Visualization of Authorship Pattern and Research Collaborative Measures in Defence Science Journal: A Scientometric Study

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln October 2020 VISUALIZATION OF AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE MEASURES IN DEFENCE SCIENCE JOURNAL: A SCIENTOMETRIC STUDY Dr. P. S. Rajput Neha Kumari Teli MLSU, neha.solanki.udr@gmail.com Naveen Chaparwal MLSU, naveenchhaparwal56@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Rajput, Dr. P. S.; Teli, Neha Kumari; and Chaparwal, Naveen, "VISUALIZATION OF AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE MEASURES IN DEFENCE SCIENCE JOURNAL: A SCIENTOMETRIC STUDY" (2020). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 4323. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4323 VISUALIZATION OF AUTHORSHIP PATTERN AND RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE MEASURES IN DEFENCE SCIENCE JOURNAL: A SCIENTOMETRIC STUDY Dr. P. S. Rajput, Neha Kumari Teli and Naveen Chaparwal Department of Library and Information Science, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Rajasthan Email: drpsrajput@mlsu.ac.in The present study deals with authorship pattern and collaborative measures in Defence Science Journal with a sample of 426 articles published in 5 volumes during the period 20152019. Articles of Defence Science Journal have been referred for data collection and MS-Excel for interpretation of the data.The indicators of collaboration investigated for the data are Degree of Collaboration(DC), Collaborative Index(CI), Co-authorship Network, Collaborative Coefficient(CC) and Modified Collaborative Coefficient (MCC). It was found from the study thatmaximum CC and MCC was 0.68 and 0.69 successively recorded in the year 2019. It is concluded thatthe contributions in this journal from India are slightly more than those from the other countries. Keywords: Scientometric analysis; Authorship pattern; Coefficient Collaboration; Coauthorship Network; Modified Coefficient Collaboration; VOSviewer. Introduction Scientometric technique since its growth in scientific research literature has gained significance in Library and Information Science field. It deals with various aspects of publications and helps to formulate policies.1 Scientometrics, a branch of science was first defined in 1969 by two Russian scholars. Scientometrics investigate and study science processesand deals with quantitative aspect of research among various types of publications.2Scientometrics is "the study of the measurement of scientific and technological progress"3andit may be applied to any discipline to find out its tendency and growth of literature.4 Collaboration allows for effective communication by sharing of competence and other resources.5 Research collaboration is the collective working of researchers towards the commongoal of producing new scientific knowledge.6 Collaborative Measures of collaboration show the pattern towards multiple authorships in a discipline, various studies utilize the mean number of authors per paper, termed as Collaborative Index7 and the proportion of multiple authored papers, called Degree of Collaboration (DC)8 as a measure of the quality of collaboration in a discipline. Literature Review Sudarsana & Baba (2019) did study on “scientometric analysis of global nuclear fuel” during 2000 to 2017. In their study indicated that half of the publications 4166 were published during 2011 to 2017 and consequently the year 2017 had the absolute best number of publications 679 and the most imperative developments in fuel research are from USA, France, South Korea and Germany.9 Verma et al. (2019) conducted study on “authorship and collaboration pattern of the 'Researchers World: Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce” during 2010 to 2017. In their study demonstrated that a total 662 articles were published and highest number of articles 108 (16.31%) were published within the year 2017 and highest 2.24 collaboration index was recorded within the year 2010 and the overall average of collaboration index was 1.92. The highest CC and MCC was 0.43 and 0.45 respectively recorded within the year 2010. Out of 662 articles, the most extreme 386 publications were co-authorship index while 276 publications were single author index.10 Yadav (2019) directed study on “authorship and collaboration pattern in SRELS Journal of Information Management” during 2008 to 2017. In their study a total 578 articles were published. 