source: other-projects/nightly-tasks/diffcol/trunk/model-collect/Customization/archives/HASH0791.dir/doc.xml@ 37422

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE Archive SYSTEM "http://greenstone.org/dtd/Archive/1.0/Archive.dtd">
<Archive>
<Section>
  <Description>
    <Metadata name="gsdldoctype">indexed_doc</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Language">en</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Encoding">utf8</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Title">Authorship patterns in Information Systems</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="URL">http://Scratch/ak19/gs2-diffcol-26Jul2021/collect/Customization/tmp/1678155670_2/rtf01.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="UTF8URL">http://Scratch/ak19/gs2-diffcol-26Jul2021/collect/Customization/tmp/1678155670_2/rtf01.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilename">import/rtf01.rtf</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilerenamemethod">url</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlconvertedfilename">tmp/1678155670_2/rtf01.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="OrigSource">rtf01.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Source">rtf01.rtf</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="SourceFile">rtf01.rtf</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Plugin">RTFPlugin</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FileSize">144917</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FilenameRoot">rtf01</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FileFormat">RTF</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="srcicon">_iconrtf_</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="srclink_file">doc.rtf</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="srclinkFile">doc.rtf</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Identifier">HASH079154443e2ecce7bb4208</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="lastmodified">1678155657</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="lastmodifieddate">20230307</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="oailastmodified">1678155670</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="oailastmodifieddate">20230307</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="assocfilepath">HASH0791.dir</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlassocfile">doc.rtf:application/rtf:</Metadata>
  </Description>
  <Content>&lt;b&gt;Authorship patterns in  Information
Systems&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Sally Jo Cunningham and Stuart M. Dillon&lt;p&gt;
Department of Computer Science&lt;p&gt;
University of Waikato&lt;p&gt;
Hamilton, New Zealand&lt;p&gt;
email:  [email protected]&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;Abstract:&lt;/b&gt; This paper examines the patterns of multiple authorship in
five information systems journals. Specifically, we determine the distribution
of the number of authors per paper in this field, the proportion of male and
female authors,  gender composition of research teams, and the incidence of
collaborative relationships spanning institutional affiliations and across
different geographic regions.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;1.  Introduction&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
In his seminal work &lt;i&gt;Little Science, Big Science&lt;/i&gt; [16], Derek J. De Solla
Price drew attention to the 20th century trend of increasing team work in
scientific research and co-authorship in publication—making a
tongue-in-cheek prediction that &quot;by 1980 the single author paper will be
extinct&quot;, and that scientific collaboration would continue to increase so that
scholarly publications would &quot;move steadily toward an infinity of authors per
paper&quot; (p. 89). &lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Since 1963, Price's conjectures have been measured and, to a large extent,
verified, for a number of domains in the social sciences, arts, and physical
sciences.  Characteristics of collaboration in research have been examined in a
number of ways:  for example,  through bibliographic analysis of readily
quantifiable variables such as the rate of co-authorship and mean number of
co-authors per document (for an overview of this type of research, see [10]);
through studies of the social organizations that support collaboration in
particular and research in general (such as the ground-breaking work of Crane
[6]); and by ethnographic descriptions of the patterns of behavior employed by
researchers in finding collaborators, organizing the research tasks, and
composing the written documentation of the work (for example, the examination
of the philosophy research process presented in [19]).&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This paper examines authorship patterns in the field of Information Systems
(IS).  IS is a relatively young discipline, an interdisciplinary field at the
conjunction of computer science, management, and the social sciences.  It
concerns itself primarily managerial, and &quot;people&quot; issues that support
information management (primarily in an organizational context), and to a
lesser extent with hardware and software issues. Perhaps because it is an
emerging, interdisciplinary field, IS has been the focus of few
bibliometric/scientometric studies. The present work uses bibliometric
techniques to examine the extent of collaborative authorship in the field, the
geographic distribution of co-authors, and gender patterns in publication and
collaboration.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;2.  Methodology&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
The journals and time periods examined for this study are listed in Table 1.
Journal articles, rather than books or technical reports, were chosen for
analysis because the journal is the primary source of information in IS, making
up the bulk of documents cited [7]. Five journals were selected for study,
based on the criteria that they well known internationally, cover a relatively
broad set of topics in the IS field,  have author information available, and
are published in the English language. It should be noted, however, that the
journals selected tend to the management end of IS.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
Journal title                              abbreviation      years         
Journal of Systems Management              JSM               1989-1995     
Information Systems Research               ISR               1990-1995     
Strategic Information Systems              SIS               1991-1995     
Management Information Systems Quarterly   MISQ              1989-1995     
Decision Support Systems                   DSS               1989-1995     

