Explore the vast range of titles available.

We discuss a recently proposed family of statistical network models—relational hyperevent models (RHEMs)—for analyzing team selection and team performance in scientific coauthor networks. The underlying rationale for using RHEM in studies of coauthor networks is that scientific collaboration is intrinsically polyadic, that is, it typically involves teams of any size. Consequently, RHEM specify publication rates associated with hyperedges representing groups of scientists of any size. Going beyond previous work on RHEM for meeting data, we adapt this model family to settings in which relational hyperevents have a dedicated outcome, such as a scientific paper with a measurable impact (e.g., the received number of citations). Relational outcome can on the one hand be used to specify additional explanatory variables in RHEM since the probability of coauthoring may be influenced, for instance, by prior (shared) success of scientists. On the other hand, relational outcome can also serve as a response variable in models seeking to explain the performance of scientific teams. To tackle the latter, we propose relational hyperevent outcome models that are closely related with RHEM to the point that both model families can specify the likelihood of scientific collaboration—and the expected performance, respectively—with the same set of explanatory variables allowing to assess, for instance, whether variables leading to increased collaboration also tend to increase scientific impact. For illustration, we apply RHEM to empirical coauthor networks comprising more than 350,000 published papers by scientists working in three scientific disciplines. Our models explain scientific collaboration and impact by, among others, individual activity (preferential attachment), shared activity (familiarity), triadic closure, prior individual and shared success, and prior success disparity among the members of hyperedges.

This article adds a new case-study to the existing empirical analyses of gender differences in academic journals. The record of South European Society and Politics confirms the established pattern of a gender gap in published output, with its source at the submissions stage. It also reveals gendered preferences with regard to authorship styles, highlighting a pattern of greater individualism and homophily for men and a more collaborative picture for female scholars; in particular, we found that co-authoring increases women’s publication footprint. Moving on to the journal’s gatekeepers, we also discovered gender imbalance. An investigation of rejection rates finds that the predominantly female editorial team made gender-neutral choices during the initial editorial review of submissions, but selected overwhelmingly male referees. While women are less successful than men in the blind peer review process, this is overshadowed by the difference in submission rates. Potential explanations for the latter were considered, including lesser access to academic networks as well as the “impostor phenomenon”, which afflicts women more than men. The article concludes that addressing the journal publishing gender gap requires broader changes in academic life.

The Journal of Construction in Developing Countries (JCDC) is an open-access journal indexed in Scopus that specialises in Building and Construction and Civil Engineering. This article proposes an analysis of the history of publications in the journal that has not been done so far. In this document, we seek to contribute to the knowledge by answering the question: What is the journal’s most influential countries, authors and institutions? A bibliometric analysis is carried out through bibliographic information obtained from Scopus and scientometric tools, which includes annual productivity, authors, countries and the most relevant institutions. The mapping of scientific production visualises the networks of co-occurrence and co-authorship, thus identifying the collaboration networks between authors, countries and institutions. The growth in the number of publications and citations was evidenced over time, which has allowed the journal to be among the best engineering journals in Malaysia and ranked 117 in the Building and Construction area worldwide.

Background: Vietnam and Australia have a long-standing history of collaboration in various fields, notably education, science, and technology. However, the results of this partnership remain indeterminate. Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the current state of research coop-eration between Australia and Vietnam with reference to the following aspects: (1) increase in the number of research publications over time; (2) proportion of open access (OA) publications in total publications; (3) collaboration involving countries other than Australia and Vietnam; (4) funding sources; (5) top institutions; (6) subject areas; and (7) research topics. Methods: Scopus data set was analysed to identify those papers with two or more authors, with at least one author from Australia and at least one from Vietnam. Results: Most (nearly 84%) of research papers arising out of such collaborative research were published between 2014 and 2022 (7020 of the total of 8460 documents), and almost half (49.6%) of those are OA. Besides Australia and Vietnam, the authors of those papers were from other countries as well nor were the agencies that funded the research reported in those papers limited to Australia or Vietnam. Among the countries involved in terms of co-authorship or funding, the United States was the most influential. The institutional collaborations formed three distinct clusters, each with a varying number of members and a different university at the core (Australian in two clusters and Vietnamese in the third). Medicine was the most frequent field of collaborative research, and the most frequent topics were Vietnam, coronavirus disease 2019, and climate change. Conclusions: The findings offer useful insights to policymakers as well as to senior management of academic institutes in Vietnam and Australia. The study also extends our understanding of collaborative research between the Global North and the Global South.

