(a) those who work together on the research project throughout its duration or for a large part of it, or who make frequent or substantial contribution; (b) those whose names or posts appear in the original research proposal ~9; (c) those responsible for one or more of the main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental de- sign, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data 20 writing up the results in a paper).

putative criteria for distin- guishing 'collaborators' from other researchers.

one possibility would be to include as a 'collaborator' anyone providing an input to a particu- lar piece of research. However, this weak definition of collaboration would bring in such large numbers of collaborators that it would be too unwieldy for all practical purposes.

A.E. Nudelman and C.E. Landers, 1972, The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 333, American Sociologist 7, 9.

Using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, Nudel- man and Landers [48] found that for the case of a three-author article the first author received 75% of the intellectual credit of a single-author paper, the second author 62% and the third author 58%. Thus, a three-author paper would be given a total of nearly twice the credit of a single-author paper.

They found that scientific output as mea- sured by publications is closely dependent on the frequency of collaboration among authors.

high productivity (in terms of published output) is indeed correlated with high levels of collaboration [1-4,24,30,51,52,58,60].

A pioneering insight into the productivity of sci- entists was provided by Lotka in 1926--an insight since confirmed by numerous others. He showed that the number of authors producing n papers is propor- tional to 1/n 2 [32]. Thus, the number of researchers producing just one paper in a given period of time is two orders of magnitude greater than the number of researchers producing 10 papers in the same time and four orders of magnitude greater that the number producing 100 papers. Lotka's findings have led some investigators to ask if prolific authors tend to collaborate more than less prolific authors.

We also show that co-authorship is no more than a partial indicator of collaboration

ependingon the participants, the following kinds of col-laboration can be identified:

(6) International col/ahoralÍon. International col-laborative behaviour among scientists has beenstudied by Frame and Carpenter [6]. The degree ofcollaboration was found to be higher in basicfields of science (such as physics, mathematics,and chemistry) than in applied fields (such asengineering and technology, clinical medicine andbiomedical research). Frame and Carpenter fur-ther found that(a) the extent of international collaboration wasinversely proportional to the size of a country’sscientific enterprise, and(b) extra-scientific factors such as geography,politics, and language, played a strong role indetermining who collaborates with whom in theinternational scientific community.

5) Collaboration between organizations. Scien-tists and engineers employed in different organiza-tions often collaborate on research projects ofmutual interest. Such collaboration may be spurredby informal contacts or prior acquaintance of theresearchers. It is also possible that when a scientistleaves an organization and joins another, he or shemay carry on an unfinished research project in thenew organization with the continued collaborationof former colleagues. Inter-organizational col-laboration may also be necessitated by a commun-ity of concerns (as between two government agen-cies) or by the complexity of a research project, orwhen researchers in one organization may need touse expensive equipment or specialized serviceavailable at another organization. According torecent data published by the U.S. National ScienceFoundation, research collaboration between in-dustries and academic institutions has been gradu-ally increasing [ 1 1 J.

upert1isor- assistant collaboration. Earlierstudies on the sociology of science, for example, byCole and Cole [5], have shown the existence of astratified structure within the scientific commun-ity. In research projects requiring extensive use oflaboratory facilities or very specialized equipment,the principal investigator is often assisted by anarray of laboratory assistants and technicians.

(2) Collaboration among colleagues. It is a verycommon practice in corporate research centers fora number of colleagues to be working on one ormore projects, each contributing expertise in adifferent aspect of the project. In interdisciplinaryfields such as environment, energy, or space re-search, scientists and engineers from a wide varietyof specialities often collaborate. It is not uncom-mon for chemists, chemical engineers, materialsengineers, biophysicists, and other specialists to beworking together in an interdisciplinary project.Husband-and-wife teams can also be included inthis category.

( 1 ) Teacher-pupil collaboration. This is a verycommon mode of collaboration in an academicsetting. The professor in a university departmentprovides the ideas and guidance, and sometimesalso the funds from a research grant, and theresearch assistant or student does most of thebench work. The resulting project report, con-ference paper, or journal article usually carries thenames of both the professor and the student. It isnot uncommon for a professor to be guiding severalstudents in different research projects at the sametime

Bibliometric studies of research collaboration:A review

Friedlander argues that for digital humanities to thrive, "one component must be a set of organizational topics and questions that do not bind research into legacy categories and do invite interesting collaborations that will allow for creative cross-fertilization of ideas and techniques and then spur new questions to be pursued by colleagues and students"  [Friedlander 2009, 6]. As she suggests, the digital humanities need to move beyond large numbers of small, uncoordinated projects. Collaborative projects attract more resources and more attention. If properly designed, they also may be more sustainable, creating platforms on which new projects can be constructed. The plethora of boutique digital humanities projects risks the same fate as most digital learning objects. While intended for general use, they lack a common technical platform, common data structures, and common means to aggregate or decompose modules to a useful level of granularity [Borgman et al. 2008].