196 articles were published by single author and rest 386 articles were published by multiple authors. Study also show that the typical collaboration index is 1.86, average collaboration coefficient is 0.36, average degree of collaboration is 0.66, average relative rate of growth is 0.32 and average doubling time is 3.40 during 2008-2017.11 Singh (2017) examines “authorship pattern and collaboration coefficient of India in Biotechnology” research during 2001 to 2016. In their study a total 18918 articles were collected from the Scopus database. Study found that the average number of authors per article for India was 4.92 and collaboration Co-efficient was 0.63 for India. Multi-authored articles were higher in average in the correlation of single-authored articles. The relative growth rate was decreasing, and the average activity index of India was 91.78 during the study period.12 Garg & Dwivedi (2014) directed study on entitle “collaboration pattern in the discipline of Japanese encephalitis”. This study was based on 2074 articles indexed by Science Citation Index which is published by various countries in the discipline of Japanese encephalitis during 19912010. In theirinvestigation the Collaboration was extremely high which is 478 (23%) out of all the distributed articles and 478 (23%) was with global collaboration. USA is the most collaborating nation among all the nations. The examination also indicates that collaboration was increased four times during 2001-2010 as compared to 1991-2000 andthe highest six institutions from India were highly collaborative among all the 17 institutions.13 Objectives of study This study has the following objectives: ❖ To study year volume and issue-wise distribution of the articles published during 2015 to 2019 ❖ To know the authorship pattern of the articles published ❖ To classify the Degree of authors collaboration and Collaboration Index ❖ To recognize Collaborative co-efficient and Modified co-efficient ❖ To detect Doubling time and relative growth rate ❖ To categorize Co-authorship Network Methodology The current investigation depends on the publication in Defence Science Journal (DSJ) during the time of the examination from 2015-2019. Quantitative analyses of data applying scientometric techniques using various scientometric methods are employed DRDO Publication website is usedfor collecting the data. For study 426 research papers have been used for data collection. In this present study following patterns are identified; CC (Collaboration Coefficient), MCC (Modified Collaboration Coefficient), Co-authorship Network, RGR (Relative Growth Rate) and Dt (Doublig Time) of publications and the formulas were used with appropriate tables. The data were analyzed and tabulated with the help of MS-Excel and the VOSviewer software was used for visualization of Co-authorship network. Data Analysis and Interpretation Year, Volume and Issue-wise contribution of paper Table 1- Year, Volume and Issue-wise contribution of paper Vol. Issue-wise No. of Contribution %age of Year No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Contribution 2015 65 11 12 12 12 12 12 71 16.66 2016 66 12 15 12 16 15 16 86 20.18 2017 67 17 15 14 22 15 13 96 22.53 2018 68 15 15 13 13 15 13 84 19.71 2019 69 14 15 16 15 17 12 89 20.89 69 72 67 78 74 66 426 100 Grand total Table 1 reflects the no. of articles published during the period 2015 to 2019. This table also shows the year wise, volume wise distribution of the articles and the percentage of the contribution in each year. From the given table, it is clear that year 2017 has highest no. of articles (96) with highest percentage (22.53%) and year 2015 has lowest no. of articles (71) with lowest percentage (16.66%). Overall, from the total 426 articles, issue no. 4 has published highest articles i.e. 78 and issue no. 6 has published the lowest articles i.e. 66 published. The range of the articles published in all issues is 12 to 22. Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time of Publication Relative Growth Rate (RGR) is a measure to study the increase in number14 of articles over the period and Doubling Time (DT) records15 the time in which quantity doubles in size or value.16 The RGR and DTcan be calculatedby the below formula17: RGR= W2-W1 T2-T1 Where, RGR = Growth Rate over the certain period of thetime, W1 = Log (natural log of the initial number of e-contributions) W2 = Log (natural log of the final number of e-contributions) T1 = unit of initial time T2 = unit of final time There is a direct equivalence between the relative growth rate and doubling.18 if the number of articlesdoubled during a given period, the difference between logarithms19 of numbers at the beginning and end of this period must be logarithms of number 2. If natural logarithms are used this difference has a value of 0.693. In this manner the relating doubling time for each specific period of interval20 and for articles can be determined by the formula. Doubling time = 𝟎.