The Rise of Co-Authorship in Social Work Scholarship: A Longitudinal Study of Collaboration and Article Quality, 1989–2013

This study examined two issues critical to the social work research enterprise: (i) trends in authorship within disciplinary social work journals and (ii) the relationship between the number of authors and article quality, as measured via dissemination in high-impact journals. Data for the study wer...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The British journal of social work 2017-12, Vol.47 (8), p.2201-2216
Hauptverfasser: Victor, Bryan G., Hodge, David R., Perron, Brian E., Vaughn, Michael G., Salas-Wright, Christopher P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2216
container_issue 8
container_start_page 2201
container_title The British journal of social work
container_volume 47
creator Victor, Bryan G.
Hodge, David R.
Perron, Brian E.
Vaughn, Michael G.
Salas-Wright, Christopher P.
description This study examined two issues critical to the social work research enterprise: (i) trends in authorship within disciplinary social work journals and (ii) the relationship between the number of authors and article quality, as measured via dissemination in high-impact journals. Data for the study were collected from original articles (N = 33,330) harvested from eighty disciplinary journals between 1989 and 2013. The results indicate the mean number of authors per article increased from 1.67 in 1989 to a high of 2.39 in 2013. The share of sole-authored articles dropped from roughly 60 per cent in the early 1990s to 35 per cent in 2013. Co-authorship became the norm in 2002, with the median number of authors increasing to two. Finally, the relationship between mean authorship per article and journal quality was significant (r s = 0.35). The results imply that tenure and promotion standards that privilege sole authorship may be outdated and that social workers seeking to create and disseminate scholarship in high-impact journals may benefit from developing collaborative networks.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/bjsw/bcw059
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2196657744</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26612982</jstor_id><oup_id>10.1093/bjsw/bcw059</oup_id><sourcerecordid>26612982</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-3c20a32ceb54199f3459b0f2756f74572e616faf1674f8b4a698be2d2fd6fe373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0M9LwzAUwPEgCtbpybMQELxIXX6nOY7iLxgIbqK3kGYJbZ1LTVqG_72bFa-e3uF9eA--AJxjdIORotOqTdtpZbeIqwOQYSaKnAj6dggyhBjPKUbkGJyk1CKEJEc4A2xZO_jcJAeDh2XIZ0Nfh5jqpoPNBi6Cbcwavob4Dhe2DmvzszoFR96skzv7nRPwcne7LB_y-dP9Yzmb55Zi1ufUEmQosa7iDCvlKeOqQp5ILrxkXBInsPDGYyGZLypmhCoqR1bEr4R3VNIJuBzvdjF8Di71ug1D3OxeaoKVEFxKxnbqelQ2hpSi87qLzYeJXxojvc-i91n0mGWnr0Ydhu4feDHCNvUh_lEiBCaqIPQbBEJrqw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2196657744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Rise of Co-Authorship in Social Work Scholarship: A Longitudinal Study of Collaboration and Article Quality, 1989–2013</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Victor, Bryan G. ; Hodge, David R. ; Perron, Brian E. ; Vaughn, Michael G. ; Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Victor, Bryan G. ; Hodge, David R. ; Perron, Brian E. ; Vaughn, Michael G. ; Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined two issues critical to the social work research enterprise: (i) trends in authorship within disciplinary social work journals and (ii) the relationship between the number of authors and article quality, as measured via dissemination in high-impact journals. Data for the study were collected from original articles (N = 33,330) harvested from eighty disciplinary journals between 1989 and 2013. The results indicate the mean number of authors per article increased from 1.67 in 1989 to a high of 2.39 in 2013. The share of sole-authored articles dropped from roughly 60 per cent in the early 1990s to 35 per cent in 2013. Co-authorship became the norm in 2002, with the median number of authors increasing to two. Finally, the relationship between mean authorship per article and journal quality was significant (r s = 0.35). The results imply that tenure and promotion standards that privilege sole authorship may be outdated and that social workers seeking to create and disseminate scholarship in high-impact journals may benefit from developing collaborative networks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0045-3102</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-263X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcw059</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Authorship ; Co authorship ; Collaboration ; Dissemination ; Longitudinal studies ; Social privilege ; Social work ; Social work research ; Social workers ; Tenure</subject><ispartof>The British journal of social work, 2017-12, Vol.47 (8), p.2201-2216</ispartof><rights>The Author 2016</rights><rights>The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved. 2016</rights><rights>The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-3c20a32ceb54199f3459b0f2756f74572e616faf1674f8b4a698be2d2fd6fe373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-3c20a32ceb54199f3459b0f2756f74572e616faf1674f8b4a698be2d2fd6fe373</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26612982$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26612982$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1583,27922,27923,30997,33772,58015,58248</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Victor, Bryan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hodge, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perron, Brian E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaughn, Michael G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</creatorcontrib><title>The Rise of Co-Authorship in Social Work Scholarship: A Longitudinal Study of Collaboration and Article Quality, 1989–2013</title><title>The British journal of social work</title><description>This study examined two issues critical