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 1. Journals analyzed in this study&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The following definitions and guidelines were used in gathering data from the
five journals:&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
·author:  All individuals identified as authors in the heading of the
paper were included, and counted equally.  Some journal volumes apparently
enforced an alphabetic name ordering on authors, while other journals—or
even other volumes of the same journal—did not; for this reason we did not
attempt to record the rank orderings of authors. Only personal (rather than
corporate) authors were included in this study.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
·article:  All refereed papers from each issue of each journal were
considered for inclusion in the study. All other articles (book reviews,
editorials, letters to the editor, reports of conferences, etc.) were excluded.
While all refereed articles were included in the examination of co-authorship
rates, some of these papers were omitted from the remainder of the study
because the gender and/or the affiliation of one or more authors could not be
determined.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
·gender:  Where possible, the gender of an author was determined from
the author's biography or picture.  If this information was not available or
was inconclusive, the gender was inferred from the author's personal name(s).
If any doubt remained for any co-author of an article (that is, if the author
was listed only by initials or had an ambiguous personal name), then that
article was omitted from the study of author gender.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
·institution:  For co-authored articles, we noted whether or not all
authors were affiliated with the same institution (generally a university or
company).  A single institution could have more than one physical location.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
·geographic area:  Co-authored articles were examined to determine
whether all authors' institutions are from the same geographic region. This
somewhat subjective category was defined as follows:  for highly populated and
physically large countries such as the United States, authors were considered
to be from the same region if their institution were located in the same or
adjacent states; for lightly populated or physically compact countries (such as
New Zealand or the Netherlands, respectively), the entire country was
considered to be a single geographic region.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;3.  Results&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
This section discusses the amount of collaboration in publishing, the
geographic/institutional spread of co-author affiliation, and the gender of
authors in the IS literature.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;degree of collaborative authorship&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Tables 2—4 summarize authorship collaboration in IS. Approximately 38% of
the articles have a single author; the majority of he papers are co-authored,
with two or three authors (Table 2). The maximum number of authors for a single
paper was six, found in a vanishingly small minority of the articles (less than
0.5%).  Viewed strictly in terms of the percentage of co-authored papers (Table
3), it is readily apparent that co-authorship is the norm for all journals,
over the entire period of study.  The journal with the smallest degree of
co-authorship, the &lt;i&gt;Journal of Systems Management&lt;/i&gt; (JSM), saw its
percentage of collaboratively written articles rise from approximately
one-third to one-half; the remainder of the journals have a co-authorship rate
ranging from 40% to 100%. The percentage of co-authored papers has risen
slightly between 1989 and 1995 in four of the five journals—perhaps
reflecting the trend to increased co-authorship reported in other fields, as
the subjects matured  [3].&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
number of        number of          percentage     
authors          articles                          
1                368                37.74%         
2                391                40.10%         
3                171                17.54%         
4                37                 3.80%          
5                4                  0.41%          
6                4                  0.41%          
Total            975                100.00%        

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 2.  Distribution of number of co-authors per paper&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
            JSM         ISR         SIS         MISQ        DSS         average     
1989        36%                                 68%         73%         59%         
1990        29%         75%                     68%         57%         57%         
1991        39%         92%         60%         77%         71%         68%         
1992        41%         100%        40%         81%         68%         66%         
1993        48%         92%         63%         89%         70%         72%         
1994        46%         90%         67%         82%         70%         71%         
1995        54%         87%         58%         87%         79%         75%         

