Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900

  title={Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900},
  author={Vincent Larivi{\`e}re and Yves Gingras and Cassidy R. Sugimoto and Andrew Tsou},
  journal={Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology},
This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self‐citations. A similar trend is also… 
Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields
The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom, and solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field.
The effect of collaborators on institutions’ scientific impact
The benefit of collaboration varies based on the type of collaborators, institutions, papers, citers and the publication year of cited documents, and the effect of collaboration decreases as the institutions level of impact increases.
Analyzing the influence of prolific collaborations on authors productivity and visibility
This work analyzes how the most prolific collaboration tie of an established researcher influences their productivity and visibility metrics when their works also coauthored by their prolific collaborators are not considered.
Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations
Investigating national collaboration strategies, with a focus on research leadership—measured through corresponding authorship—and its relationship with scientific impact shows that countries with higher R&D investments are more scientifically independent, and confirms that international collaboration is positively related to citation impact.
On the development of China’s leadership in international collaborations
Analysis at the individual, institutional, and country level show that while average team size by paper increases over the period, the main collaboration mode remains bilateral at the country level, and Chinese-led international collaborations tend to imply smaller teams and have lower impact than non-leading collaborations.
The Effect of Scientific Collaboration on CSCW Research: A Scientometric Study
This work measures the correlation between a set of features related to the influence of collaboration types on the number of citations as well as the geographical distribution of the accumulated contribution to the CSCW literature to represent a starting point to demonstrate how the study of scientific collaboration can partly explain the variations in the numbers of citations, frequency of papers, and topics addressed.
Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration
An explicit definition of a new indicator of stability, based on the year-to-year publication output of collaborations, is provided and how it can be used alongside other similar indicators, such as persistence, to better understand the nature of scientific collaboration is outlined.
Gender Diversity in Research Teams and Citation Impact in Economics and Management
The aim of this paper is twofold:1)contribute to a better understanding of the place of women in Economics and Management disciplines by characterizing the difference in levels of scientific


The effect of university–industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: the Canadian case, 1980–2005
Previous research on university-industry collaboration in Canada, using mean impact factors as a proxy, concluded that the scientific impact of such research is not inferior to that of university
Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies
The main objective of this paper is to analyse if the number or weight of actors in scientific communication has increased, if patterns of documented scientific communication and collaboration have changed in the last two decades and if these tendencies have inflationary features.
Effects of international collaboration and status of journal on impact of papers
The results of the analyses show that the effects of the two factors differ among the fields, including the possibility that differences are the result of Slovenia’s science policy.
The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results
Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, it is proved that higher rates of self-citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as ‘impact amplifier’.
A macro study of self-citation
This study investigates the role of self-citation in the scientific production of Norway (1981-1996) and finds that 36% of all citations represent author self-Citations, however, this percentage is decreasing when citations are traced for longer periods.
How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model
How the impact (average citations per paper) varies with different types of collaboration is explored to demonstrate that collaborating with an author from the home institution or another domestic institution increases the average impact by approximately 0.75 citations.
Strength and weakness of national science systems: A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns
This study has focused on long term developments of various types of scientific publishing, and the field-normalized impact generated by these various types, and on first authorship, within the international cooperation output.
Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries
Mapping scientific cooperation at the country level reveals that Western countries situated at the core of the map are extensively cooperating with each other and high-impact institutions are significantly more collaborative than others.