The increasing prevalence of large research teams in contemporary science has prompted an investigation into the trends of team size in library and information science (LIS). In this study, we analysed 103,299 LIS publications written by 129,560 unique authors between 2000 and 2020 sourced from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) data sets. We conducted a temporal analysis from multiple dimensions, including journal quartiles, research topics and researchers with varying impact levels. In addition, we employed two multivariate linear regression models – with and without author fixed effects – to scrutinise the relationship between team size and publication impact. Our findings reveal continuous growth in LIS team size. Notably, publications in higher-quartile journals tend to have larger teams; the team size of technical topic publications is generally larger than that of theoretical topic publications; and researchers with a higher h-index are able to assemble larger teams. Although we observed that co-authored papers have a higher average citation impact than single-authored papers, the overall positive impact of team expansion on citation growth is not always significant within the common LIS team size range (three to six authors). Our research suggests that indiscriminately increasing the size of a team may not be a prudent decision.
ZengAShenZZhouJ, et al. The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems. Phys Rep2017; 714: 1–73.
2.
JonesBF. The burden of knowledge and the ‘death of the renaissance man’: is innovation getting harder?Rev Econ Stud2009; 76(1): 283–317.
3.
BloomNJonesCIVan ReenenJ, et al. Are ideas getting harder to find? Am Econ Rev2020; 110(4): 1104–1144.
4.
ChuJSEvansJA.Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci2021; 118(41): e2021636118.
5.
WuchtySJonesBFUzziB.The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science2007; 316(5827): 1036–1039.
6.
FortunatoSBergstromCTBörnerK, et al. Science of science. Science2018; 359(6379): eaao0185.
7.
WuLWangDEvansJA.Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature2019; 566(7744): 378–382.
8.
ZengAFanYDiZ, et al. Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci2022; 119(33): e2207436119.
9.
GazniASugimotoCRDidegahF.Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2012; 63(2): 323–335.
10.
WagnerCSWhetsellTALeydesdorffL.Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics2017; 110(3): 1633–1652.
11.
PuuskaHMMuhonenRLeinoY.International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines. Scientometrics2014; 98(2): 823–839.
12.
AmanV.How collaboration impacts citation flows within the German science system. Scientometrics2016; 109(3): 2195–2216.
13.
AdamsJ.The fourth age of research. Nature2013; 497(7451): 557–560.
14.
Guerrero BoteVPOlmeda-GómezCde Moya-AnegónF.Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2013; 64(2): 392–404.
15.
LarivièreVGingrasYArchambaultÉ.Canadian collaboration networks: a comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics2006; 68(3): 519–533.
16.
ArdanuyJ.Scientific collaboration in library and information science viewed through the web of knowledge: the Spanish case. Scientometrics2012; 90(3): 877–890.
17.
AsubiaroT.How collaboration type, publication place, funding and author’s role affect citations received by publications from Africa: a bibliometric study of LIS research from 1996 to 2015. Scientometrics2019; 120(3): 1261–1287.
18.
JonesBFWuchtySUzziB.Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science2008; 322(5905): 1259–1262.
19.
Van RijnsoeverFJHesselsLK. Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy2011; 40(3): 463–472.
20.
FernandesJMMonteiroMP.Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications. Scientometrics2017; 110(2): 529–539.
21.
HanPShiJLiX, et al. International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics2014; 98(1): 53–72.
22.
ZhuNLiuCYangZ.Team size, research variety, and research performance: do coauthors’ coauthors matter?J Informetrics2021; 15(4): 101205.
23.
LundBShamsiA.Women authorship in library and information science journals from 1981 to 2020: Is equitable representation being attained?J Inform Sci2021; 49: 1–9.
24.
ThelwallMMaflahiN.Small female citation advantages for US journal articles in medicine. J Inform Sci2022; 48(1): 106–117.
25.
LuCZhangCXiaoC, et al. Contributorship in scientific collaborations: the perspective of contribution-based byline orders. Inf Process Manage2022; 59(3): 102944.
26.
LevittJMThelwallM.Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2009; 60(3): 434–442.
27.
BlochCRyanTKAndersenJP.Public-private collaboration and scientific impact: an analysis based on Danish publication data for 1995–2013. J Informetrics2019; 13(2): 593–604.
28.
FranceschetMCostantiniA.The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. J Informetrics2010; 4(4): 540–553.
29.