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 3. Percentage of co-authored articles&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
          Mean      Variance    Std dev    std error   Number of        
                                                       articles         
JSM       1.50      .466        .682       .039        308              
ISR       2.175     .604        .777       .079        97               
SIS       1.739     .655        .809       .086        88               
MISQ      2.251     .954        .977       .075        171              
DSS       2.071     .866        .931       .053        311              
Total     1.903     .799        .894       .029        975              

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 4a.  Mean number of co-authors per paper&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;IMG SRC=&quot;_httpdocimg_/rtf011.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Table 4b. T-test of mean number of co-authors&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The mean number of authors per article ranged from 1.5 (for the Journal of
Systems Management) to 2.175 (for Information Systems Research), with an
overall mean of 1.903 (Table 4a). As was noted when considering the
distribution of numbers of co-authors in Table 2, while collaboration is the
norm, the size of the research team in IS is relatively small.  Differences in
mean between the journals was generally not statisticaly significant, with the
exception of ISR/DSS and ISR/MISQ (Table 4b).&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;institutional affiliation and geographic region&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Table 5 presents the institutional and geographical commonalities found amongst
co-authors. As noted in Section 2, at this point we use a subset of the
articles examined in this study:  those papers for which we could identify the
institutional affiliation and gender of all authors. For nearly half of the
co-authored articles of this subset—46%—all authors for an article
are either affiliated with the same institution &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; are resident in the
same geographic region. Just over half of the multiply authored papers, then,
involve a collaboration across significant distances.  For nearly one-third
(32%) of the co-authored papers, all authors are affiliated with the same
institution—again, indicating a significant degree of collaboration across
institutional boundaries.  The collaborative relationships of working groups
are thus surprisingly dispersed, suggesting that IS is a field with a healthy
&quot;invisible college&quot;.   &lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
                       JSM       ISR       SIS       MISQ      DSS       average     
                       1989-     1990-     1991-     1989-     1989-                 
                       1994      1994      1994      1994      1994                  
Co-authored articles     147       71 80     35 62     128       133       514 861   
occurrences out of     364 40%   89%       56%       166 77%   189 70%   60%         
percentage                                                                           
co-authors from same       95        15        20        48        61        239     
institution OR same    147 65%   71 21%    35 58%    128 38%   133 46%   514 46%     
geographical area                                                                    
occurrences out of                                                                   
percentage                                                                           
co-authors from same       34        1         5         11        23        74      
area,  different       147 23%   71 1%     35 14%    128 9%    133 17%   514 14%     
institutions                                                                         
occurrences out of                                                                   
percentage                                                                           

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 5. Percentage of co-authors from the same institution or geographical
area&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;gender of authors&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Gender was recorded for &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; authors for whom it was explicitly stated or
could be inferred; this could be determined for 861 papers, with 1021 authors.
As no attempt was made to maintain a list of names, it is unknown how many
unique individuals are represented in that total.  Approximately four-fifths of
the authors were male (Table 6), with male authors being in the majority for
each journal. &lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
Gender      Number       Percentage      
male        804          78.7%           
female      217          21.3%           

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 6. Gender of authors&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The preponderance of male authors appears to mirror the under-representation of
women in the Management/IS disciplines of academia, in which opportunities for
publication and research are more likely than in commercial enterprises ([12],
[21]).  IS departments are generally located within the business or management
faculty in universities, where women tend to be over-represented as
instructors, lecturers, contract researchers, and other untenured staff
positions.  In the mid-eighties in the US, for example, women held 52% of the
instructor and lower teaching positions and 36% of the assistant professorships
in business schools, but accounted for only 6% of the full  [2].  These lower
level positions provide fewer opportunities for research funding, and generally
involve a higher teaching load (with proportionally less time for research).&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Next, we examine the question of whether or not males and female have the same
patterns of collaboration and co-authorship (Table 7). The percentage of male
authors who published a single-authored paper is 37.31% ([343 male single
authors] / [804 male authors]); the percentage of female authors who published
solo is 18.89% ([41 single author females] / [217 female authors]).  The
percentage of male authors involved in male-only co-authored papers is 42.66%
([343 / 804]), while the percentage of female authors who published in
female-only groups is 6.91% (15/217). Clearly, then, a female author is more
likely to co-publish than a male author, and more likely to publish in mixed
gender research teams.&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
              single       multiple      single       multiple        multiple          
              male author  authors,      female       authors,        authors, male     
                           male only     author       female only     and female        
number        300          343           41           15              161               
percentage    34.9%        39.9%         4.8%         1.7%            18.7%             

