subscribe to this page
Newman,ME . "Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [0027-8424] 101 Suppl 1 (2004). 5200-5.
There is a very high rate of co-authorship in biology, a high rate in physics, and a somewhat lower rate in mathematics, though the rate in mathematics has been increasing along with the other fields. However, there is a lot of variation in the collaboration patterns among the sciences. Also, collaborating leads to more collaboration.
Moody,J . "The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999" American sociological review [0003-1224] 69.2 (2004). 213-.
Cronin,B . "A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20 th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy" Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology [1532-2882] 54.9 (2003). 855-.
Details the occurrence of co-authorships and acknowledgements in scholarly articles published in prepresentative journals from the fields of psychology and philosophy. In the case of the psych journals, there has been a very steady increase in the number of co-authored articles over the past 100 years. While these social science articles do not includes the numbers of co-authors sometimes seen in STM articles (occasionally hundreds of authors can be listed in STM) this steady increase is in keeping with the notion of increased collaboration in scholarship. The philosophy articles are still generally produced by a single author in keeping with the general assumption that philosophers are lone scholars. However, since the 1950's, acknowledgements have appeared more and more frequently to the point where the great majority of articles include acknowledgements.
Cronin,B . "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology [1532-2882] 52.7 (2001). 558-569.
tagged acrl authorship collaboration publishing scholarly_communication toread
by laallen
...on 03-JAN-07
This paper examines the context of online indexing from the viewpoint of three different groups: users, authors, and intermediaries. User, author and intermediary keywords were collected from journal articles tagged on citeulike and analysed. Descriptive statistics and thesaural term comparison shows that there are important differences in the context of keywords from the three groups.
"In Google We Trust? [computer file]" The journal of electronic publishing [1080-2711] 9.1 (2006). 1-.
Trust, authority, and reputation are central to scholarly publishing, but the trust model of the Internet is almost antithetical to the trust model of academia. Publishers have been so preoccupied with the brute mechanics of moving content to the online world that they have virtually ignored the challenge that the Internet trust model poses to the scholarly publisher. Publishers can learn much about approaches to handling Internet trust from the actions of major online players outside the publishing industry. Publishers should also benefit from watching the trust models that are being experimented with in the nascent realm of social software applications. Publishers once led the way in establishing the apparatus of trust during the transition from manuscript to print culture in early modern Europe. Ultimately, publishers should again take the lead in helping to establish new mechanisms of trust in what could reasonably be described as "the early modern Internet."