111

CHAPTER - IV

SCIENTOMETRIC STUDY OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND

CHEMOTHERAPY JOURNAL

4.1 Introduction

Purpose of present chapter is to measure productivity of scientists as well as

productivity patterns of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Journal.

Evaluating the productivity of institutional research and developmental

activities highlights the contribution of the institution and the individual scientists

engaged in research. It also provides some insights into the complex dynamics of

research activity and enables the science policy makers and science administrators to

make available adequate facilities and direct the research activities in proper direction.

A well known productivity indicator is the number of publications produced by

scientists, institutions, or research groups. Over the years, Bibliometrics and

Scientometric techniques have became tools to evaluate the productivity of research

institutes, individual researchers. Therefore present chapter aims to measure

productivity of scientists in Antimicrobial Agent and Chemotherapy Journal.

Nowadays the Scientometrics studies include mainly the quantitative aspects

of science (in cognitive, as well as in social context), has strengthened its position as a

significant component of the general science of science, and it appears to be a

complete disciplinary field with clearly outlined subjects of research, specific set of

well elaborated research methods and techniques, a significant size of research

community, numerous research institutions, regularly held conferences, etc.

To measure productivity of scientists the collected data has been analyzed

under following parameters, viz.

4.2. Author Productivity;

4.3. Authorship Pattern;

112

4.2 Author productivity

The term author productivity, scientific productivity, publication productivity

and trends of publications are used synonymously. A well known productivity

indicator is the number of publications produced by scientists, institutions, or research

groups. Regarding the author productivity one can say that, author productivity means

“authors productiveness or author’s efficiency in publication”. In other words author

productivity can be explained as the effectiveness of productive efforts to produce

fruitful publication. Scientometric and Bibliometric techniques have become tools to

evaluate the productivity of research institutes, individual researcher, as well as to

map the growth of the research field.

To analyze author productivity following parameters were considered.

4.2.1 Rank list of authors

4.2.1.1 Rank list of authors: Author at any position

4.2.1.2 Rank list of authors: Author at first position

4.2.2 Bradford’s Law

4.2.3 Lotka’s Law

4.2.4 Price square root law of scientific productivity

4.2.5 Year wise productivity and growth of literature

4.2.6 Year wise productivity of Key authors

4.2.7 Gender wise productivity

4.2.7.1 Chi square test

4.2.8 Subject wise productivity

4.2.9 Department wise productivity

4.2.10 Institution wise productivity

4.2.11 Country wise productivity

4.2.1 Rank list of authors

In the age of science, there is competition. Every person has to prove himself

physically, economically and intellectually fit. Intellectual mapping shows the rank of

person.

113

An attempt was made to analyze the total publications of authors writing in

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Journal, to see who is the topper in

publications. The collected data has been analysed under the headings.

• Rank list of authors: Author at any position;

• Rank list of authors: Author at first position.

4.2.1.1 Rank list of Authors: Author at any Position

In antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy journal in all 44119 authors have

contributed 20114 papers, i.e. 2.19 authors per paper and 0.45 papers per author.

Attempt has been further made to rank the authors in the decreasing order of

productivity, which is shown in table no. 4.2.1.1.1.

Table No. 4.2.1.1.1: Rank list of Authors: Author at any position

Rank Authors Total Percentage

1 Appelbaum, Peter.C 156 0.78

2 Courvalin, Patrice.M 133 0.66

3 Nordmann, Patrice 132 0.66

4 Jones, Ronald.N 131 0.65

5 Mitsuhashi, Susumu 123 0.61

6 Drusano, George.L 113 0.56

7 Jacobs, Michael R 112 0.56

8 Neu, Harold.C 106 0.53

9 Clercq, Erik.DE 101 0.5

10 Walsh, Thomas.J 97 0.48

11 Poirel, Laurent 96 0.48

12 Barry, Arthur.L 85 0.42

12 Moellering, Robert.C 85 0.42

13 Thornsberry,Clyde 81 0.4

14 Rybak, Michael J 80 0.4

15 Bergeron, Michel.G 79 0.39

16 Bodey, Gerald.P 77 0.38

16 Carbon, Claude 77 0.38

16 Eliopoulos, George M. 77 0.38

16 Wise, Richard 77 0.38

114

17 Schinazi, Raymond.F 73 0.36

18 Stevens, David.A 72 0.36

19 Bush, Karen 70 0.35

20 Inoue, Matsuhisa 68 0.34

21 Baquero, Fernando 67 0.33

21 Goldstein, Ellie.J.C 67 0.33

21 Graybill, John.Richard 67 0.33

22 Sanders, Christine.C 64 0.32

23 Rinaldi, Michael G 63 0.31

24 Citron, Diane M 62 0.31

24 Pfaller, Michael.A 62 0.31

24 Rossolini, Gian Maria 62 0.31

The table no. 4.2.1.1.1 shows authors from amongst 44119 authors at any

position. Authors only upto 24th

rank have been presented. It was found that

Appelbaum, Peter. C has published maximum, i.e. 156 publications, and is topper

amongst all authors. Courvalin, Patrice.M 2nd

in rank followed by Nordmann, Patrice,

Jones Ronald. N, Mitsuhashi Susumu in 3rd

, 4th

and 5th

rank respectively.