Does mega-authorship threaten our concept of authorship in science? It would be easy, and fun, to write with a scandalized tone about how mega-authorship corrupts all that is good and decent about scientific publishing. But does it really matter? I think both yes and (mostly) no.

What to do when your coauthor doesn’t return your calls.

Of course, they will most likely all be co-authored pieces, but the significant point is that the REF rules, except in special cases, impose no penalty on genuinely co-authored work; they explicitly state that it is welcomed. In most cases, there is no disadvantage in submitting a co-authored item to the exercise (although there is some complication when co-authors submit in the same return); it is not as if it counts as half an output or less.

he case for more collaborative work can be made. Indeed, most of us do it already, to some degree. We tend to discuss our ideas with colleagues and seek trusted opinions. We present talks at conferences and seminars, and use the feedback to develop ideas before publication. We solicit comments on drafts. Colleagues share a research environment that, if it is effective, contributes to the quality of all output. Yet when the work appears, the standard model is still sole ownership. A colleague could have given a lot of input, discussing ideas or providing comments on early drafts, yet their accepted reward is only to appear in the list of acknowledgements. This seems a paltry return on what can be a considerable amount of effort, an effort that is obviously a degree of collaboration. Perhaps one tries to mitigate the paltry reward by extracting a reciprocal amount of uncredited assistance in return.

Typically, authors can write something better together than they could have produced alone.

Combination acts

In some domains, path-breaking work is nec-essarily the outcome of collaborative activity rather thanindividualistic scholarship, a fact reflected in the modestproportion of federal research funds which is allocated toindividual investigators rather than teams. Collaborationsare a necessary feature of much, though by no means all,contemporary scientific research.

Researching the chosen issue

If, at the dawn of the web, I was to take a list of things the web would bring about and show them to a researcher, they might disagree on the level of interest people would have in things (what’s with the cat pictures, spaceman?) but there’d be little there to surprise them except for one item: the most used reference work in the world will be collaboratively maintained by a group of anonymous and pseudonymous volunteers as part of a self-organizing network.

We are naturally creative and curious. We just have to build systems that nurture our inherent abilities. Schools do not do that.

You don’t have to do everything yourself!

inevitably, to academics working as part of a team

“open” as in students can modify it

The Open Badges discussion forum, started by the Badge Alliance is a great place to discuss this course and connect with the worlwide badges community!

instructional arrangement s where children work together to plan, draft, revise, and edit their compositions

collaboration

to interact and collaborate with others.

I first discovered the power of collaborative annotation

Sixty percent of those surveyed said too little emphasis is placed on collaborations with other learners outside the classroom, while 46 and 40 percent, respectively, said there should be more emphasis on group achievement and working in teams. The two soft skills respondents said were important most often were problem solving, at 96 percent, and the ability to collaborate, at 95 percent.

The blog post in which Ben Balter proposes that term was unpublished when I read it. But since the blog is hosted on a public GitHub repository I could not only read the post in draft form but also follow the discussion with invited reviewers and observe how that discussion influenced the draft.

MR LEE expanded our external space, by being a principled advocate of collaboration, based on long-term interests.

I BM GroupTalk

Implementing a common collaboration system would require effort. Exploiting the e-mail common denominator requires none.

Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.

Collaborate for God's sake!: EVERY organization dealing with data is dealing with these problems. And governments need to work together on this. This is where open source presents invaluable process lessons for government: working collaboratively, and in the open, can float all boats much higher than they currently are. Whether it's putting your scripts on GitHub, asking and answering questions on the Open Data StackExchange, or helping out others on the Socrata support forums, collaboration is a key lever for this government technology problem.

What intrigued me when I first walked into Neil’s living room was the concept of a collaboration- driven ethos , although at the time I had no idea what those words mean

Researchers view curation as a collaborative activity and collective responsibility.