The topic of sustainability has mostly been tied to economic development and environmental protection, yet not much attention has been paid to the need for high problem-solving capacity as this underlines both issues. One of the most straightforward ways to improve problem-solving capacity is to nurture ‘productive and enduring’, i.e., sustainable, scientific communities. The study examines the co-authoring behaviors of 412 Vietnamese social scientists over the 2008–2017 period via social network analysis to determine if these researchers have formed sustainable scientific communities, using Scopus data. The dataset provides an insightful look into the predominant form of collaboration, i.e., co-authorship, within the Vietnamese social science research communities. Through basic network metrics such as density and clustering coefficient, the study hypothesizes that the socially sustainable research communities are those with low clustering and high density. As any scholar's position in a network can be specified by three quantities: the number of publications, connections, and years in research, the distance metrics from the most productive to the rest are computed and compared. The study hypothesizes that if the distance is too large; it reflects the socially unsustainable situation in the network. The results indicate that certain level of social unsustainability exists in social sciences groups in Vietnam. Though the results are only indicative, it has opened up a fertile space for future inquiry into this matter.

The purpose of this research is to provide evidence for decision-makers to realize the potentials of collaborations between countries/regions via the scientometric analysis of co-authoring in academic publications.The approach is that Osaka University, which has set a strategy to become a global campus, is positioned to have a leading role to enhance such collaborations. This research measures co-authoring relations between Osaka University and other countries/regions to identify networks for fostering strong research collaborations.Five countries are identified as candidates for the future global campuses of Osaka University based on three factors, co-authoring relations, GDP growth, and population growth.The main limitation of this study is not being able to use the relations by the former positions of authors in Osaka University, because the data retrieved is limited by the query of the organization name at the first step.The significance of this work is to provide evidence for the university strategy to expand abroad based on the quantity and visualization of trends.With wider practical implementations, the approach of this research is useful in making a strategic roadmap for scientific organizations that intend to collaborate internationally.

All people are vulnerable to having their self-concepts shaped by others. This article investigates that vulnerability using a theory of narrative self-constitution. According to narrative self-constitution, people depend on others to develop and maintain skills of self-narration and they are vulnerable to having the content of their self-narratives co-authored by others. This theoretical framework highlights how vulnerability to co-authoring is essential to developing a self-narrative and, thus, the possibility of autonomy. However, this vulnerability equally entails that co-authors can undermine autonomy by contributing disvalued content to the agent’s self-narrative and undermining her authorial skills. I illustrate these processes with the first-hand reports of several women who survived sexual abuse as children. Their narratives of survival and healing reveal the challenges involved in (re)developing the skills required to manage vulnerability to co-authoring and how others can help in this process. Finally, I discuss some of the implications of co-authoring for the healthcare professional and the therapeutic relationship.

In this paper, we present a framework that aims to support the active participation and collaboration of knowledge workers and engineers in the co-authoring of place-based, cross-cultural and media-rich memories, experiences, stories and narration. To achieve this, the framework proposes a novel approach for facilitating such a participation and collaboration through the semantic integration of data/information and integrated tools that will be both accessible via an open, user-friendly, mobile and knowledge-based platform, emphasizing a low-effort participative and guided co-authoring approach. The presented collaborative and participative approach is expected to foster social cohesion in heterogeneous communities of interest and practice. For the realization of the framework, we propose the implementation of a proof-of-concept system and its evaluation in the socio-cultural group of immigrants and refugees within the context of creating and sharing knowledge related to the physical and digital artifacts of a modern art museum. Our vision for the proposed framework is to introduce new technology for the collaborative authoring of cultural experiences with low effort using an intelligent assistant. Additionally, we envision a Shared Experiences Ecosystem (SEE) that aims to provide media-rich content and tools that will eventually foster the inclusive access of heterogeneous socio-cultural groups to shared experiences, increasing social cohesion in resilient local environments.

The International Collaborative Writing Groups (ICWG) initiative creates a space for ongoing collaboration amongst scholars of teaching and learning who co-author a manuscript on a topic of shared interest. The second ICWG, linked to the 2015 International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Conference in Melbourne, Australia, involved 59 scholars from 11 countries. In this piece, we describe the aims, process, and outcomes for the ICWG, comparing it with the first ICWG in 2012. While international collaboration around a topic of shared interest is generally viewed positively, the realities of collaborating online with limited face-to-face interactions to complete a manuscript can be challenging. We argue, despite such challenges, that ongoing collaboration amongst scholars is vital to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) movement. Drawing on our experience of leading the overall ICWG initiative and our research into participants' experiences, we suggest there are individual dispositions toward collaboration that enrich and enable successful participation in ICWG experiences. We end by highlighting the final products arising from almost two year of collaborative thinking and writing from six groups.

This article outlines an initiative to explore aspects of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) through facilitating international collaborative writing groups (ICWGs) in a year-long process. The principles and methods by which the topics and groups were selected and how the writing process was supported are described, and an initial discussion of the initiative's outcomes and the participants' experience is provided. The article concludes with a brief introduction to the set of papers produced by the groups included in this special issue.