Skip to main content
Log in

The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the rise in co-authorship in the Social Sciences over a 34-year period. It investigates the development in co-authorship in different research fields and discusses how the methodological differences in these research fields together with changes in academia affect the tendency to co-author articles. The study is based on bibliographic data about 4.5 million peer review articles published in the period 1980–2013 and indexed in the 56 subject categories of the Web of Science’s Social Science Citation Index. The results show a rise in the average number of authors, share of co-authored and international co-authored articles in the majority of the subject categories. However, the results also show that there are great disciplinary differences to the extent of the rises in co-authorship. The subject categories with a great share of international co-authored articles have generally experienced an increase in co-authorship, but increasing international collaboration is not the only factor influencing the rise in co-authorship. Hence, the most substantial rises have occurred in subject categories, where the research often is based on the use of experiments, large data set, statistical methods and/or team-production models.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration, (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377. doi:10.1023/a:1014254214337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M., & Monson, V. (2011). Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: Historical reflections on current practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 365–388. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, M. (2012). Recycling texts or stealing time?: Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19(3), 453–476. doi:10.1017/s0940739112000276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770. doi:10.1002/asi.20380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. doi:10.1108/00220410810844150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46. doi:10.3152/147154403781776780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627–648. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01830.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, M. M., & Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations. Psychological Science, 3(6), 354–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569. doi:10.1002/Asi.1097.Abs.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2004). Bowling alone together: Academic writing as distributed cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(6), 557–560. doi:10.1002/asi.10406.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855–871. doi:10.1002/asi.10278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. Ps-Political Science & Politics, 31(4), 847–856. doi:10.2307/420730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D. (2015). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). In Y. Tonta, A. A. Salah, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), 15th International conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015 (vol. 1, pp. 209–220): Boğaziçi University Printhouse.

  • Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(96)00917-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15. doi:10.3152/147154402781776961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E., & Reikowsky, R. C. (2008). Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), 425–440. doi:10.1177/0306312707086190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. M. (2000). Publication trends of doctoral students in three fields from 1965 to 1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 139–144. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(2000)51:2<139:aid-asi5>3.0.co;2-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., & Zirulia, L. (2013). Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 95, 49–69. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2013.08.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L., & Jeroncic, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE,. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. P. (1993). Authorship patterns in CJNR: 1970–1991. Scientometrics, 28(2), 151–158. doi:10.1007/Bf02016897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, G. P. (1998). Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals. Scientometrics, 41(3), 291–298.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ossenblok, T. L. B., Engels, T. C. E., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the web of science—a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–2009). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280–290. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ossenblok, T. L. B., Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 882–897. doi:10.1002/asi.23015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piro, F. N., Aksnes, D. W., & Rørstad, K. (2013). A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 307–320. doi:10.1002/asi.22746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontille, D. (2003). Authorship practices and institutional contexts in sociology: Elements for a comparison of the United States and France. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(2), 217–243. doi:10.1177/0162243902250905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. H., Dake, J. A., & Oden, L. (2000). Authorship of health education articles: Guests, ghosts, and trends. American Journal of Health Behavior, 24(4), 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SSCI. (2012). Scope Notes 2012. Social Science Citation Index. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/scope/scope_ssci/#BF. Accessed 10 Jan 2015.

  • Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213–230. doi:10.1007/Bf02016801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1998). Comparative investigation of frequency and strength of motives toward referencing, the reference threshold model: Comments on theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 107–127. doi:10.1007/Bf02458400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K. D., Dalgleish, L., & Arnold, G. (1982). Authorship patterns in psychology: National and international trends. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20(4), 190–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. D. (1969). Communication nets in science: Status and citation patterns in animal physiology. Sociological Review, 17(2), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P. (1999). Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories. Scientometrics, 44(3), 561–580. doi:10.1007/Bf02458496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. doi:10.1126/science.1136099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor Jesper Schneider for comments and subtracting data from the CWTS database.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorte Henriksen.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 2.

Table 2 The median number of authors per article

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henriksen, D. The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics 107, 455–476 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

Keywords

Navigation