The table no. 4.2.1.1.1 represents authors belonging to Editorial Board in Bold

letters. Eliopulos, George. M is chief editor of this journal. He has published 77

papers at any position. It was observed that from the year 1972 to 2010 the journal

had 554 experts on the editorial board. Of 554 experts, 408 have published 7136

articles in the journal, and i.e. from amongst editorial board 73.65% have published

their papers in the journal. It can be further noted from the table 4.2.1.1.1 that upto

15th

rank, 12 are from the editorial board as well as first two ranked viz. Appelbaum,

Peter. C, Courvalin, Patrice.M are from editorial board. This indicates that “Experts

on editorial board write more papers in the journal” (Hypothesis no. 1) is valid.

4.2.1.2 Rank List of Authors: Author at first position

Attempt was made to arrange the authors appearing at first-position in

decreasing order of productivity in the journal under study, In all there were 11764

authors with 31 ranks, however, the table 4.2.1.2.1 represents only first 16 ranks.

Table No. 4.2.1.1.1: Rank list of Authors: Author at any position Cont…

115

Table No. 4.2.1.2.1: Rank list of Authors: Author at first position

Rank Name of the Authors Total No. of Papers Percentage Cumulative Total of Paper

1 Goldstein, Ellie.J.C 55 0.27 55

2 Neu, Harold.C 54 0.27 109

3 Wise, Richard 47 0.23 156

4 Poirel, Laurent 39 0.19 195

5 Barry, Arthur.L 38 0.19 233

6 Jones, Ronald.N 37 0.18 270

7 Fass, Robert.J 35 0.17 305

8 Pankuch, Glenn A 30 0.15 335

9 Drusano, George L 28 0.14 363

10 Andes, David. R 23 0.11 386

10 Jorgensen, James.H 23 0.11 409

11 Clemons, Karl.V 22 0.11 431

12 Eliopoulos, George M 21 0.1 452

12 Kaatz, Glenn W 21 0.1 473

13 Bayer, Arnold.S 20 0.1 493

13 Fuchs, Peter.C 20 0.1 513

13 Roberts, Marilyn C 20 0.1 533

14 Bergeron, Michel.G 18 0.09 551

14 Graybill, John.R 18 0.09 569

14 Jacoby, George.A 18 0.09 587

14 Pfaller, Michael.A 18 0.09 605

14 Rastogi, Nalin 18 0.09 623

14 Rice, Louis B 18 0.09 641

14 Sanders, Christine.C 18 0.09 659

14 Schinazi, Raymond F 18 0.09 677

15 Barchiesi, Francesco 17 0.08 694

15 Giacometti, Andrea 17 0.08 711

15 Zhanel, George G 17 0.08 728

16 Bodey, Gerald.P 16 0.08 744

16 Clercq, Erik.De 16 0.08 760

16 Ji, Baohong 16 0.08 776

16 Wexler, Hannah M 16 0.08 792

It can be noted from the table 4.2.1.2.1 that from amongst 11764 authors

appearing at first position. Goldstein, Ellie.J.C has published maximum, i.e. 55

publications, is topper amongst all Authors. Neu, Harold.C Stood 2nd

in rank followed

by Wise Richard, Poirel Laurent, Barry Arthur. L in 3rd

, 4th

and 5th

rank repressively.

116

The table 4.2.1.2.1 also shows the authors on editorial board in bold letters.

Eliopulos, George. M is chief editor of this journal. He has published 21 papers at first

position. It was observed that from the year 1972 to 2010 of the total 554 experts

representing editorial board of the journal, 307 having first position in authorship

have published 1645 papers, i.e. 55.42% experts from editorial board have published

their papers having first position in authorship. It can be further noted from the table

4.2.1.2.1 that upto 15th

rank, 19 authors are from editorial board. This indicates that

“Experts on editorial board write more papers in the journals” (Hypothesis no.

1) is valid.

