Annals of Library and Information Studies ZAFRUNNISHA & PULLAREDDY : AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION IN PSYCHOLOGY 255 Vol. 56, December 2009, pp. 255-261 Authorship pattern and degree of collaboration in psychology N. Zafrunnisha 1 and V. Pullareddy 2 1 Librarian, CVR College of Engineering, Hyderabad 2 Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, S.V.University, Tirupati Studies related to authorship trend and collaborative researches are considered as an important facet of modern science. The paper presents a study of the authorship pattern and collaborative research in the field of Psychology. The required data collected from 141 Ph. D theses submitted to three universities during the period 1963 2003 are used as source material for the present investigation. The collected data included 22,565 citations, among these only journal citations are consider for the study, which were appended to the 141 theses. A total 14374 journal citations came out and were utilized for the present investigation. Predominance of multi-authored papers over single authored papers is seen. The degree of collaboration in Psychology is 0.53. USA defences first by producing 42.28% of cited journals. Majority of the cited journals of Psychology (94.54%) are in English language. Introduction The study of authorship pattern and productivity is an important factor in citation analysis. Generally, authorship of a paper or document has become important for scientists and researchers. In order to make out the author productivity and authorship pattern, the analysis of the nature of research collaboration in research activity is primary factor. Collaborative research activity is a well recognized feature of modern science, and there has been a consistent trend towards increased collaboration in all branches of science during the present century. Price 1 on the basis of survey of Chemical Abstracts, observed a steady trend towards multiple authorship and thereby holding that if it continues at the present rate, by 1980 the single author papers will be extinct. Though the above postulation may not hold true, a decline in the number of scientific papers published by single authors is evident. Fox and Feaver 2 are of the view that the increase in the number of multi authored papers may be due to the collaboration of specialists leading to enhanced quality of research. The reasons for collaborative research can be attributed to the interdisciplinary nature of investigations, escalating cost of instrumentation and laboratory facilities and interest of scientists in the same subject fields. Degree of collaboration in respect of a discipline in an organization is the ratio of multi-authored papers published during a year and the total number of papers published during the year. Scope and objectives The scope of the study is limited to two major sub-fields of Psychology viz., Basic Psychology and Applied Psychology. One hundred and forty one Ph.D theses are available in the University libraries of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Osmania University, Hyderabad and Andhra University, Visakhapattanam. A total of 22,565 citations appended to these theses, among them 14,374 journal citations are identified and these form the basis for the study. The specific objectives of the present study are to determine the: Nture of authorship pattern in the literature of psychology, basic psychology and applied psychology, Proportion of single Vs multi-authored papers in psychology, basic psychology and applied psychology, Degree of collaboration in psychology, basic psychology and applied psychology, Country wise distribution of journals in psychology, and Language wise distribution of journals in Psychology.
256 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., DECEMBER 2009 Table 1 Authorship pattern of psychology, basic psychology and applied psychology Years Psychology Basic psychology Applied Psychology Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi Author Author Author Author Author Author Till 1925 64 37 23 14 41 23 (63.36%) (36.63%) (62.16%) (37.84%) (64.06%) (35.94%) 1926-35 201 65 104 28 97 37 (75.56%) (24.44%) (78.78%) (21.21%) (72.38) (27.62%) 1936-45 350 172 178 53 172 119 (67.05%) (32.74%) (77.05%) (22.94%) (59.10%) (40.89%) 1946-55 627 380 269 149 358 231 (62.26%) (37.74%) (64.35%) (35.64%) (60.78%) (39.22%) 1956-65 1182 949 494 346 688 603 (55.46%) (44.54%) (58.80%) (41.19%) (53.29%) (46.71%) 1966-75 1768 1803 597 507 1171 1296 (49.51%) (50.49%) (54.07%) (45.92%) (47.47%) (52.53%) 1976-85 1665 2140 444 462 1221 1679 (43.76%) (56.24%) (49.01%) (50.99%) (42.11%) (57.89%) 