A study on the election factors of ACM Fellow based on the co-authorship relationship

Article Sidebar

FULLTEXT
Published: Aug 28, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol28no2.1
Keywords:
Co-authorship studies Academic awards ACM Fellows Association for Computing Machinery Computer science

Main Article Content

Hailing Zhou
School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, CHINA
Xiaole Li
School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, CHINA
Jin Shi
School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, CHINA
Ming Li
School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, CHINA
Lingyun Situ
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, CHINA

Abstract

Most of past researches on successful scientist groups focused on the winners of international top-renowned awards. ACM Fellow as an academic honor of Computing Machinery field was rarely investigated. This article focuses on the research of the relationship between Fellows’ success and their co-authorship characteristics with previous Fellows. We selected a list of ACM Advanced Member Grades from 2015 to 2020 in 4 sub-domains as the empirical object, then set relevant indicators to indicate the cooperative relationship to analyze the relationship between their cooperation with previous Fellows and whether they can successfully be awarded as Fellows according to the correlation analysis and binary logistic regression method. The results show that the existence of a cooperative relationship with the previous Fellow is indeed beneficial to the Fellow candidate's selection. The more previous Fellows a candidate works with, the better chance they have of being elected as a Fellow, but the co-growth fellows are the main factor. Moreover, during the cooperation period, the total amount of the candidates’ own publications and the more their own contributions in the cooperation, the more conducive to success. Our results reflect a possible closing of the Fellowship circle, but also correct for biases about honorary award opportunism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hailing Zhou, Xiaole Li, Jin Shi, Ming Li, & Situ, L. (2023). A study on the election factors of ACM Fellow based on the co-authorship relationship. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 28(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol28no2.1
Issue
Vol. 28 No. 2 (2023): Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science
Section
Articles

It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the journal have not been published, accepted for publication, nor simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the author(s) agree that copyright for the article is transferred to the publisher, if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication.

References

Abbas, A.M. 2011. Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics, Vol. 88, no. 1: 107-131.

Abramo, G., Apponi, F. and D'Angelo, C.A. 2021. Public-private research collaborations: Longitudinal field-level analysis of determinants, frequency, and impact. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 35, no. 5: 1405-1427.

Adegbola, M. 2013. Scholarly tailgating defined: A diverse, giant network. ABNF Journal: official journal of the Association of Black Nursing Faculty in Higher Education, Inc, Vol. 24, no.1: 17– 20.

Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q. and Tague, J. 1988. Collaborative coefficient - a single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, Vol. 14, no. 5-6: 421-433.

Amjad, T., Daud, A., Akram, A. and Muhammed, F. 2016a. Impact of mutual influence while ranking authors in a co-authorship network. Kuwait Journal of Science, Vol. 43, no. 3: 101-109.

Amjad, T., Daud, A., Che, D. and Akram, A. 2016b. Muice: Mutual influence and citation exclusivity author rank. Information Processing & Management, Vol. 52, no. 3: 374-386.

Amjad, T., Ding, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, C., Daud, A., Tang, J. and Song, M. 2017. Standing on the shoulders of giants. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 11, no. 1: 307-323. Available at: doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.004.

Asai, S. 2020. The effect of collaboration with large publishers on the internationality and influence of open access journals for research institutions. Scientometrics, Vol. 124, no. 1: 663-677.

Azoulay, P., Stuart, T. and Wang, Y.B. 2014. Matthew: Effect or fable? Management Science, Vol. 60, no. 1: 92-109.

Barkan, D.K. 1994. Simply a matter of chemistry? The Nobel Prize for 1920. Perspectives on Science, Vol. 2, no. 4: 357-395.

Bavelas, A. 1950. Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 22, no. 6: 725-730.

Björk, R. 2001. Inside the Nobel committee on medicine: Prize competition procedures 1901–1950 and the fate of Carl Neuberg. Minerva, Vol. 39, no. 4: 393-408.

Bordons, M., Gomez, I., Fernandez, M.T., Zulueta, M.A. and Mendez, A. 1996. Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, Vol. 37, no. 2: 279-295.

Borjas, G.J., and Doran, K.B. 2015. Prizes and productivity how winning the fields medal affects scientific output. Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50, no. 3: 728-758.

Chariker, J.H., Zhang, Y.H., Pani, J.R. and Rouchka, E.C. 2017. Identification of successful mentoring communities using network-based analysis of mentor-mentee relationships across Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics, Vol. 111, no. 3: 1733-1749.

Cole, J.R., Cole, S. and Beaver, D.D. 1974. Social stratification in science. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 42, no. 10: 2.

Crawford, E.T. 1984. The beginnings of the Nobel institution: The Science Prizes, 1901-1915. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Egghe, L. 1991. Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing & Management, Vol. 27, no. 2-3: 177-202.