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 7.  Gender composition of publishing teams&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;4.  Conclusions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
The high proportion of multiply-authored papers is characteristic of the
physical and life sciences rather than the social sciences. In the &quot;hard&quot;
sciences the percentage of co-authored articles is reported to range from
two-thirds and up ([5], [13]), with nearly universal co-authorship in fields
for which research is based on complex, expensive instruments/equipment ([14],
as reported in [9]).  By way of contrast, the proportion of single-authored
papers is much higher in the humanities and social sciences: in philosophy, for
example, collaboration is so unusual that some researchers find it difficult to
imagine how a joint project could be produced [19]. Even in these disciplines,
however, sub-fields may vary in their degree of collaboration, often reflecting
equipment or team needs outside the norm for that discipline (for example,
biophysical and archaeological anthropology show higher degrees of
collaboration than sociocultural and linguistic anthropology [4]).  IS, then,
seems to fit more into the multiply-authored norm of the physical or
experimental sciences than the humanities/social sciences.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This point is slightly muddied, however, when comparing the mean number of
authors in IS with the mean of other fields (Table 8).  IS articles tend to
have a smaller average number of co-authors than the &quot;hard&quot; sciences, even
though the rate of co-authorship is high. Two hypotheses present themselves:
that the experimental team needed to support IS research is smaller than the
team size necessary for managing the instruments for the physical sciences;
and/or that the support personnel for IS research may not be acknowledged with
authorship, as seems to be the case in some of the sciences.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;


&lt;pre&gt;
Discipline             authors/paper      year(s) of study    Reference       
Library science        1.17               1989-90             [17]            
Counseling             1.45               1971-1982           [8]             
Anthropology           1.79               1983                [4]             
Applied, physical,     2.13               1978-1980           [20]            
analytical chemistry                                                          
Chemical engineering   2.13                                   [22]            
Biomedicine (basic     2.21               1961-1978           [18]            
life sciences)                                                                
Biomedicine            2.25               1961-1978           [18]            
(preclinical basic                                                            
research)                                                                     
Biochemistry           2.41               1978-1980           [20]            
Biomedicine            2.71               1961-1978           [18]            
(clinical research)                                                           
Biochemistry           2.72                                   [22]            
Chemistry              2.82               1974-1975           [11]            
Schistosomiasis        2.92               1972-1986           [15]            
Political Science      3.54               1974-1975           [11]            
Biology                3.97               1974-1975           [11]            
Psychology             4.58               1974-1975           [11]            
Astronomy &amp;amp;            7.4                1974                [1]             
astrophysics                                                                  

