root/other-projects/nightly-tasks/diffcol/trunk/model-collect/DSpace-To-GS/archives/HASHd1f7.dir/doc.xml @ 28933

Revision 28933, 26.5 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/DSpace-To-GS/tmp/1395215054_1/2.html</Metadata>
11    <Metadata name="UTF8URL">http://research/ak19/gs2-svn-22Aug2013/collect/DSpace-To-GS/tmp/1395215054_1/2.html</Metadata>
12    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilename">import/2/2.rtf</Metadata>
13    <Metadata name="gsdlconvertedfilename">tmp/1395215054_1/2.html</Metadata>
14    <Metadata name="OrigSource">2.html</Metadata>
15    <Metadata name="Source">2.rtf</Metadata>
16    <Metadata name="SourceFile">2.rtf</Metadata>
17    <Metadata name="Plugin">RTFPlugin</Metadata>
18    <Metadata name="FileSize">144917</Metadata>
19    <Metadata name="FilenameRoot">2</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="ex.dc.Contributor">Sally Jo Cunningham</Metadata>
25    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Contributor">Stuart M. Dillon</Metadata>
26    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Date^accessioned">2005-01-10T02:49:40Z</Metadata>
27    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Date^available">2005-01-10T02:49:40Z</Metadata>
28    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Date^issued">2005-01-10T02:49:40Z</Metadata>
29    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Language^iso">en</Metadata>
30    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Title">Authorship Patterns in Information Systems</Metadata>
31    <Metadata name="equivlink"></Metadata>
32    <Metadata name="Identifier">HASHd1f77e36ce8cbbf4d1f77e</Metadata>
33    <Metadata name="lastmodified">1395214940</Metadata>
34    <Metadata name="lastmodifieddate">20140319</Metadata>
35    <Metadata name="oailastmodified">1395215055</Metadata>
36    <Metadata name="oailastmodifieddate">20140319</Metadata>
37    <Metadata name="assocfilepath">HASHd1f7.dir</Metadata>
38    <Metadata name="gsdlassocfile">doc.rtf:application/rtf:</Metadata>
39  </Description>
40  <Content>&lt;b&gt;Authorship patterns in  Information
43Sally Jo Cunningham and Stuart M. Dillon&lt;p&gt;
44Department of Computer Science&lt;p&gt;
45University of Waikato&lt;p&gt;
46Hamilton, New Zealand&lt;p&gt;
49&lt;b&gt;Abstract:&lt;/b&gt; This paper examines the patterns of multiple authorship in
50five information systems journals. Specifically, we determine the distribution
51of the number of authors per paper in this field, the proportion of male and
52female authors,  gender composition of research teams, and the incidence of
53collaborative relationships spanning institutional affiliations and across
54different geographic regions.&lt;p&gt;
56&lt;b&gt;1.  Introduction&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
58In his seminal work &lt;i&gt;Little Science, Big Science&lt;/i&gt; [16], Derek J. De Solla
59Price drew attention to the 20th century trend of increasing team work in
60scientific research and co-authorship in publication—making a
61tongue-in-cheek prediction that &quot;by 1980 the single author paper will be
62extinct&quot;, and that scientific collaboration would continue to increase so that
63scholarly publications would &quot;move steadily toward an infinity of authors per
64paper&quot; (p. 89). &lt;p&gt;
66Since 1963, Price's conjectures have been measured and, to a large extent,
67verified, for a number of domains in the social sciences, arts, and physical
68sciences.  Characteristics of collaboration in research have been examined in a
69number of ways:  for example,  through bibliographic analysis of readily
70quantifiable variables such as the rate of co-authorship and mean number of
71co-authors per document (for an overview of this type of research, see [10]);
72through studies of the social organizations that support collaboration in
73particular and research in general (such as the ground-breaking work of Crane
74[6]); and by ethnographic descriptions of the patterns of behavior employed by
75researchers in finding collaborators, organizing the research tasks, and
76composing the written documentation of the work (for example, the examination
77of the philosophy research process presented in [19]).&lt;p&gt;
79This paper examines authorship patterns in the field of Information Systems
80(IS).  IS is a relatively young discipline, an interdisciplinary field at the
81conjunction of computer science, management, and the social sciences.  It
82concerns itself primarily managerial, and &quot;people&quot; issues that support
83information management (primarily in an organizational context), and to a
84lesser extent with hardware and software issues. Perhaps because it is an
85emerging, interdisciplinary field, IS has been the focus of few
86bibliometric/scientometric studies. The present work uses bibliometric
87techniques to examine the extent of collaborative authorship in the field, the
88geographic distribution of co-authors, and gender patterns in publication and
91&lt;b&gt;2.  Methodology&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
93The journals and time periods examined for this study are listed in Table 1.