𝟔𝟗𝟑 Ṝ Where Ṝ= Relative Growth Rate Table 2- Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time of Publication Mean R= Cumulative ΣR/N Mean Year Total Paper sum W1 W2 RGR 2015 71 71 0 4.26 0 0 2016 86 157 4.26 5.05 0.79 0.88 2017 96 253 5.05 5.53 0.48 2018 84 337 5.53 5.82 0.29 2.39 2019 89 426 5.82 6.05 0.23 3.01 0.36 Dt ΣDt/N 1.44 1.54 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 RGR 4 Dt 5 Fig.1 - Relative Growth Rate and Doubling Time of Publication Table 2 and Figure 1shows that the RGR and Dt during the research. According to RGR and Doubling time model, the growth rate of publication has been calculated. Highest RGR (0.79) was identified in the year 2016, followed by 0.48 in the year 2017. And the highest Dt was identified in the year 2019 i.e. 3.01, followed by 2.39in the year 2018.Inthe year 2015 RGR and Dt was zero. The Mean of relative growth rate for the periods of 2015 to 2019 was 0.36 and the mean of doubling time was 1.54. Authorship Pattern Table 3- Authorship Pattern More Than Volume Single Two Three Four Five Five No. Year No. Author Author Author Author Author Author Publication 2015 65 2 28 19 8 7 7 71 2016 66 3 23 26 15 10 9 86 2017 67 3 30 23 20 12 8 96 2018 68 3 24 26 12 13 6 84 2019 69 2 15 31 25 7 9 89 Total 13 120 125 80 49 39 426 %age of Author 3.05 28.16 29.34 18.77 11.5 9.15 100 of 450 400 2015 350 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total %age of Author 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Single Author Two Author Three Author Four Author Five Author More Than Five Author No. of Publication Fig. 2- Authorship Pattern Table 3 and figure 2 describe the authorship pattern of articles during the period under study and found that the total number of articles is 426, in which there are 13 (3.05%) single author publications, 120 (28.16%) two authors publications, 125 (29.34%) three authors publications, 80 (18.77%) four authors publications, 49 (11.5%) five authors publication and 39 (9.15%) more than five authors publications. In the year 2017 maximum number of authors published their articles (96). Single author contributions are 3.5%, which is very low, whereas 96.94% are multiple author contributions which are very high. It shows that article publication trend was towards the multiple author approach. Collaboration Measures Degree of Collaboration Table 4- Degree of Collaboration Single Authored Degree Publication Multi Authored Year (Ns) Publication (Nm) Nm+Ns [DC=Nm/(Nm+Ns) 2015 2 69 71 0.97 2016 3 83 86 0.96 2017 3 93 96 0.96 2018 3 81 84 0.96 2019 2 87 89 0.97 Total 13 413 426 0.96 of Collaboration To determine degree of collaboration, the below formula was used. This was suggested by Subramanyam. DC = 𝑵𝒎 𝑵𝒎+𝑵𝒔 Where, DC is the degree of collaboration, Nm is number of multi authored papers, and Ns is the number of single authored papers. DC = 413 =0.96 426 Table 4 shows Degree of Collaboration and it can be observed that average value of DC is 0.96. Under the study the degree of collaboration shows its influence on multi authorship. Co-Authorship Network Fig. 3 - Co-authorship network Figure 4 display the visualization of the Co-authorship network. Network was analyses on the basis of bibliographical data downloaded from dimension (https://app.dimensions.ai)21and after that networks was created with the help of VOSviewer software (https://www.vosviewer.com/)22. The network contains 40 nodes, 148 co-authorship links and 5 clusters. The software analyzes manually defined criteria which is minimum 1 document and citations of an author. Figure the node symbol is represent to author, size is activity of the author, and the curved line between the two authors is represent collaboration relationship between them. The software separates these 41 authors into 5 clusters which from 148 links with a total link strength of 24.50. Author Kumar, Deepak and Sirnivasan, t. both authors have total 19 links with other authors are the leading authors who produced maximum paper in collaboration. Collaborative Index Collaborative Index measures mean number of authors per paper. To calculated collaborative index, the below formula was used by Elango and Rajendran. 23 CI= 𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬 Table 6- Collaborative Index Total Authors of Multi Authored Year Multi Authored Papers Papers CI 2015 69 223 3.23 2016 83 296 3.56 2017 93 336 3.61 2018 81 279 3.44 2019 87 321 3.68 Total 413 1455 3.52 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 CI 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Fig. 4 - Collaborative Index Collaborative Index is presented in table 6 and figure 4.It can be observed that maximum CI 3.68 was recorded in the year 2019 and minimum CI 3.23 was recorded in the year 2015. The average collaborative Index was 3.52 during the period of study. Collaboration coefficient and Modified collaboration coefficient Ajiferuke, Burell and Tague have shown the mean number of authors per publications. According to them the part of multi authorship, as