&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Table 8.  Average number of authors for a variety of fields&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The degree of collaboration in IS that crosses institutional and geographic
boundaries is significant, and warrants further attention—in particular,
to investigate the communication techniques that support co-authorship.
Traditionally, collaboration occurs through face-to-face meetings, telephone,
and postal correspondence; it is likely that email and other Internet-based
communication modes also see significant use, given the naturally high degree
of computer literacy in this field.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;References&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;
[1]Abt, H. A. (1984) &quot;Citations to single and multiauthored papers&lt;i&gt;,&quot;
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific&lt;/i&gt; 96, 746-749.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[2]Aisenberg, N., and Harrington, M.  (1988) &lt;i&gt;Women of Academe&lt;/i&gt;,
University of Massachusetts Press.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[3]Beaver, D. de B., and Rosen, R. (1979) &quot;Studies in scientific collaboration
Part III:  Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific
co-authorship,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics &lt;/i&gt;1(3), 231-245.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[4]Choi, J.M. (1988) &quot;An analysis of authorship in anthropology journals, 1963
&amp;amp; 1983&lt;i&gt;,&quot; Behavioral &amp;amp; Social Sciences Librarian&lt;/i&gt; 6(3/4), 85-94.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[5]Clarke, B.L. (1964) &quot;Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers,'
&lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt; 143, 882-884.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[6]Crane, D. (1972) &lt;i&gt;Invisible colleges:  Diffusion of Knowledge in
Scientific communities&lt;/i&gt;,  University of Chicago Press.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[7]Cunningham, S.J. (1996) &quot;An empirical investigation of the obsolescence
rate for information systems literature.&quot;   &lt;i&gt;Working Paper Series 95/16&lt;/i&gt;,
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. To
appear in &lt;i&gt;Library and Information Science Research&lt;/i&gt;..&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[8]Gladding, S. (1984) &quot;Multiple authorship in the &lt;i&gt;Personnel and Guidance
Journal&lt;/i&gt;:  a 12-year study), &lt;i&gt;Personnel and Guidance Journal&lt;/i&gt;, June,
628-630.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[9]Gordon, M.D. (1979) &quot;A critical reassessment of inferred relations between
multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and
their acceptance for publication,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 2(3), 193-201.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[10]Harsanyi, M.A. (1993) &quot;Multiple authors, multiple
problems—Bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration:  a
literature review,&quot; &lt;i&gt;LISR&lt;/i&gt; 15, 325-354.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[11]Heffner, A.G. (1981) &quot;Funded research, multiple authorship and
subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 3,
231-.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[12]McKeen, C.A., and Bujaki, M.L. (1994) &quot;Taking women into account&quot;,  &lt;i&gt;CA
Magazine, 127&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;(2)&lt;/i&gt;, pp. 29-35.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[13]Meadows, A.J. (1974)  &lt;i&gt;Communication in Science&lt;/i&gt;. London:
Butterworths.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[14]Meadows, A.J., and O'Connor, J.G. (1971) &quot;A survey in depth of a selected
information field (astronomy and astrophysics). Astronomy Department,
University of Leicester.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[15]Pao, M.L. (1992) &quot;Global and local collaborators:  a study of scientific
collaboration,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt; 28(1), 99-109.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[16]Price, Derek J. de Solla. (1963) &lt;i&gt;Little science, big science&lt;/i&gt;.  New
York:  Columbia University Press.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[17]Raptis, P. (1992) &quot;Authorship characteristics in five international
library science journals,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Libri &lt;/i&gt;42(1), 35-52.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[18]Satyanarayana, K. and Ratnakar, K.V. (1989) &quot;Authorship patterns in life
sciences, preclinical basic and clinical research papers,&quot;
&lt;i&gt;Scientometrics&lt;/i&gt; 17(3-4), 363-371.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[19]Sievert, D., and Sievert, ME.  (1989)  &quot;Philosophical Research:  report
from the field,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Proceedings of the Humanists at Work symposium&lt;/i&gt; (April,
Chicago, ILL, USA). Published by the University of Illinois at Chicago.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[20]Stefaniak, B. (1982) &quot;Individual and multiple authorship of papers in
chemistry and physics,&quot; &lt;i&gt;Scientometrics &lt;/i&gt;4(4), 331-337.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[21]Still, L.V. (1993) &lt;i&gt;Where to from here?  The managerial woman in
transition&lt;/i&gt;, Business and Professional Publishing.&lt;p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
[22]Subrahmanyam, K., and Stephens, E.M. (1982) &quot;Research collaboration and
funding in biochemistry and chemical engineering,&quot; &lt;i&gt;International Forum on
Information and Documentation&lt;/i&gt; 7, 26-.&lt;p&gt;
</Content>
</Section>
</Archive>