94Journal articles, rather than books or technical reports, were chosen for
95analysis because the journal is the primary source of information in IS, making
96up the bulk of documents cited [7]. Five journals were selected for study,
97based on the criteria that they well known internationally, cover a relatively
98broad set of topics in the IS field,  have author information available, and
99are published in the English language. It should be noted, however, that the
100journals selected tend to the management end of IS.&lt;p&gt;
105Journal title                              abbreviation      years         
106Journal of Systems Management              JSM               1989-1995     
107Information Systems Research               ISR               1990-1995     
108Strategic Information Systems              SIS               1991-1995     
109Management Information Systems Quarterly   MISQ              1989-1995     
110Decision Support Systems                   DSS               1989-1995     
114Table 1. Journals analyzed in this study&lt;p&gt;
116The following definitions and guidelines were used in gathering data from the
117five journals:&lt;p&gt;
119·author:  All individuals identified as authors in the heading of the
120paper were included, and counted equally.  Some journal volumes apparently
121enforced an alphabetic name ordering on authors, while other journals—or
122even other volumes of the same journal—did not; for this reason we did not
123attempt to record the rank orderings of authors. Only personal (rather than
124corporate) authors were included in this study.&lt;p&gt;
126·article:  All refereed papers from each issue of each journal were
127considered for inclusion in the study. All other articles (book reviews,
128editorials, letters to the editor, reports of conferences, etc.) were excluded.
129While all refereed articles were included in the examination of co-authorship
130rates, some of these papers were omitted from the remainder of the study
131because the gender and/or the affiliation of one or more authors could not be
134·gender:  Where possible, the gender of an author was determined from
135the author's biography or picture.  If this information was not available or
136was inconclusive, the gender was inferred from the author's personal name(s).
137If any doubt remained for any co-author of an article (that is, if the author
138was listed only by initials or had an ambiguous personal name), then that
139article was omitted from the study of author gender.&lt;p&gt;
141·institution:  For co-authored articles, we noted whether or not all
142authors were affiliated with the same institution (generally a university or
143company).  A single institution could have more than one physical location.&lt;p&gt;
145·geographic area:  Co-authored articles were examined to determine
146whether all authors' institutions are from the same geographic region. This
147somewhat subjective category was defined as follows:  for highly populated and
148physically large countries such as the United States, authors were considered
149to be from the same region if their institution were located in the same or
150adjacent states; for lightly populated or physically compact countries (such as
151New Zealand or the Netherlands, respectively), the entire country was
152considered to be a single geographic region.&lt;p&gt;
154&lt;b&gt;3.  Results&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
156This section discusses the amount of collaboration in publishing, the
157geographic/institutional spread of co-author affiliation, and the gender of
158authors in the IS literature.&lt;p&gt;
160&lt;i&gt;degree of collaborative authorship&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
162Tables 2—4 summarize authorship collaboration in IS. Approximately 38% of
163the articles have a single author; the majority of he papers are co-authored,
164with two or three authors (Table 2). The maximum number of authors for a single
165paper was six, found in a vanishingly small minority of the articles (less than
1660.5%).  Viewed strictly in terms of the percentage of co-authored papers (Table
1673), it is readily apparent that co-authorship is the norm for all journals,
168over the entire period of study.  The journal with the smallest degree of
169co-authorship, the &lt;i&gt;Journal of Systems Management&lt;/i&gt; (JSM), saw its
170percentage of collaboratively written articles rise from approximately
171one-third to one-half; the remainder of the journals have a co-authorship rate
172ranging from 40% to 100%. The percentage of co-authored papers has risen
173slightly between 1989 and 1995 in four of the five journals—perhaps
174reflecting the trend to increased co-authorship reported in other fields, as
175the subjects matured  [3].&lt;p&gt;
180number of        number of          percentage     
181authors          articles                         
1821                368                37.74%         
1832                391                40.10%         
