p&gt;
313              single       multiple      single       multiple        multiple         
314              male author  authors,      female       authors,        authors, male     
315                           male only     author       female only     and female       
316number        300          343           41           15              161               
317percentage    34.9%        39.9%         4.8%         1.7%            18.7%             
321Table 7.  Gender composition of publishing teams&lt;p&gt;
323&lt;b&gt;4.  Conclusions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
325The high proportion of multiply-authored papers is characteristic of the
326physical and life sciences rather than the social sciences. In the &quot;hard&quot;
327sciences the percentage of co-authored articles is reported to range from
328two-thirds and up ([5], [13]), with nearly universal co-authorship in fields
329for which research is based on complex, expensive instruments/equipment ([14],
330as reported in [9]).  By way of contrast, the proportion of single-authored
331papers is much higher in the humanities and social sciences: in philosophy, for
332example, collaboration is so unusual that some researchers find it difficult to
333imagine how a joint project could be produced [19]. Even in these disciplines,
334however, sub-fields may vary in their degree of collaboration, often reflecting
335equipment or team needs outside the norm for that discipline (for example,
336biophysical and archaeological anthropology show higher degrees of
337collaboration than sociocultural and linguistic anthropology [4]).  IS, then,
338seems to fit more into the multiply-authored norm of the physical or
339experimental sciences than the humanities/social sciences.&lt;p&gt;
341This point is slightly muddied, however, when comparing the mean number of
342authors in IS with the mean of other fields (Table 8).  IS articles tend to
343have a smaller average number of co-authors than the &quot;hard&quot; sciences, even
344though the rate of co-authorship is high. Two hypotheses present themselves:
345that the experimental team needed to support IS research is smaller than the
346team size necessary for managing the instruments for the physical sciences;
347and/or that the support personnel for IS research may not be acknowledged with
348authorship, as seems to be the case in some of the sciences.&lt;p&gt;
353Discipline             authors/paper      year(s) of study    Reference       
354Library science        1.17               1989-90             [17]           
355Counseling             1.45               1971-1982           [8]             
356Anthropology           1.79               1983                [4]             
357Applied, physical,     2.13               1978-1980           [20]           
358analytical chemistry                                                         
359Chemical engineering   2.13                                   [22]           
360Biomedicine (basic     2.21               1961-1978           [18]           
361life sciences)                                                               
362Biomedicine            2.25               1961-1978           [18]           
363(preclinical basic                                                           
365Biochemistry           2.41               1978-1980           [20]           
366Biomedicine            2.71               1961-1978           [18]           
367(clinical research)                                                           
368Biochemistry           2.72                                   [22]           
369Chemistry              2.82               1974-1975           [11]           
370Schistosomiasis        2.92               1972-1986           [15]           
371Political Science      3.54               1974-1975           [11]           
372Biology                3.97               1974-1975           [11]           
373Psychology             4.58               1974-1975           [11]           
374Astronomy &amp;amp;            7.4                1974                [1]             
379Table 8.  Average number of authors for a variety of fields&lt;p&gt;
381The degree of collaboration in IS that crosses institutional and geographic
382boundaries is significant, and warrants further attention—in particular,
383to investigate the communication techniques that support co-authorship.