to the social work research enterprise: (i) trends in authorship within disciplinary social work journals and (ii) the relationship between the number of authors and article quality, as measured via dissemination in high-impact journals. Data for the study were collected from original articles (N = 33,330) harvested from eighty disciplinary journals between 1989 and 2013. The results indicate the mean number of authors per article increased from 1.67 in 1989 to a high of 2.39 in 2013. The share of sole-authored articles dropped from roughly 60 per cent in the early 1990s to 35 per cent in 2013. Co-authorship became the norm in 2002, with the median number of authors increasing to two. Finally, the relationship between mean authorship per article and journal quality was significant (r s = 0.35). The results imply that tenure and promotion standards that privilege sole authorship may be outdated and that social workers seeking to create and disseminate scholarship in high-impact journals may benefit from developing collaborative networks.</description><subject>Authorship</subject><subject>Co authorship</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Dissemination</subject><subject>Longitudinal studies</subject><subject>Social privilege</subject><subject>Social work</subject><subject>Social work research</subject><subject>Social workers</subject><subject>Tenure</subject><issn>0045-3102</issn><issn>1468-263X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0M9LwzAUwPEgCtbpybMQELxIXX6nOY7iLxgIbqK3kGYJbZ1LTVqG_72bFa-e3uF9eA--AJxjdIORotOqTdtpZbeIqwOQYSaKnAj6dggyhBjPKUbkGJyk1CKEJEc4A2xZO_jcJAeDh2XIZ0Nfh5jqpoPNBi6Cbcwavob4Dhe2DmvzszoFR96skzv7nRPwcne7LB_y-dP9Yzmb55Zi1ufUEmQosa7iDCvlKeOqQp5ILrxkXBInsPDGYyGZLypmhCoqR1bEr4R3VNIJuBzvdjF8Di71ug1D3OxeaoKVEFxKxnbqelQ2hpSi87qLzYeJXxojvc-i91n0mGWnr0Ydhu4feDHCNvUh_lEiBCaqIPQbBEJrqw</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Victor, Bryan G.</creator><creator>Hodge, David R.</creator><creator>Perron, Brian E.</creator><creator>Vaughn, Michael G.</creator><creator>Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>The Rise of Co-Authorship in Social Work Scholarship</title><author>Victor, Bryan G. ; Hodge, David R. ; Perron, Brian E. ; Vaughn, Michael G. ; Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-3c20a32ceb54199f3459b0f2756f74572e616faf1674f8b4a698be2d2fd6fe373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Authorship</topic><topic>Co authorship</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Dissemination</topic><topic>Longitudinal studies</topic><topic>Social privilege</topic><topic>Social work</topic><topic>Social work research</topic><topic>Social workers</topic><topic>Tenure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Victor, Bryan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hodge, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perron, Brian E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaughn, Michael G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>The British journal of social work</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Victor, Bryan G.</au><au>Hodge, David R.</au><au>Perron, Brian E.</au><au>Vaughn, Michael G.</au><au>Salas-Wright, Christopher P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Rise of Co-Authorship in Social Work Scholarship: A Longitudinal Study of Collaboration and Article Quality, 1989–2013</atitle><jtitle>The British journal of social work</jtitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2201</spage><epage>2216</epage><pages>2201-2216</pages><issn>0045-3102</issn><eissn>1468-263X</eissn><abstract>This study examined two issues critical to the social work research enterprise: (i) trends in authorship within disciplinary social work journals and (ii) the relationship between the number of authors and article quality, as measured via dissemination in high-impact journals. Data for the study were collected from original articles (N = 33,330) harvested from eighty disciplinary journals between 1989 and 2013. The results indicate the mean number of authors per article increased from 1.67 in 1989 to a high of 2.39 in 2013. The share of sole-authored articles dropped from roughly 60 per cent in the early 1990s to 35 per cent in 2013. Co-authorship became the norm in 2002, with the median number of authors increasing to two. Finally, the relationship between mean authorship per article and journal quality was significant (r s = 0.35). The results imply that tenure and promotion standards that privilege sole authorship may be outdated and that social workers seeking to create and disseminate scholarship in high-impact journals may benefit from developing collaborative networks.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/bjsw/bcw059</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0045-3102
ispartof The British journal of social work, 2017-12, Vol.47 (8), p.2201-2216
issn 0045-3102
1468-263X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2196657744
source Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Authorship
Co authorship
Collaboration
Dissemination
Longitudinal studies
Social privilege
Social work
Social work research
Social workers
Tenure
title The Rise of Co-Authorship in Social Work Scholarship: A Longitudinal Study of Collaboration and Article Quality, 1989–2013
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T23%3A06%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Rise%20of%20Co-Authorship%20in%20Social%20Work%20Scholarship:%20A%20Longitudinal%20Study%20of%20Collaboration%20and%20Article%20Quality,%201989%E2%80%932013&rft.jtitle=The%20British%20journal%20of%20social%20work&rft.au=Victor,%20Bryan%20G.&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2201&rft.epage=2216&rft.pages=2201-2216&rft.issn=0045-3102&rft.eissn=1468-263X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcw059&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26612982%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2196657744&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26612982&rft_oup_id=10.1093/bjsw/bcw059&rfr_iscdi=true