Erfanmanesh, M., and Moghiseh, Z. 2018. How winning an international scientific award affects publishing behavior of Laureates: The case of Derek de Solla Price medal in scientometrics. Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 35, no. 2: 201-212. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s12109-018-9619-7.

Garfield, E., and Welljamsdorof, A. 1992. Of Nobel class - a citation perspective on high-impact research authors .2. (reprinted from theoretical medicine, vol 13, pg 117, 1992). Current Contents, Vol. 35: 4-12.

Gingras, Y., and Wallace, M.L. 2009. Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: A bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the Chemistry and Physics Prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics, Vol. 82, no. 2:401-412. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0035-9.

Han, P., Shi, J., Li, X.Y., Wang, D.B., Shen, S. and Su,X.N. 2014. International collaboration in LIS: Global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics, Vol. 98, no. 1:53-72.

Jalil, P.A., and Boujettif, M. 2005. Some characteristics of Nobel Laureates. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 17, no. 2-3:265-272.

Jenkin, J. 2001. A unique partnership: William and Lawrence Bragg and the 1915 Nobel Prize in physics. Minerva, Vol. 39, no. 4:373-392.

Katz, J.S., and Martin, B.R. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy, Vol. 26, no. 1: 1-18.

Lawani, S.M. 1986. Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific-research. Scientometrics, Vol. 9, no. 1-2: 13-25.

Lee, D.H. 2019. Predicting the research performance of early career scientists. Scientometrics, Vol. 121, no. 3: 1481-1504. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03232-7.

Lee, S., and Bozeman, B. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, no. 5: 673-702.

Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F. and Livan, G. 2019. Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nature Communications, Vol. 10, no. 1: 5170. Available at: doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4.

Liu, M.J., and X. Hu. 2021. Will collaborators make scientists move? A generalized propensity score analysis. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 15, no. 1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101113.

Liu, Y., Zhang, M., Zhang, G. and You, X. 2022. Scientific elites versus other scientists: Who are better at taking advantage of the research collaboration network? Scientometrics. Vol. 127: 3145–3166. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04362-1.

Ma, Y.F. and Uzzi, B. 2018. Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 115, no. 50: 12608-12615.

Matveeva, N., Sterligov, I. and Yudkevich, M. 2021. The effect of Russian university excellence initiative on publications and collaboration patterns. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 15, no. 1: 101-110. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101110.

Melin, G. 2000. Pragmatism and self-organization - research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, Vol. 29, no. 1: 31-40.

Melin, G., and Persson, O. 1996. Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, Vol. 36, no. 3: 363-377.

Mirnezami, S.R., Beaudry, C. and Tahmooresnejad, L. 2020. The effect of collaboration with top-funded scholars on scientific production. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 47, no. 2: 219-234.

Ponomariov, B., and Boardman, C. 2016. What is co-authorship? Scientometrics, Vol. 109, no. 3:1939-1963.

Qi, M.J., Zeng, A., Li, M.H., Fan, Y. and Di, Z.R. 2017. Standing on the shoulders of giants: The effect of outstanding scientists on young collaborators' careers. Scientometrics, Vol. 111, no. 3: 1839-1850.

Shaplen, R. 1964. Toward the well-being of mankind - 50 years of the Rockefeller Foundation. New York, NY.: Doubleday.

Sonnenwald, D.H. 2007. Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 41: 643-681.

Stokols, D., Harvey, R., Gress, J., Fuqua, J. and Phillips, K. 2005. In vivo studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration - lessons learned and implications for active living research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, no. 2: 202-213.

Subramanyam, K. 1983. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration - a review. Journal of Information Science, Vol. 6, no. 1: 33-38.

VanHooydonk, G. 1997. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 48, no. 10: 944-945.

Wagner, C.S., Horlings, E., Whetsell, T.A., Mattsson, P. and Nordqvist, K. 2015. Do Nobel Laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine. PLOS ONE, Vol. 10, no. 7: e0136478.

Waltman, L. 2012. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 6, no. 4: 700-711.

Xu, J., Ding, Y., Song, M. and Chambers, T. 2016. Author credit-assignment schemas: A comparison and analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67, no. 8: 1973-1989. Available at: doi: 10.1002/asi.23495.

Yuret, T. 2022. Network analysis of econometric society fellows. Scientometrics. Vol. 127: 7615–7631. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04271-3.

Zhang, T., Shi, J. and Situ, L. 2021. The correlation between author-editorial cooperation and the author’s publications in journals. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 15, no. 1. Available at: doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101123.

Zheng, J.T., and Liu, N.C. 2015. Mapping of important international academic awards. Scientometrics, Vol. 104, no. 3: 763-791.

Zuckerman, H. 1967. Nobel Laureates in science - patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, no. 3: 391-403.

Zuckerman, H. 1992. The proliferation of prizes - Nobel complements and Nobel surrogates in the reward system of science. Theoretical Medicine, Vol. 13, no. 2:217-231.