Abstract
This paper examines impact of gender both on publication productivity and on patterns of scientific collaborations in social sciences in Turkey. The research is based on bibliographic data on national level publications in Turkey. It consists of 7,835 papers written by 6,738 scientists. The findings suggest that (1) there are gender differences at publication productivity, participation, presence and contribution; that (2) there are significantly different tendencies at keeping established co-authorship ties for inter-gender and intra-gender pairs; that (3) there are significant regularities exhibited by coauthor pairs based on each partner author’s publication productivity and findings further show that (4) regularities are different for inter-gender and intra-gender co-authorships. This study contributes to literature by exemplifying an integrated approach to better examine role of gender in scientific collaborations. In addition to descriptive social network analysis methods, it exploits and adopts parametric models from the literature: (1) Social Gestalt theory, a model based on bi-variate distributions of co-author pairs’ frequencies; (2) Lotka’s power law distribution on publication productivity of single authors; (3) Power law distributions of co-author pairs’ frequencies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Turkey is one of the six “Associated countries” in relation to the 27 EU-countries: Croatia, Turkey, Switzerland, Iceland, Israel, Norway.
The following data are taken from “Table 3: Proportion of female academic staff by grade and total, 2007" ([5], p.75), using the data of the first column: “Grade A” , the highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted, mostly full professors. On the first places in the proportion of female academic staff (full professors) are: Romania with 32 % , Latvia with 29 %, Turkey with 28 %, Croatia with 26 %, Bulgaria with 24 %. On the last places are: Malta with 2 %, Luxembourg with 9 %, Ireland and Cyprus with 10 % each and Belgium, Greece and The Netherlands with 11 % each.
It is seen that few female authors opt to use their maiden surname along with new surname after their marriage.
Note that, for a better side view presentation, the middle column, logj dimension is rescaled, that is enlarged. Same views could be obtained from logi, because logN ij values are symmetric for all cases.
See Appendix A in (Kretschmer and Kretschmer 2007).
References
Anderson, T. W. (1994). An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis. New York: Wiley.
Carr, P. L., Pololi, L., Knight, S. & Conrad, P. (2009). Collaboration in academic medicine: Reflections on gender and advancement. Academic Medicine, 84 (10), 1447–1453.
de Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Egghe, L., Goovaerts, M. & Kretschmer, H. (2008). Collaboration and productivity. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 83–89.
European Commission. (2009). She figures 2009: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science. Brussels: European Commission.
Guo H., Kretschmer, H. & Liu, Z. (2008). Distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies of the Journal of Information Technology. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 73–81.
Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2007). Lotka’s distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 308–337.
Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2008). Varying shapes of co-author pairs distributions. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2, 45–61.
Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2009, Invited Keynote Speech). Who is collaborating with whom? Explanation of a fundamental principle: In H. Hou, B. Wang, S. Liu, Z. Hu, X. Zhang, M. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics and 10th COLLNET meeting, 13–16 September 2009, Dalian, China (CD-ROM, unpublished).
Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2012): Who is collaborating with whom in science? Explanation of a fundamental principle. Social Networking, Scientific Research Publishing.
Kretschmer, H., Hoffmann, U. & Kretschmer, T. (2006). Collaboration structures between German immunology institutions, and gender visibility, as reflected in the Web. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 117–126.
Kretschmer, H., Kundra, R., de Beaver, B. D. & Kretschmer, T. (2012). Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics, 93(1), 135–150.
Kretschmer H. & Isidro F.A. (2005). New indicators for gender studies in Web networks. Information Processing and Management, 41(6).
Kyvik, S. & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science Technology and Human Values, 21 (6), 54–71.
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific production. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, 317–323.
Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29 (1), 31–40.
Miller, B. P., Duque, R. & Shrum, W. (2012). Gender, ICTs, and productivity in low-income countries : Panel study. Science Technology Human Values, 37.
Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A. & Parenti, I. V. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H.F. Moed, et al. (Ed.). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 299–314). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131.
Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5200–5205.
Newman, M. E. J. (2005). Power laws, pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323–351.
Morris, S. A. & Goldstein, M. L. (2007). Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: a growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1764–1782.
Ozbilgin, M. & Healy, G. (2004). The gendered nature of career development of university professors: The case of Turkey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 358–371.
Ozel, B. (2012). Link and node analysis of gender based collaborations in Turkish social sciences. In Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 15–19). New York: IEEE/ACM.
Pololi, L. H., Civian, J. T., Brennan, R. T., Dottolo, A. L. & Krupat, E. (2013). Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: Gender matters. A national study. Journal of General Internal Medicine February, 28 (2), 201-207.
Wadhwa, N. K., Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2009). Co-author pairs’ frequencies of the National Physical Laboratory India. COLLNET Proceedings 2009.
Woodward, D. & Ozbilgin, M. (1999), Sex equality in the financial services sector in Turkey and the UK. Women in Management Review, 14(8), 325–332.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H. & Kretschmer, T. Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics 98, 703–723 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y