Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many studies have found that co-authored research is more highly cited than single author research. This finding is policy relevant as it indicates that encouraging co-authored research will tend to maximise citation impact. Nevertheless, whilst the citation impact of research increase as the number of authors increases in the sciences, the extent to which this occurs in the social sciences is unknown. In response, this study investigates the average citation level of articles with one to four authors published in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 in 19 social science disciplines. The results suggest that whilst having at least two authors gives a substantial citation impact advantage in all social science disciplines, additional authors are beneficial in some disciplines but not in others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Zulueta, M. A., Romero, F., & Barrigon, S. (1999). Measuring interdisciplinary collaboration within a university: The effects of the Multidisciplinary Research Programme. Scientometrics, 46(3), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R. & van Bochove, C. (2012). On the relationship between author collaboration and impact of scientific publications. Proceedings of 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST, 447–448.

  • Crase, D., & Rosato, F. D. (1992). Single versus multiple authorship in professional journals. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dancing, 63(7), 28–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1055–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013). Intra-European cooperation compared to international collaboration of the ERA countries. Conducted by Science-Metrix. Available at. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/intra-european_intern_collab.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.

  • Finlay, S. C., Ni, C., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2012). New methods for an old debate: Utilizing reader response to investigate the relationship between collaboration and quality in academic journal articles. Library & Information Science Research, 34(2), 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, L. F. (2004). Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility. Scientometrics, 61(2), 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87(2), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and ‘periphery effects’ in the citation of New Zealand crown research institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, I., Fernandez, M. T., & Sebastian, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44(3), 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. L. (2007). Collaboration and article quality in the literature of academic librarianship. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 190–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1079–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbertz, H. (1995). Does it pay to cooperate—a bibliometric case-study in Molecular-Biology. Scientometrics, 33(1), 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero Bote, V. P., & de Moya Anegón, F. (2013). Citation increments between collaborating countries. Scientometrics, 94(3), 817–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Brownstein, J., Mills, R., & Kohane, I. (2010). Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One, 5(12), e14279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(438), 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leta, J., & Chaimovich, H. (2002). Recognition and international collaboration: The Brazilian case. Scientometrics, 53(3), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 434–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2010). Does the higher citation of collaborative research differ from region to region? A case study of Economics. Scientometrics, 85(1), 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, N., & Guan, J. C. (2005). An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in Molecular Biology. Scientometrics, 65(3), 343–355.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, J. C. R., Fischer, A. L., & Escuder, M. M. L. (2000). Driving factors of high performance in Brazilian management sciences for the 1981–1995 period. Scientometrics, 49(2), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Research Council of Norway (2014). Bibliometric study in support of Norway’s strategy for international research collaboration. Conducted by Science-Metrix. Available at. http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition%3A&blobheadervalue1=+attachment%3B+filename%3D%22SMBibliometricsRCNInterimReport.pdf%22&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1274503829794&ssbinary=true.

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uthman, O. A. (2008). HIV/AIDS in Nigeria: A bibliometric analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases, 8(2), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, E. E. (1997). Impact factor and international collaboration in Chilean physics: 1987–1994. Scientometrics, 38(2), 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weale, M. (2013). Scientific community: Tapping into success and collaboration. Nature, 498, 299. doi:10.1038/498299b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, H., Ao, X. L., & Ho, Y. S. (2008). Use of citation per publication as an indicator to evaluate pentachlorophenol research. Scientometrics, 75(1), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [Grant reference: RES-000-22-4415]. I thank Gertrude Levitt for her very careful proof-reading; this was a particularly exacting task, as the author of this paper is severely partially sighted.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, WV1 1LY, Wolverhampton, UK

    Jonathan M. Levitt

Authors
  1. Jonathan M. Levitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan M. Levitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levitt, J.M. What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research?. Scientometrics 102, 213–225 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1441-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1441-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation