The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What do we measure by co-authorships?
Abstract
Interviews with scientists about the content and reward of collaborations, and classification of contributions of co-authors and scientists cited in acknowledgements, identified six types of research collaborations with distinct patterns of rewards; showed that about half of the collaborations are invisible in formal communication channels because they are not rewarded; and showed that about one third of the collaborations are rewarded only by acknowledgements.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Socio-Bibliometric Mapping of Intra-Departmental Networks
Mählck, P., & Persson, O. (2000) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1005661208810 · Cited by 73
Cited by
Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23266 · Cited by 484
Koseoglu, M. A. (2016) · BRQ Business Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001 · Cited by 242
Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., González-Albo, B., & Díaz-Faes, A. A. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.001 · Cited by 131
The relationship between research performance and international collaboration in chemistry
Kato, M., & Ando, A. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1011-y · Cited by 75
Morris, S. A., & Goldstein, M. L. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20661 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Laudel, G.
- Venue
- Research Evaluation
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-04-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-15
- ISSN
- 0958-2029 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-5449
- OpenAlex
- W2053964603
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