1843                171                17.54%         
1854                37                 3.80%         
1865                4                  0.41%         
1876                4                  0.41%         
188Total            975                100.00%       
192Table 2.  Distribution of number of co-authors per paper&lt;p&gt;
196            JSM         ISR         SIS         MISQ        DSS         average     
1971989        36%                                 68%         73%         59%         
1981990        29%         75%                     68%         57%         57%         
1991991        39%         92%         60%         77%         71%         68%         
2001992        41%         100%        40%         81%         68%         66%         
2011993        48%         92%         63%         89%         70%         72%         
2021994        46%         90%         67%         82%         70%         71%         
2031995        54%         87%         58%         87%         79%         75%         
207Table 3. Percentage of co-authored articles&lt;p&gt;
212          Mean      Variance    Std dev    std error   Number of       
213                                                       articles         
214JSM       1.50      .466        .682       .039        308             
215ISR       2.175     .604        .777       .079        97               
216SIS       1.739     .655        .809       .086        88               
217MISQ      2.251     .954        .977       .075        171             
218DSS       2.071     .866        .931       .053        311             
219Total     1.903     .799        .894       .029        975             
223Table 4a.  Mean number of co-authors per paper&lt;p&gt;
225&lt;IMG SRC=&quot;_httpdocimg_/21.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
226Table 4b. T-test of mean number of co-authors&lt;p&gt;
228The mean number of authors per article ranged from 1.5 (for the Journal of
229Systems Management) to 2.175 (for Information Systems Research), with an
230overall mean of 1.903 (Table 4a). As was noted when considering the
231distribution of numbers of co-authors in Table 2, while collaboration is the
232norm, the size of the research team in IS is relatively small.  Differences in
233mean between the journals was generally not statisticaly significant, with the
234exception of ISR/DSS and ISR/MISQ (Table 4b).&lt;p&gt;
236&lt;i&gt;institutional affiliation and geographic region&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
238Table 5 presents the institutional and geographical commonalities found amongst
239co-authors. As noted in Section 2, at this point we use a subset of the
240articles examined in this study:  those papers for which we could identify the
241institutional affiliation and gender of all authors. For nearly half of the
242co-authored articles of this subset—46%—all authors for an article
243are either affiliated with the same institution &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; are resident in the
244same geographic region. Just over half of the multiply authored papers, then,
245involve a collaboration across significant distances.  For nearly one-third
246(32%) of the co-authored papers, all authors are affiliated with the same
247institution—again, indicating a significant degree of collaboration across
248institutional boundaries.  The collaborative relationships of working groups
249are thus surprisingly dispersed, suggesting that IS is a field with a healthy
250&quot;invisible college&quot;.   &lt;p&gt;
254                       JSM       ISR       SIS       MISQ      DSS       average     
255                       1989-     1990-     1991-     1989-     1989-                 
256                       1994      1994      1994      1994      1994                 
257Co-authored articles     147       71 80     35 62     128       133       514 861   
258occurrences out of     364 40%   89%       56%       166 77%   189 70%   60%         
260co-authors from same       95        15        20        48        61        239     
261institution OR same    147 65%   71 21%    35 58%    128 38%   133 46%   514 46%     
262geographical area                                                                   
263occurrences out of                                                                   
265co-authors from same       34        1         5         11        23        74     
266area,  different       147 23%   71 1%     35 14%    128 9%    133 17%   514 14%     
268occurrences out of                                                                   
273Table 5. Percentage of co-authors from the same institution or geographical
276&lt;i&gt;gender of authors&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
278Gender was recorded for &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; authors for whom it was explicitly stated or
279could be inferred; this could be determined for 861 papers, with 1021 authors.