1986-95 772 1590 244 388 527 1202 (32.68%) (67.32%) (38.60%) (61.39%) (30.48%) (69.52%) 1996-2005 145 464 54 138 91 326 (23.81%) (76.19%) (28.13%) (71.87%) (21.82%) (78.18%) Total 6774 7600 2407 2085 4366 5516 (47.12%) (52.87%) (53.58%) (46.42%) (44.18%) (55.82%) Methodology The present study is concerned with the analysis of journal citations appended to the doctoral theses accepted in the field of Psychology for the award of doctoral degrees by Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Osmania University, Hyderabad and Andhra University, Visakhapattanam The information relating to each citation,i.e., number of authors, bibliographic form, name of the journal, subject, country of origin, language are recorded. The journal information regarding the country, language and the subject of the journal are obtained from Ulrich s International Periodicals Directory and recorded on the reference cards of standard size of 12.5 X 7.5 cm. The data is fed into the computer using MS- Excel software and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Results and discussion The present study elucidates the authorship pattern and degree of collaboration in journal citations in the field of Psychology as a whole and sub-fields of Basic and Applied Psychology. It is evident from Table 1 that the single authored papers are maximum with 47.12% of the total journal citations, multi-authored papers accounting for 52.87% of the total cited papers in Psychology. It is observed from Table 1 that single authored papers have shown declining trend from 75.56% (1926-1935) to 23.81% (1996-2005). As a result of which, the multi-authored papers have increased from 24.44% to 76.19%. This results is in accordance with the findings of Balog (1979) 3, Mendenhall and Higbee (1982) 4, Gladding (1984) 5 Mahapatra and Mathias (1987) 6, Karisiddappa, Maheswarappa and Shirol (1990) 7, Norris (1993) 8 Nagarajan (1995) 9, Udofia (2002) 10, Krishna and Kumar (2004) 11 and Kannapanwar et al., (2004) 12, Birdar and Premalatha (1998) 13, Omkaramurthy (2006) 14, Nattar (2009) 15, Smith (1958) 16 White and White (1977) 17,Mendenhall and Kenneth (1982) 18, Wendy, Herrod and Jef (2006) 19 Ying, Schubert and Gobinda (1998) 20, Anthony et al (2003) 21, James and Lisa (2003) 22 and Sangam (2003) 23 Authorship pattern in Basic Psychology is also shown in Table 1. It is evident from the table that the single authored papers are maximum with 53.58% of total
ZAFRUNNISHA & PULLAREDDY : AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION IN PSYCHOLOGY 257 Table 2 Single Vs multiple authorship in psychology, basic psycholgy and applied psychology Authorship Psychology Basic psychology Applied psychology Single authors 6774 2407 4366 (47.12%) (53.58%) (44.18%) Multiple authors 7600 2085 5516 (52.88%) (46.42%) (55.82%) Total 14374 4492 9882 (100%) (100%) (100%) (Figure in parenthesis indicate percentages) 60% 52.88% 53.58% Single Author Multiple Author 55.82% 50% 47.12% 46.41% 44.18% 40% Percentage 30% 20% 10% 0% Psychology Basic Psychology Applied Psychology Subjects Fig. 1 Single Vs multiple authorship citations, multi authored papers account for 46.37% of total cited papers. It is noticed from Table 2 that in Basic Psychology single authored papers have shown a declining trend from 79.4% (1941-1945) to 26.8% (1996-2000). Authorship pattern in Applied Psychology shows that single authored papers account for 44.18%, and multiauthored papers account for 55.81% of the total journal citations. This indicates a trend forwards collaborative research in the field of Applied Psychology. Single Vs multiple authorship Table 2 presents the predominance of multi-authored papers over single authored papers. The multi-authored papers account for more than 52% in Psychology as a whole. The percentage of multi-authored papers in Applied Psychology is 55.82%. In the case of Basic Psychology the single authored papers are more compared to multi-authored papers as shown in the table. Degree of collaboration and average number of authors per citation The extent of collaboration in research can be measured with the help of multi authored papers using the formula given by Subramanyam (1982) 24. Degree of collaboration C = Nm/Nm+Ns C = Degree of collaboration Nm = Number of Multiple authors Ns = Number of Single authors The degree of collaboration in the field of Psychology as a whole is 0.53 and its sub-disciplines, i.e., Basic Psychology 0.59 and Applied Psychology 0.51 for various years have been computed and presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7 respectively. It is observed from Table 3 that the degree of collaboration in Psychology has been increasing from the period 1936-1945 to 1996-2005. This indicates the
258 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., DECEMBER 2009 Table 3 Degree of collaboration in psychology Years Total no. of Average no. of No. of No. of multi- Degree of Citations Authors authors per single authored papers collaboration citation authored papers Till 1925 101 150 1.48 54 37 0.37 1926-1935 266 350 1.32 201 65 0.24 1936-1945 522 711 1.36 350 172 0.33 1946-1955 1007 1513 1.50 627 380 0.38 1956-1965 2131 3404 1.60 1182 949 0.44 1966-1975 3571 5189 1.45 1768 1803 0.51 1980-1985 3805 7015 1.84 1665 2140 0.56 1986-1995 2326 4229 1.82 772 1590 0.67 1996-2005 609 1497 2.46 145 464 0.76 Total 14374 24058 1.67 6774 7600 0.53 Table 4 Degree of collaboration in basic psychology Year Total no. of Average no. No. of single No. of multi- Degree of Citations Authors of authors authored authored collaboration per citation papers papers Till 1925 36 53 1.47 23 13 0.36 1926-1935 61 80 1.33 47 14 0.22 1936-1945 116 241 2.07 80 36 0.31 1946-1955 311 487 1.56 124 187 0.60 1956-1965 541 800 1.48 290 251 0.46 1966-1975 1461 1473 1.00 445 1016 0.69 1980-1985 1070 2915 2.72 575 495 0.46 1986-1995 705 1239 1.76 216 489 0.69 1996-2005 191 672 0.97 42 149 0.78 Total 4492 7960 1.77 1842 2650 0.59 trend towards collaborative research. The average number of authors per paper has decreased from 1.48 (Till 1925) to 1.32 (1926-1935). After that it increased from 1.36 (1936-1945) to 2.46 (1996-2005).This supports the prediction of Price 25 that team research is a common trend in scientific research. Same trend is seen in Basic and Applied Psychology as well. It is evident from Table 4 that the degree of collaboration in Basic Psychology has decreased from the period 1925 to 1926-1945 then increased from the period 1946-1955 and again it has decreased. The table clearly shows the changing research trend. The average number of authors per citation is 1.77 in Basic Psychology. It is obvious from Table 5 that the degree of collaboration in Applied Psychology has increased from the period 1936-1945 to 1956-1965 and has decreased from the period 1966-1975. Again is increased from 1926-2005. This indicates the trend towards collaborative research. The average number of authors per citation in Applied Psychology is 1.63.
ZAFRUNNISHA & PULLAREDDY : AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION IN PSYCHOLOGY 259 Table 5 Degree of collaboration in applied psychology Year Total no. of Average no. No. of single No. of multi- Degree of Citations Authors of authors authored authored collaboration per citation papers papers Till 1925 65 97 1.49 41 24 0.36 1926-1935 205 270 1.31 154 51 0.25 1936-1945 406 470 1.15 270 136 0.33 1946-1955 696 1026 1.47 403 293 0.42 1956-1965 1590 2604 1.64 892 698 0.44 1966-1975 2110 3716 1.76 1323 787 0.37 1980-1985 2735 4100 1.49 1090 1645 0.60 1986-1995 1657 2990 1.80 556 1101 0.66 1996-2005 418 844 2.00 103 315 0.75 Total 9882 16117 1.63 4832 5050 0.51 Table 6 Language-wise distribution of journals in psychology Sl. no Country No. of journals Percentage Cumulative No. of Journal Journals Percentage 1. English 398 94.54 398 94.54 2. French 2 0.48 400 95.02 3. German 2 0.48 402 95.50 4. Czech 2 0.48 404 95.98 5. Japanese 2 0.48 406 96.46 6. Hindi 2 0.48 408 96.93 7. Sanskrit 1 0.24 409 97.17 8. Bilingual 3 0.71 412 97.88 9. Multilingual 3 0.71 415 98.59 10. Un-identified 6 1.43 421 100 Total 421 100 421 100 Language-wise distribution of journals One of the main characteristics of science is its international nature. Due to this the results of research are published in more number of languages. The languages of the cited journals are traced out from Ulrich s International Periodicals Directory. The Psychology researchers have cited a total of 421 journals. It is observed from Table 6 that the most of the cited journals of Psychology (94.54%) are in English language. Bilingual and Multilingual journals constitute (0.71%) and (0.71%) of the total cited journals respectively. The remaining journals are published in Czech (0.48%), Japanese (0.48%, Hindi (0.48%) French (0.48%), German (0.48%), and Sanskrit (0.24%). Country-wise distribution of journals Due to the international characteristics of scientific research, scientific literature is being published in almost all the countries of the world. In this section, all the cited journals are categorized according to their country of origin to find out the most productive countries in the literature of Psychology. The country of origin of the cited journals are traced out from Ulrich s International Periodicals Directory.