384Traditionally, collaboration occurs through face-to-face meetings, telephone,
385and postal correspondence; it is likely that email and other Internet-based
386communication modes also see significant use, given the naturally high degree
387of computer literacy in this field.&lt;p&gt;
391[1]Abt, H. A. (1984) &quot;Citations to single and multiauthored papers&lt;i&gt;,&quot;
392Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific&lt;/i&gt; 96, 746-749.&lt;p&gt;
394[2]Aisenberg, N., and Harrington, M.  (1988) &lt;i&gt;Women of Academe&lt;/i&gt;,
395University of Massachusetts Press.&lt;p&gt;
397[3]Beaver, D. de B., and Rosen, R. (1979) &quot;Studies in scientific collaboration
398Part III:  Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific
399co-authorship,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics &lt;/i&gt;1(3), 231-245.&lt;p&gt;
401[4]Choi, J.M. (1988) &quot;An analysis of authorship in anthropology journals, 1963
402&amp;amp; 1983&lt;i&gt;,&quot; Behavioral &amp;amp; Social Sciences Librarian&lt;/i&gt; 6(3/4), 85-94.&lt;p&gt;
404[5]Clarke, B.L. (1964) &quot;Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers,'
405&lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt; 143, 882-884.&lt;p&gt;
407[6]Crane, D. (1972) &lt;i&gt;Invisible colleges:  Diffusion of Knowledge in
408Scientific communities&lt;/i&gt;,  University of Chicago Press.&lt;p&gt;
410[7]Cunningham, S.J. (1996) &quot;An empirical investigation of the obsolescence
411rate for information systems literature.&quot;   &lt;i&gt;Working Paper Series 95/16&lt;/i&gt;,
412Dept. of Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. To
413appear in &lt;i&gt;Library and Information Science Research&lt;/i&gt;..&lt;p&gt;
415[8]Gladding, S. (1984) &quot;Multiple authorship in the &lt;i&gt;Personnel and Guidance
416Journal&lt;/i&gt;:  a 12-year study), &lt;i&gt;Personnel and Guidance Journal&lt;/i&gt;, June,
419[9]Gordon, M.D. (1979) &quot;A critical reassessment of inferred relations between
420multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and
421their acceptance for publication,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 2(3), 193-201.&lt;p&gt;
423[10]Harsanyi, M.A. (1993) &quot;Multiple authors, multiple
424problems—Bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration:  a
425literature review,&quot; &lt;i&gt;LISR&lt;/i&gt; 15, 325-354.&lt;p&gt;
427[11]Heffner, A.G. (1981) &quot;Funded research, multiple authorship and
428subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 3,
431[12]McKeen, C.A., and Bujaki, M.L. (1994) &quot;Taking women into account&quot;,  &lt;i&gt;CA
432Magazine, 127&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;(2)&lt;/i&gt;, pp. 29-35.&lt;p&gt;
434[13]Meadows, A.J. (1974)  &lt;i&gt;Communication in Science&lt;/i&gt;. London:
437[14]Meadows, A.J., and O'Connor, J.G. (1971) &quot;A survey in depth of a selected
438information field (astronomy and astrophysics). Astronomy Department,
439University of Leicester.&lt;p&gt;
441[15]Pao, M.L. (1992) &quot;Global and local collaborators:  a study of scientific
442collaboration,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt; 28(1), 99-109.&lt;p&gt;
444[16]Price, Derek J. de Solla. (1963) &lt;i&gt;Little science, big science&lt;/i&gt;.  New
445York:  Columbia University Press.&lt;p&gt;
447[17]Raptis, P. (1992) &quot;Authorship characteristics in five international
448library science journals,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Libri &lt;/i&gt;42(1), 35-52.&lt;p&gt;
450[18]Satyanarayana, K. and Ratnakar, K.V. (1989) &quot;Authorship patterns in life
451sciences, preclinical basic and clinical research papers,&quot;
452&lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 17(3-4), 363-371.&lt;p&gt;
454[19]Sievert, D., and Sievert, ME.  (1989)  &quot;Philosophical Research:  report
455from the field,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Proceedings of the Humanists at Work symposium&lt;/i&gt; (April,
456Chicago, ILL, USA). Published by the University of Illinois at Chicago.&lt;p&gt;
458[20]Stefaniak, B. (1982) &quot;Individual and multiple authorship of papers in
459chemistry and physics,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics &lt;/i&gt;4(4), 331-337.&lt;p&gt;
461[21]Still, L.V. (1993) &lt;i&gt;Where to from here?  The managerial woman in
462transition&lt;/i&gt;, Business and Professional Publishing.&lt;p&gt;
464[22]Subrahmanyam, K., and Stephens, E.M. (1982) &quot;Research collaboration and
465funding in biochemistry and chemical engineering,&quot; &lt;i&gt;International Forum on
466Information and Documentation&lt;/i&gt; 7, 26-.&lt;p&gt;
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the browser.