4.2.2 Bradford’s Law

In 1934 Samuel Clement Bradford has formulated the law of Scattering to

describe the distribution of articles on a particular subject in different periodicals. His

article, “Sources of information on specific subject” was the first publication on

observation on scattering. He explained his empirical law as:

“If scientific journals are arranged in order of decreasing productivity of

articles on a given subject, they may be divided into a nucleus of three zones and

succeeding zones will be 1:n: n2.”

In the present set of data number of authors have been arranged in order of

decreasing productivity of articles. They were divided in a nucleus of 3 equal zones.

Which is shown in Table No. 4.2.2.1 Numbers of articles in each zone were more or

less equal, while number authors were increasing in each zone. Which means the data

verbally fits into the Bradford’s law, however, the data does not fit into the Bradford’s

law mathematically, hence attempt has been made to represent the data graphically.

Table No.4.2.2.1: Bradford’s Law of Scattering

Zones No. of Papers No. of Authors

I 6671 1178

II 6671 3916

III 6672 6670

117

Figure No. 4.2.2.1: Bradford’s Law of Scattering

�

Bradford’s graph of cumulative number of papers versus cumulative number

of authors is given here. The rising part of the graph represents the highly productive

authors. The point’s p1, p2, and p3 on graph are the boundaries of three equiproductive

zones in which the same number of articles are covered while number of authors in

each zones are in increasing order.

The attempt was made to test applicability of Bradford’s Law of scattering, as

shown in figure no. 4.2.2.1. The total numbers of 20014 publications of 11764 authors

were divided into 3 equal zones, while number of authors writing similar numbers of

papers in each zone are increasing which indicates that data does not fits into the

Bradford’s law of scattering.

The figure 4.2.2.1 is a graph showing on x axis cumulative number of authors

while on y axis cumulative number of papers & a graph was plotted. From y axis a

perpendicular was drawn on the graph showing three equal zones of papers i.e. Q1P1,

Q2P2, Q3P3: Again from x-axis a perpendiculars were drawn intersecting the points

M1P1, M2P2, M3P3. It can be observed that M1P1 first zone covers 1178 authors, M2P2

118

second zone covers the next 3916 authors and third zone M3P3 covers the rest of the

6670 authors.

According to Bradford, the relationship between the zones is 1: a: a2 while the

relationship in each ones of the present studies is 1178: 3916: 6670 which does not fit

into the Bradford’s distribution mathematically, but data fits into Bradford’s Law

verbally.

4.2.3 Lotka’s Law

Lotka (1926) proposed his ‘Inverse square law of scientific productivity’ for

measuring scientific productivity of authors in a given discipline. It is one of the

earliest studies in the direction of measuring scientific productivity using the number

of publications of an author as a measure. Lotka summarized his law “the number of

persons making two contributions is about one-forth of those making one; the number

making three contributions is about one-ninth etc., the number making ‘n’

contributions is about 1/n2

of those making one; and the proportion of all contributors

who make a single contribution is about 60 percent.”

Lotka’s Law has been widely applied to various disciplines, such as

humanities, Information science, computer science, library science, Indian earth

science, psychology, biochemical literature etc. (Parvathamma, 1993).

An attempt was made to apply the Lotka’s Law to the publications of authors

of Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy journal. Hence the data collected has been

arranged in increasing order of productivity and is presented in Table No. 4.2.3.1.

It can be observed form the table 4.2.3.1 that even though number of authors

writing more papers are decreasing, the productivity distribution of data does not fit

when Lotka’s inverse square law applied to it. Therefore a different procedure was

followed to process the data by calculating the values of exponent by mathematical

method.

The value of �, the productivity constant was determined by using following

formula for the data when full authorship was given only to first authors:

119

Proportion of authors contributing n papers

n�

: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proportion of authors contributing only 1 paper

Where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 …………….55 and � is the productivity constant or

characteristic exponent.

Average value of alpha was found to be 3.65 when proportions were

considered only for the values of n=1.2.3.4, and 5.