260 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., DECEMBER 2009 Table 7 Country-wise distribution of journals in psychology Sl. no. Country No. of journals Percentage Cumulative journals percentage 1. India 90 21.38 90 21.38 2. Usa 178 42.28 268 63.66 3. Uk 65 15.44 333 79.10 4. Canada 8 1.90 341 81.00 5. Australia 3 0.71 344 81.71 6. Czech republic 3 0.71 347 82.42 7. Germany 4 0.95 351 83.37 8. France 4 0.95 355 84.32 9. Netherlands 4 0.95 359 85.27 10. Finland 3 0.71 362 85.99 11. Switzerland 9 2.14 371 88.12 12. Brazil 2 0.48 373 88.60 13. Pakistan 3 0.71 376 89.31 14. Zaragoza 4 0.95 380 90.26 15. Japan 4 0.95 384 91.21 16. Sweden 3 0.71 387 91.92 17. Iran 4 0.95 391 92.87 18. Belgium 4 0.95 395 93.82 19. Italy 2 0.48 397 94.3 20. Other countries (14) 18 4.28 415 98.58 21. Un-identified 6 1.43 421 100 Total 421 100 421 100 Table 7 presents the country-wise distribution of cited journals in Psychology. As revealed by many previous citation analysis studies, it is a well known fact that USA and UK are the main producers of journals. It is observed from the Table 7 that USA ranks first by producing 42.28% of cited journals. India got second rank with 21.38% of total cited journals, followed by UK (15.44%) and Canada (1.75%).The above four countries produced nearly 75% of cited journals. The remaining 25% of journals are from 26 countries. It is noticed from the table that USA journals are mostly cited compared to the journals from other countries. Findings 1. Analysis of citations in Psychology and its subfields, in relation to the number of authors, reveals a more or less similar authorship pattern. 2. The multi- authored papers are more in number (52.87%) and single authored papers are 48.13% of total journal citations. 3. The number of collaborative papers indicates that the collaborative nature of research is growing. 4. The average number of authors per article in Psychology as a whole is 1.67 and the corresponding figures for Basic Psychology and Applied Psychology are 1.77 and 1.63. 5. The degree of collaboration (calculated using the formula given by Subramanyam) in Psychology as a whole is 0.53. The corresponding figures for Basic Psychology and Applied Psychology are 0.59 and 0.51. 6. USA ranks first by producing 42.28% of cited journals. 7. Most of the cited journals of Psychology (94.54%) are in English language. Conclusion This study demonstrates the degree of author collaboration in the literature of Psychology. In particular, this study reveals a perceptible upward trend of collaborative Psychology research with the results of
ZAFRUNNISHA & PULLAREDDY : AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION IN PSYCHOLOGY 261 these research efforts being reported in all major core Psychology journals. It is concluded that this study indicates towards Collaborative research. The number of collaborative papers indicates that the collaborative nature of research is growing. It can be concluded that the results of this type of study would be appeared to be of great potential in the management of library journal collection. The reasons for collaborative research can be attributed to the interdisciplinary nature of investigations, escalating cost of instrumentation and laboratory facilities and interest of scientists in the same subject fields. References 1. Price Derek J De Solla, Little Science and Big Science.1963. Columbia University press, New York. 2. Fox M F and Faver C A, Independence and co-operation in research, Journal of Higher Education, 55 (1984) 347-359. 