measures of degree of collaboration in a discipline, is inadequate.24In this way; they proposed a measure combining some of the benefits of both measures into a term known as Collaborative Coefficient (CC). The formula for Collaborative Coefficient (CC) is given by Ajiferuke et.al.25 CC = 1‒ ∑𝑘 𝑗=1(1/𝑗)𝑓𝑗 𝑁 Where, fj= number of j-authors research publications published in a discipline during a certain period. N = total number of research papers published in a discipline during a certain period k = greatest number of authors per paper in a discipline. Calculation of Collaborative Coefficient = 1- 𝟏 𝟐 𝟏 𝟐 𝟏 𝒌 𝒇𝟏+( )𝒇𝟐+( )𝒇𝟑+⋯+( )𝒇𝒌 𝑵 Based on the data in table 7Collaborative Coefficient for the year 2019 has been calculated as CC = 1 ‒ 1 2 1 3 1 4 =1‒ 2+7.5+10.33+6.25+1.4+1+0.28+0.07 =1‒ 28.83 = 0.68 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 13 (2 + ( )𝑋15 + ( )𝑋 31+ ( )𝑋 25 + ( )𝑋 7 + ( )𝑋 6 + ( )𝑋 2 + ( )𝑋 1 89 89 89 Similarly, all the data for CC calculated by this formula. Modified collaboration coefficient (MCC) The formula for calculation of MCC is given by Sarvanur and Srikanth26 MCC = 𝐴 {1‒ 𝐴‒1 ∑𝐴 𝑗=1(1/𝑗)𝑓𝑗 𝑁 } The data in table 7 MCC for the year 2019 has been calculated as 89 {1‒ =1.01{1 ‒ 28.83 MCC = 88 89 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 13 (2 + ( )𝑋15 + ( )𝑋 31+ ( )𝑋 25 + ( )𝑋 7 + ( )𝑋 6 + ( )𝑋 2 + ( )𝑋 1 89 } } = 1.01 X 0.68 = 0.69 Similarly, the value of MCC for all the relating year has been calculated. Table 7- Collaboration coefficient and Modified collaboration coefficient More than Single Two Three Four Five Five Year Author Author Author Author Author author Total CC MCC 2015 2 28 19 8 7 7 71 0.63 0.63 2016 3 23 26 15 10 9 86 0.65 0.66 2017 3 30 23 20 12 8 96 0.65 0.66 2018 3 24 26 12 13 6 84 0.65 0.66 2019 2 15 31 25 7 9 89 0.68 0.69 Total 13 120 125 80 49 39 426 0.65 0.65 0.7 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.6 2015 2016 2017 CC 2018 2019 Total MCC Fig. 5 - Collaboration coefficient and Modified collaboration coefficient Table 7 and figure 5 shows the Collaboration coefficient and Modified collaboration coefficient from the study. Highest CC and MCC was 0.68 and 0.69 successively listed in the year 2019. The total Collaboration coefficient (CC) and Modified collaboration coefficient (MCC) was 0.65. Table 8- Country-wise contribution Country No. of contributors % Rank India 1162 79.16 1 China 125 8.52 2 Turkey 25 1.7 3 Czech Republic 23 1.57 4 Israel 20 1.36 5 Serbia 16 1.08 6 Korea 16 0.88 7 Iran 13 0.88 7 Egypt 9 0.61 8 Poland 9 0.61 8 Brazil 8 0.54 9 Russia 7 0.47 10 Mexico 5 0.34 11 Malaysia 5 0.34 11 Spain 5 0.34 11 Macedonia 5 0.34 11 USA 4 0.27 12 Italy 2 0.13 13 Romania 2 0.13 13 Azerbaijan 2 0.13 13 Finland 1 0.06 14 Germany 1 0.06 14 Belgium 1 0.06 14 Vietnam 1 0.06 14 Albania 1 0.06 14 Total 1468 100 Figure 6 display Country-wise contribution27of 1468 authors published 426 articles from different countries. It is analyzed from table 8 and figure 5 that the highest number of contributors 1162(79.16%) belongs to India with 1st rank and 125 (8.52%) contributors are from China, 25 (1.7%) contributors are from Turkey and 23 (1.57%) contributors are from Czech Republic with 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank. From Other countries like Finland, Germany, Belgium, Vietnam and Albania only one author contributed in DSJ with the 14th rank. Findings The Defence science journal published 426 articles during the period (2015-2019) of study. Year, volume and issue wise contribution of papers, RGR and Dt, authorship pattern of articles, Degree of Collaboration, Collaborative Index, CAI, CC and MCC are such as: ✓ It has been found that year 2017 has highest no. of articles 96 (22.53%) and year 2015 has lowest no. of articles 71 (16.66%).Overall, from the total 426 articles, issue no. 4 has highest articles 78 published and in issue no. 6 has lowest articles 66 published. ✓ Relative Growth Rate (RGR) of an article gradually decreases correspondingly the value of Doubling time of the articles (Dt) gradually increases. The maximum RGR and Doubling time was listed in the year 2016 and 2019. ✓ It is analyzed by authorship pattern of papers that 13 (3.05%) of single author, 120 (28.16%) of two author, 125 (29.34%) of three author, 80 (18.77%) of four author, 49 (11.5%) of five author and 39 (9.15%) of more than five author paperwere published during the study period. ✓ The overall degree of collaboration was 0.96 only 13 articles were single authored publications, whereas 413 articles were multi authored publications. ✓ Author Kumar, Deepak and Sirnivasan, t. are the leading authors who produced maximum paper in collaboration. ✓ Highest CC and MCC was 0.68 and 0.69 successively listed in the year 2019. ✓ There was 3.52 average collaborative Index during the period of study. ✓ It is observed that highest number of contributors belong to India with 1162 (79.16%) out of 1468, followed by China with 125 (8.52%) References 1. Rubi G, Research contributions of the Universities of Assam through the prism of web of science a scientrometric study, PhD thesis, Gauhati University, 2019. 