GazniADidegahF.Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics2011; 87(2): 251–265.
30.
HartRL.Collaboration and article quality in the literature of academic librarianship. J Acad Librarianship2007; 33(2): 190–195.
31.
BornmannL.Does the normalized citation impact of universities profit from certain properties of their published documents – such as the number of authors and the impact factor of the publishing journals? A multilevel modeling approach. J Informetrics2019; 13(1): 170–184.
32.
KatzJSMartinBR.What is research collaboration?Res Policy1997; 26(1): 1–18.
33.
LiuYWuYRousseauS, et al. Reflections on and a short review of the science of team science. Scientometrics2020; 125(2): 937–950.
34.
ChangYW.Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors. Scientometrics2018; 116(3): 1589–1613.
35.
ZengAFanYDiZ, et al. Fresh teams are associated with original and multidisciplinary research. Nat Hum Behav2021; 5(10): 1314–1322.
36.
LiuMJaiswalABuY, et al. Team formation and team impact: the balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration. J Informetrics2022; 16(4): 101337.
37.
BouabidHAchachiH.Size of science team at university and internal co-publications: science policy implications. Scientometrics2022; 127: 6993–7013.
38.
HaeusslerCSauermannH.Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: the role of team size and interdisciplinarity. Res Policy2020; 49(6): 103987.
39.
NewmanME.Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc Natl Acad Sci2004; 101(Suppl_1): 5200–5205.
40.
YanEDingYMilojevićS, et al. Topics in dynamic research communities: an exploratory study for the field of information retrieval. J Informetrics2012; 6(1): 140–153.
41.
FranceschetM.Collaboration in computer science: a network science approach. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2011; 62(10): 1992–2012.
42.
IbanezABielzaCLarranagaP.Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009. Scientometrics2013; 95(2): 689–716.
43.
LarivièreVGingrasYSugimotoCR, et al. Team size matters: collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2015; 66(7): 1323–1332.
44.
DidegahFThelwallM.Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. J Informetrics2013; 7(4): 861–873.
45.
HorwitzSKHorwitzIB.The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. J Manag2007; 33(6): 987–1015.
46.
ChenSArsenaultCLarivièreV.Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?J Informetrics2015; 9(4): 1034–1046.
47.
FanLWangYDingS, et al. Productivity trends and citation impact of different institutional collaboration patterns at the research units’ level. Scientometrics2020; 125(2): 1179–1196.
48.
PolyakovMPolyakovSIftekharMS.Does academic collaboration equally benefit impact of research across topics? The case of agricultural, resource, environmental and ecological economics. Scientometrics2017; 113(3): 1385–1405.
49.
NiPAnX.Relationship between international collaboration papers and their citations from an economic perspective. Scientometrics2018; 116(2): 863–877.
50.
WangXHuangMWangH, et al. International collaboration activity index: case study of dye-sensitized solar cells. J Informetrics2014; 8(4): 854–862.
51.
BornmannLSchierHMarxW, et al. What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?J Informetrics2012; 6(1): 11–18.
52.
ShenHXieJLiJ, et al. The correlation between scientific collaboration and citation count at the paper level: a meta-analysis. Scientometrics2021; 126(4): 3443–3470.
BornmannL.How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative analysis of the literature. Res Eval2014; 23(2): 166–173.
55.
BornmannLWilliamsR.An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better. Scientometrics2020; 124(2): 1457–1478.
56.
KangDKangTJangJ.Papers with code or without code? Impact of GitHub repository usability on the diffusion of machine learning research. Inf Process Manage2023; 60(6): 103477.
57.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci2005; 102(46): 16569–16572.
58.
ThelwallMWilsonP.Regression for citation data: an evaluation of different methods. J Informetrics2014; 8(4): 963–971.
59.
AllisonPDLongJSKrauzeTK.Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. Am Sociol Rev1982; 47(5): 615–625.
60.
SekaraVDevillePAhnertSE, et al. The chaperone effect in scientific publishing. Proc Natl Acad Sci2018; 115(50): 12603–12607.
61.
OsórioABornmannL.On the disruptive power of small-teams research. Scientometrics2021; 126(1): 117–133.
62.
KleinJTFalk-KrzesinskiHJ.Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: framing promotion and tenure practices and policies. Res Policy2017; 46(6): 1055–1061.
63.
AlShebliBKRahwanTWoonWL.The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nat Commun2018; 9(1): 5163.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