3. Balog C, Multiple authorship and authorial collaboration in agricultural research publications. Journal of Research and Communication Studies, 2 (1979) 159-168. 4. Mendenhall Mark and Higbee Kenneth L. Recent trends in Multiple authorship in Psychology. Annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association. 62 nd, Sacamento, CA, April 7-11,(1982). 5. Gladding Samuel T. Multiple authorship in the Personnel and Guidance Journal: A 12 year study. Eric.ed.gov.(1984). 6. Mahapatra B S and Mathias S A, Authoritical collaboration in various disciplines of the Physical Sciences in India: A bibliometric study, Journal of Library and Information Science, 12 (1987) 136-155. 7. Karisiddappa C R, Maheswarappa B S and Shirol M V. Authorship Pattern and Collaborative Research in Psychology. IASLIC Bulletin. 35 (2) (1990) 73-78. 8. Norris S. Authorship pattern in CJNR: 1970-1991. Scientometrics. 28 (2) (1993) 151-158. 9. Nagarajan M, Evaluation of research productivity of the Marine scientists in India: A bibliometric analysis. Chennai. Annamalai University, Ph.D.1995 (Unpublished). 10. Udofia Iton. Bibliometric studies on African tryponosomiasis research literature: A review of authorship pattern, Annals of library and Information Studies, 49 (2002) 45-49 11. Krishna K M and Kumar S, Authorship trends in agricultural research: A bibliometric analysis, SRELS Journal of Information Management, 41 (2004) 229-234. 12. Kannapanwar B U etc, Publishing trends of Indian chemical scientists: A bibliometric study. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 51 (2004) 39-41. 13. Birdar B S and Premalatha R. Bibliometric study of Psychiatric (Alcoholism) literature. Iaslic Bulletin,43(4) (1998) 163-170. 14. Omkaramurthy A, Bibliometric Analysis of Ph.D theses in Geography. S.V.University, tirupati.2006 (Unpublished). 15. Nattar S, Resonance Journal of Science Education: A scientometric Analysis. University News. 47 (34) (2009) 11-14. 16. Smith M, The trend toward multiple authorship in Psychology. Amerecan Psychologist. 13 (1958) 596-599. 17. White Murray J and White K, Geoffery citation analysis of Psychology journals. Amerecan Psychologist. 32,5,(1977) 301-305. 18. Mendenhall Mark and Kenneth L Higbee, Recent trends in Multiple authorship in Psychology. Meeting of th Western Psychological Association, Sacramento,April (1982) 2-10. 19. Wendy J, Herrod and Jef Krishkowski, Thirty one years of Sociolgical Social Psychology: An analysis of papers published in SPQ, 1975-2005. (http://www.allac ademic.com). 20. Young Ding, Schubert Foo and Gobinda Chowdary, A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of Information Retrival. The International Information and Lbrary Review, 30,4, (1998) 367-376. 21. Anthony et al, Bibliometric analysis of psychotherapy research: Performance assessment and position in the journal landscape, Psychotherapy Research, 13,4,(2003) 511-528. 22. James P Johnson and Lisa, Organizational Justice: A bibliometric analysis of 30nyears of research.conference proceedings. Oxford Business and Economics conference programme,uk,(2009) June 24-26. 23. Sangam L Shivappa, Collaborative research in psychology in India:A Scientometric Study, Proceedings of second Berlin workshop on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sep, 1-3 (2000) 177-183. 24. Subramayam K, Bibliometric study of research collaboration: A review, Journal of Information Sciernce, 6 (1982) 33-38. 25. Price. Op. cit.