Table No. 4.2.3.1: Productivity of authors based on Lotka’s Law

Total No. of Papers Observed No. of Authors Expected No. of Authors

1 8258 8258

2 1899 2064.5

3 727 917.55

4 337 516.125

5 186 330.32

6 97 229.38

7 61 168.53

8 49 129.03

9 33 101.95

10 22 82.58

11 20 68.24

12 19 57.34

13 8 48.86

14 3 42.13

15 13 36.7

16 4 32.25

17 3 28.57

18 8 25.48

19 0 22.87

20 3 20.64

21 2 18.72

22 1 17.06

23 2 15.61

24 0 14.33

120

25 0 13.12

26 0 12.21

27 0 11.32

28 1 10.53

29 0 9.81

30 1 9.17

31 0 8.59

32 0 8.06

33 0 7.58

34 0 7.14

35 1 6.74

36 0 6.37

37 1 6.03

38 1 5.71

39 1 5.42

40 0 5.16

41 0 4.91

42 0 4.68

43 0 4.46

44 0 4.26

45 0 4.07

46 0 3.9

47 1 3.73

48 0 3.58

49 0 3.43

50 0 3.3

51 0 3.17

52 0 3.05

53 0 2.93

54 1 2.83

55 1 2.72

Determination of Estimated Proportion of Authors

Having found the value of �, Lotka’a fraction 1/n�

was summed up for all the

values of N= � applying Euler-Maclauring formula of summation. Then the sum was

used as diviser for 1/n to determine the proportion of the total number of authors who

should be expected to produce n papers (in the case of present study, (n=1, 2, 3,

Table No. 4.2.3.1: Productivity of authors based on Lotka’s Law Cont…

121

4…55). Following formula was used to find the proportions, first the value of S was

calculated by using the formula;

S= �1/n� = �1/n

3.65 = 1.111007146

n=1 n=1

For present study where S=sum of Lotka’s modified ratio for the value of �

=3.65 which is equal to 1.111007146.

The expected number of authors (An) was calculated for present set of data by

using the formula:

1/n�

An= ------- x T

S

Where � is the productivity constant T is total number of authors An is the

total number of expected authors producing n papers.

Where n=1, 2, 3, 4, 5…..55 the values for An are shown in table no. 4.2.3.2

Application of Statistical Tests

After the values of �, S and proportions of authors (An) were determined,

observed and estimated values of the proportions were statistically tested by applying

chi-square test and K.S. Test as shown in table no. 4.2.3.2.