2. Garfield Eugene, Scientometrics Comes of Age, Current Contents, 46 (1979) 5-10. 3. Melin G and Persson Olle, Studying research collaboration using co-authorships, Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 363-377. 4. Poonkothai R, Journal of Biosciences: A Scientometric Analysis, International Journal of Librarianship and Administration, 3(2) (2012) 125-133. 5. Garcia Morales V J, Bolivar Ramos M T & Martin Rojas R, Technological variables and absorptive capacity’s influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Research, 67(7) (2014) 1468–1477. 6. Katz J S and Martin B R, What is research collaboration?,Research Policy, 26 (1) (1997) 1– 18. 7. Lawani S M, Quality Collaboration and Citations in Cancer Research: A Bibliometric Study, PhD dissertation, Florida State University, 1980. 8. Subramanyam K, Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review, Journal of Information Science, 6 (1) (1983) 35-37. 9. Sudarsana D and Baba M S, Global nuclear fuel research during 2000 to 2017 : A scientometric analysis, Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66 (2019) 85–93 10. Verma M K, Shukla R and Yadav S K, Authorship Pattern and Collaboration Coefficient of the Researchers World : Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce (RW-JASC) During 20102017, International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 9(2) (2019) 6165. 11. Yadav Sunil, Singh Shyam and Verma Manoj, Authorship and Collaboration Pattern in SRELS Journal of Information Management during 2008-2017 : An Evaluation, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), (2019) 1-15. Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2119. (Accessed on 31 May 2020). 12. Singh Manendra, Authorship and Collaboration Pattern in Biotechnology Research: A study of IBSA Countries, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), (2017). Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1607. (Accessed on 05 June 2020). 13. Garg K C and Dwivedi S, Pattern of Collaboration in the Discipline of Japanese Encephalitis, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34 (3) (2014) 241-247. 14. Alagarsamy V & Ramalingam J, Scientometric methods for the evaluation of hemophilia research, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal), (2018). Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1866. (Accessed on 11 June 2020). 15. Kumar R, Mapping of Mobile Technology Publications: A Scientometric Approach, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34 (4) (2014) 298-303. 16. Mahapatra M, On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature, In Proceedings of the paper presented at National Conference of 15th IASLIC, Bangalore, 1985, p.61-70. 17. Bradford S C, Sources of information on specific subjects, Engineering, 137 (3550) (1934) 85-86. 18. Thavamani K, Bibliometric study of literature on leptospirosis for the period 2006-2013, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal), (2015). Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1253 (Accessed on 21 June 2020). 19. Sivasami K, Medical Waste Research Performance: A Scientomteric Study, International Journal of Scientific Research and Reviews, 7(4) (2018) 1926-1935. 20. Siva N, Vivekanadhan S & Manickaraj J, Scientometric Assessment of Digital Library Research Publication during 2008-2017 using SCOPUS Database, Research Review Journal, 3(10) (2018) 865-870. 21. Dimensions, Available at: https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication (Accessed on 20 April 2020). 22. VOSviewer-Visualizing scientific landscapes, Available at: https://www.vosviewer.com (Accessed on 28 June 2020). 23. Elango B & Rajendran P, Authorship trends and collaboration pattern in the marine sciences literature: A scientometric study, International Journal of Information and Dissemination and Technology, 2(3) (2012) 166-169. 24. G Neelamma & A Gavisiddappa, Authorship Pattern and Collaborative Measures in the Field of Crystallography, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 2018. Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1879. (Accessed on 23 May 2020). 25. AjiferukeIsola, Burell Q and Tague Jean, Collaborative Coefficient: A Single Measure of the Degree of Collaboration in Research, Scientometrics, 14 (5-6) (1988) 421-433. 26. Savanur Kiran and Srikanth R, Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration, Scientometrics, 84 (2) (2010) 365-371. 27. Powered by Bing GeoName, HERE, MSFT, Microsoftfo, Thinkware Extract, Wikipedia (Accessed on 02 May 2020).