280As no attempt was made to maintain a list of names, it is unknown how many
281unique individuals are represented in that total.  Approximately four-fifths of
282the authors were male (Table 6), with male authors being in the majority for
283each journal. &lt;p&gt;
288Gender      Number       Percentage     
289male        804          78.7%           
290female      217          21.3%           
294Table 6. Gender of authors&lt;p&gt;
296The preponderance of male authors appears to mirror the under-representation of
297women in the Management/IS disciplines of academia, in which opportunities for
298publication and research are more likely than in commercial enterprises ([12],
299[21]).  IS departments are generally located within the business or management
300faculty in universities, where women tend to be over-represented as
301instructors, lecturers, contract researchers, and other untenured staff
302positions.  In the mid-eighties in the US, for example, women held 52% of the
303instructor and lower teaching positions and 36% of the assistant professorships
304in business schools, but accounted for only 6% of the full  [2].  These lower
305level positions provide fewer opportunities for research funding, and generally
306involve a higher teaching load (with proportionally less time for research).&lt;p&gt;
308Next, we examine the question of whether or not males and female have the same
309patterns of collaboration and co-authorship (Table 7). The percentage of male
310authors who published a single-authored paper is 37.31% ([343 male single
311authors] / [804 male authors]); the percentage of female authors who published
312solo is 18.89% ([41 single author females] / [217 female authors]).  The
313percentage of male authors involved in male-only co-authored papers is 42.66%
314([343 / 804]), while the percentage of female authors who published in
315female-only groups is 6.91% (15/217). Clearly, then, a female author is more
316likely to co-publish than a male author, and more likely to publish in mixed
317gender research teams.&lt;p&gt;
321              single       multiple      single       multiple        multiple         
322              male author  authors,      female       authors,        authors, male     
323                           male only     author       female only     and female       
324number        300          343           41           15              161               
325percentage    34.9%        39.9%         4.8%         1.7%            18.7%             
329Table 7.  Gender composition of publishing teams&lt;p&gt;
331&lt;b&gt;4.  Conclusions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
333The high proportion of multiply-authored papers is characteristic of the
334physical and life sciences rather than the social sciences. In the &quot;hard&quot;
335sciences the percentage of co-authored articles is reported to range from
336two-thirds and up ([5], [13]), with nearly universal co-authorship in fields
337for which research is based on complex, expensive instruments/equipment ([14],
338as reported in [9]).  By way of contrast, the proportion of single-authored
339papers is much higher in the humanities and social sciences: in philosophy, for
340example, collaboration is so unusual that some researchers find it difficult to
341imagine how a joint project could be produced [19]. Even in these disciplines,
342however, sub-fields may vary in their degree of collaboration, often reflecting
343equipment or team needs outside the norm for that discipline (for example,
344biophysical and archaeological anthropology show higher degrees of
345collaboration than sociocultural and linguistic anthropology [4]).  IS, then,
346seems to fit more into the multiply-authored norm of the physical or
347experimental sciences than the humanities/social sciences.&lt;p&gt;
349This point is slightly muddied, however, when comparing the mean number of
350authors in IS with the mean of other fields (Table 8).  IS articles tend to
351have a smaller average number of co-authors than the &quot;hard&quot; sciences, even
352though the rate of co-authorship is high. Two hypotheses present themselves:
353that the experimental team needed to support IS research is smaller than the
354team size necessary for managing the instruments for the physical sciences;
355and/or that the support personnel for IS research may not be acknowledged with
356authorship, as seems to be the case in some of the sciences.&lt;p&gt;
361Discipline             authors/paper      year(s) of study    Reference       
362Library science        1.17               1989-90             [17]           
363Counseling             1.45               1971-1982           [8]             
364Anthropology           1.79               1983                [4]             
365Applied, physical,     2.13               1978-1980           [20]           
366analytical chemistry                                                         
367Chemical engineering   2.13                                   [22]           
368Biomedicine (basic     2.21               1961-1978           [18]           
369life sciences)                                                               
370Biomedicine            2.25               1961-1978           [18]           
371(preclinical basic                                                           
373Biochemistry           2.41               1978-1980           [20]           
374Biomedicine            2.71               1961-1978           [18]           
375(clinical research)                                                           
376Biochemistry           2.72                                   [22]           
377Chemistry              2.82               1974-1975           [11]           
378Schistosomiasis        2.92               1972-1986           [15]           
379Political Science      3.54               1974-1975           [11]           
380Biology                3.97               1974-1975           [11]           
381Psychology             4.58               1974-1975           [11]           
382Astronomy &amp;amp;            7.4                1974                [1]             
387Table 8.  Average number of authors for a variety of fields&lt;p&gt;
389The degree of collaboration in IS that crosses institutional and geographic
390boundaries is significant, and warrants further attention—in particular,
391to investigate the communication techniques that support co-authorship.
