By a senior colleague Opportunity to get to know a colleague Opportunity to be part of a large international or cross-country research Reduction in research costs because of sharing of resources doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633.t006 Valid N 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 Mean 2.43 2.35 1.95 1.61 1.52 1.49 1.48 1.46 1.40 1.32 1.28 .96 Std. Deviation .678 .733 .895 1.003 .972 1.003 .954 1.031 1.043 .931 1.023 .PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,8 /Nutlin-3a chiralMedChemExpress Nutlin (3a) Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associationspapers produced. However, the link between collaboration and quality is often debated. For example, in a study involving two important journals of Academic Librarianship, Hart [38] found no evidence to suggest that co-authorship resulted in better quality articles. The second most important reason for research collaboration, consistent with our study, is `mutual gain of expertise among co-authors’. Collaboration increases scientific credibility, as researchers get a chance to work with other researchers from diverse fields and backgrounds, producing a greater number of works of better quality [10, 39]. When asked about the major reason for collaboration, over 60 of respondents in the study by Melin [21] reported coauthors’ special competence and co-authors’ availability of special data and equipment. Division of labor [21], where authors are in a position to divide their work among themselves, has been cited in our study as the third most important reason why authors collaborate. Division of labor can be very fruitful. For example, if three authors collaborate on a paper, one can focus on the literature review, the other on research design, and yet another on data analyses. In this regard, a respondent commented: `It improves the efficiency of producing a paper and helps produce a better paper, as the work load is shared and each team member focuses on the areas of their strength’ Research collaboration enables the sharing of expertise and exchange of ideas [4, 21]. As more than one person is looking into the quality, accuracy, and meaning of the results, it increases scientific reliability and the probability of success. Another respondent comments: `Complementarity of skills and knowledge between co-authors is the most important decision in choosing collaborators’ `Opportunity to work with co-authors from international institutions’ and `Establishing further networks’ were mentioned as the 4th and 5th top benefits and motivations of research collaboration, respectively. Internationality is fast becoming an essential criterion for research collaborations. A good number of recent studies have shown that international articles are being cited twice as much as locally co-authored papers [40]. Mark Granovetter’s [41] “strength of weak ties” refers to the idea of innovation coming from “outside” (international ties) as opposed to the “strong ties” (local ties) in which authors are situated in. Internationally collaborated projects also tend to provide a diverse and innovative perspective, which might be missed if researchers collaborate only with their local team members. Researchers’ look forward to expanding their research network, as it is good for their research and for establishing their prominence in the research community. This notion takes further strength from the idea of transitivity, a common term in social RDX5791 web networks literature. `Transitivity’ hypothesizes that if researcher A.By a senior colleague Opportunity to get to know a colleague Opportunity to be part of a large international or cross-country research Reduction in research costs because of sharing of resources doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633.t006 Valid N 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 Mean 2.43 2.35 1.95 1.61 1.52 1.49 1.48 1.46 1.40 1.32 1.28 .96 Std. Deviation .678 .733 .895 1.003 .972 1.003 .954 1.031 1.043 .931 1.023 .PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,8 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associationspapers produced. However, the link between collaboration and quality is often debated. For example, in a study involving two important journals of Academic Librarianship, Hart [38] found no evidence to suggest that co-authorship resulted in better quality articles. The second most important reason for research collaboration, consistent with our study, is `mutual gain of expertise among co-authors’. Collaboration increases scientific credibility, as researchers get a chance to work with other researchers from diverse fields and backgrounds, producing a greater number of works of better quality [10, 39]. When asked about the major reason for collaboration, over 60 of respondents in the study by Melin [21] reported coauthors’ special competence and co-authors’ availability of special data and equipment. Division of labor [21], where authors are in a position to divide their work among themselves, has been cited in our study as the third most important reason why authors collaborate. Division of labor can be very fruitful. For example, if three authors collaborate on a paper, one can focus on the literature review, the other on research design, and yet another on data analyses. In this regard, a respondent commented: `It improves the efficiency of producing a paper and helps produce a better paper, as the work load is shared and each team member focuses on the areas of their strength’ Research collaboration enables the sharing of expertise and exchange of ideas [4, 21]. As more than one person is looking into the quality, accuracy, and meaning of the results, it increases scientific reliability and the probability of success. Another respondent comments: `Complementarity of skills and knowledge between co-authors is the most important decision in choosing collaborators’ `Opportunity to work with co-authors from international institutions’ and `Establishing further networks’ were mentioned as the 4th and 5th top benefits and motivations of research collaboration, respectively. Internationality is fast becoming an essential criterion for research collaborations. A good number of recent studies have shown that international articles are being cited twice as much as locally co-authored papers [40]. Mark Granovetter’s [41] “strength of weak ties” refers to the idea of innovation coming from “outside” (international ties) as opposed to the “strong ties” (local ties) in which authors are situated in. Internationally collaborated projects also tend to provide a diverse and innovative perspective, which might be missed if researchers collaborate only with their local team members. Researchers’ look forward to expanding their research network, as it is good for their research and for establishing their prominence in the research community. This notion takes further strength from the idea of transitivity, a common term in social networks literature. `Transitivity’ hypothesizes that if researcher A.