392Traditionally, collaboration occurs through face-to-face meetings, telephone,
393and postal correspondence; it is likely that email and other Internet-based
394communication modes also see significant use, given the naturally high degree
395of computer literacy in this field.&lt;p&gt;
399[1]Abt, H. A. (1984) &quot;Citations to single and multiauthored papers&lt;i&gt;,&quot;
400Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific&lt;/i&gt; 96, 746-749.&lt;p&gt;
402[2]Aisenberg, N., and Harrington, M.  (1988) &lt;i&gt;Women of Academe&lt;/i&gt;,
403University of Massachusetts Press.&lt;p&gt;
405[3]Beaver, D. de B., and Rosen, R. (1979) &quot;Studies in scientific collaboration
406Part III:  Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific
407co-authorship,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics &lt;/i&gt;1(3), 231-245.&lt;p&gt;
409[4]Choi, J.M. (1988) &quot;An analysis of authorship in anthropology journals, 1963
410&amp;amp; 1983&lt;i&gt;,&quot; Behavioral &amp;amp; Social Sciences Librarian&lt;/i&gt; 6(3/4), 85-94.&lt;p&gt;
412[5]Clarke, B.L. (1964) &quot;Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers,'
413&lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt; 143, 882-884.&lt;p&gt;
415[6]Crane, D. (1972) &lt;i&gt;Invisible colleges:  Diffusion of Knowledge in
416Scientific communities&lt;/i&gt;,  University of Chicago Press.&lt;p&gt;
418[7]Cunningham, S.J. (1996) &quot;An empirical investigation of the obsolescence
419rate for information systems literature.&quot;   &lt;i&gt;Working Paper Series 95/16&lt;/i&gt;,
420Dept. of Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. To
421appear in &lt;i&gt;Library and Information Science Research&lt;/i&gt;..&lt;p&gt;
423[8]Gladding, S. (1984) &quot;Multiple authorship in the &lt;i&gt;Personnel and Guidance
424Journal&lt;/i&gt;:  a 12-year study), &lt;i&gt;Personnel and Guidance Journal&lt;/i&gt;, June,
427[9]Gordon, M.D. (1979) &quot;A critical reassessment of inferred relations between
428multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and
429their acceptance for publication,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 2(3), 193-201.&lt;p&gt;
431[10]Harsanyi, M.A. (1993) &quot;Multiple authors, multiple
432problems—Bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration:  a
433literature review,&quot; &lt;i&gt;LISR&lt;/i&gt; 15, 325-354.&lt;p&gt;
435[11]Heffner, A.G. (1981) &quot;Funded research, multiple authorship and
436subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 3,
439[12]McKeen, C.A., and Bujaki, M.L. (1994) &quot;Taking women into account&quot;,  &lt;i&gt;CA
440Magazine, 127&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;(2)&lt;/i&gt;, pp. 29-35.&lt;p&gt;
442[13]Meadows, A.J. (1974)  &lt;i&gt;Communication in Science&lt;/i&gt;. London:
445[14]Meadows, A.J., and O'Connor, J.G. (1971) &quot;A survey in depth of a selected
446information field (astronomy and astrophysics). Astronomy Department,
447University of Leicester.&lt;p&gt;
449[15]Pao, M.L. (1992) &quot;Global and local collaborators:  a study of scientific
450collaboration,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt; 28(1), 99-109.&lt;p&gt;
452[16]Price, Derek J. de Solla. (1963) &lt;i&gt;Little science, big science&lt;/i&gt;.  New
453York:  Columbia University Press.&lt;p&gt;
455[17]Raptis, P. (1992) &quot;Authorship characteristics in five international
456library science journals,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Libri &lt;/i&gt;42(1), 35-52.&lt;p&gt;
458[18]Satyanarayana, K. and Ratnakar, K.V. (1989) &quot;Authorship patterns in life
459sciences, preclinical basic and clinical research papers,&quot;
460&lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 17(3-4), 363-371.&lt;p&gt;
462[19]Sievert, D., and Sievert, ME.  (1989)  &quot;Philosophical Research:  report
463from the field,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Proceedings of the Humanists at Work symposium&lt;/i&gt; (April,
464Chicago, ILL, USA). Published by the University of Illinois at Chicago.&lt;p&gt;
466[20]Stefaniak, B. (1982) &quot;Individual and multiple authorship of papers in
467chemistry and physics,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics &lt;/i&gt;4(4), 331-337.&lt;p&gt;
469[21]Still, L.V. (1993) &lt;i&gt;Where to from here?  The managerial woman in
470transition&lt;/i&gt;, Business and Professional Publishing.&lt;p&gt;
472[22]Subrahmanyam, K., and Stephens, E.M. (1982) &quot;Research collaboration and
473funding in biochemistry and chemical engineering,&quot; &lt;i&gt;International Forum on
474Information and Documentation&lt;/i&gt; 7, 26-.&lt;p&gt;
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the browser.