Table No. 4.2.3.2: Productivity Trend: Proportion of Authors

No. of

Contributions

No. of

authors

observed

Observed Sn(X) No. of authors

expected (An) Expected Fo (X) {Fo(x) - Sn(x)} Maximum

1 8258 0.702151178 0.70215 10595.4955 0.900901 0.900901 0.198751

2 1899 0.161465862 0.86362 844.037587 0.071766 0.9726668 0.109050939

3 727 0.061814472 0.92543 192.144825 0.016337 0.9890043 0.063573924

4 337 0.028654026 0.95408 67.2360672 0.005717 0.9947211 0.040636765

5 186 0.015814982 0.9699 29.7769873 0.002532 0.997253 0.027353624

6 97 0.008247598 0.97815 15.3062643 0.001301 0.9985544 0.020407469

7 61 0.005186634 0.98333 8.71993856 0.000741 0.9992958 0.015962263

8 49 0.004166312 0.9875 5.35600278 0.000455 0.9997512 0.012251355

9 33 0.002805884 0.99031 3.48446504 0.000296 1.0000475 0.009741744

10 22 0.001870589 0.99218 2.37203597 0.000202 1.0002492 0.008072841

122

11 20 0.001700536 0.99388 1.67508932 0.000142 1.0003916 0.006514733

12 19 0.001615509 0.99549 1.21929761 0.000104 1.0004953 0.005002897

13 8 0.000680214 0.99617 0.91103912 7.75E-05 1.0005728 0.004400145

14 3 0.00025508 0.99643 0.69463065 5.91E-05 1.0006318 0.004204127

15 13 0.001105348 0.99753 0.53999306 4.59E-05 1.0006777 0.003144693

16 4 0.000340107 0.99787 0.42666138 3.63E-05 1.000714 0.002840863

17 3 0.00025508 0.99813 0.34196583 2.91E-05 1.0007431 0.002614859

18 8 0.000680214 0.99881 0.27757262 2.36E-05 1.0007667 0.001958246

19 0 0 0.99881 0.22786133 1.94E-05 1.0007861 0.00197762

20 3 0.00025508 0.99906 0.18895648 1.61E-05 1.0008021 0.001738606

21 2 0.000170054 0.99923 0.15813239 1.34E-05 1.0008156 0.001581998

22 1 8.50268E-05 0.99932 0.13343768 1.13E-05 1.0008269 0.001508317

23 2 0.000170054 0.99949 0.11345266 9.65E-06 1.0008366 0.00134791

24 0 0 0.99949 0.0971293 8.26E-06 1.0008448 0.001356169

25 0 0 0.99949 0.08368358 7.12E-06 1.0008519 0.001363284

26 0 0 0.99949 0.0725218 6.17E-06 1.0008581 0.001369451

27 0 0 0.99949 0.0631893 5.37E-06 1.0008635 0.001374823

28 1 8.50268E-05 0.99957 0.05533431 4.7E-06 1.0008682 0.001294501

29 0 0 0.99957 0.04868202 4.14E-06 1.0008723 0.001298641

30 1 8.50268E-05 0.99966 0.04301587 3.66E-06 1.000876 0.001217271

31 0 0 0.99966 0.03816375 3.24E-06 1.0008792 0.001220516

32 0 0 0.99966 0.03398786 2.89E-06 1.0008821 0.001223406

33 0 0 0.99966 0.03037704 2.58E-06 1.0008847 0.001225989

34 0 0 0.99966 0.02724101 2.32E-06 1.000887 0.001228305

35 1 8.50268E-05 0.99974 0.02450603 2.08E-06 1.0008891 0.001145362

36 0 0 0.99974 0.02211145 1.88E-06 1.000891 0.001147242

37 1 8.50268E-05 0.99983 0.02000714 1.7E-06 1.0008927 0.001063917

38 1 8.50268E-05 0.99991 0.01815144 1.54E-06 1.0008942 0.000980433

39 1 8.50268E-05 1 0.01650956 1.4E-06 1.0008956 0.00089681

40 0 0 1 0.01505228 1.28E-06 1.0008969 0.00089809

41 0 0 1 0.01375499 1.17E-06 1.0008981 0.00089926

42 0 0 1 0.01259683 1.07E-06 1.0008992 0.000900331

43 0 0 1 0.0115601 9.83E-07 1.0009001 0.000901314

44 0 0 1 0.01062965 9.04E-07 1.000901 0.000902217

45 0 0 1 0.00979255 8.33E-07 1.0009019 0.00090305

46 0 0 1 0.00903764 7.68E-07 1.0009026 0.000903818

47 1 8.50268E-05 1.00008 0.00835534 7.1E-07 1.0009034 0.000819502

48 0 0 1.00008 0.00773732 6.58E-07 1.000904 0.00082016

49 0 0 1.00008 0.00717638 6.1E-07 1.0009046 0.00082077

50 0 0 1.00008 0.00666624 5.67E-07 1.0009052 0.000821337

51 0 0 1.00008 0.00620141 5.27E-07 1.0009057 0.000821864

52 0 0 1.00008 0.00577709 4.91E-07 1.0009062 0.000822355

53 0 0 1.00008 0.00538908 4.58E-07 1.0009067 0.000822814

54 1 8.50268E-05 1.00017 0.00503366 4.28E-07 1.0009071 0.000738215

55 1 8.50268E-05 1.00025 0.00470758 4E-07 1.0009075 0.000653588

11764 1.000255081 11771.67184 1.000906257

Table No. 4.2.3.2: Productivity Trend: Proportion of Authors Cont…

123

The table depicts productivity trend with trend in proportion of authors where

only first authors were considered with exponent value of � = 3.65

Dmax =0.198751

Dmax =�Fo (x) – Sn (x) �= 0.198751

At 0.01 level of significance K-S. static = 1.63 / sqrt (11764) = 0.01503022

Dmax=0.198751>0.01503022

Therefore data does not fit into generalised form of lotka’s law with exponent

value of �=3.65.

4.2.4 Price Square root law of scientific productivity

An attempt was made to analyze distribution of publications of Antimicrobial

agents and chemotherapy journal in increasing order of productivity. The distribution

of authors and their contributions are presented in table no. 4.2.4.1.

It can be observed from table no. 4.2.4.1 that, distribution is characterized by

dispersion of papers over a large number of researchers with low productivity and the

concentration of contributions is in the hands of few highly productive authors. It can

be observed that 70.20% of authors have published 8258 papers, and they represent as

a whole 41.26% of total contributions. On the other hand 29.80% of the total authors

have contributed 11756 papers representing 58.74% of the total papers produced.

Sengupta (1990) has stated the Price Square Root Law as the “Half of the

scientific papers are contributed by the square root of the total number of scientific

authors.” De Solla Price in the article of Gupta, et.al. (1991) states that, “half of the

published research output in any subject should be contributed by highly productive

subject of authors approximately equal to the square root of the total number of

publishing in that area.” This is called Price Square Root Law. Another similar

generalization has been observed and is known as 80/20 rule. This rule states that 80

per cent of the total research papers in any subject field are approximately accounted

by 20 per cent of the most productive authors.

124

An attempt has been made to test these two generalizations on the present

data, which is shown in table no. 4.2.4.2.

Table No. 4.2.4.1: Distribution of publications

Author Total contributionsNo. of Papers

No. Percentage No. Percentage

1 8258 70.20 8258 41.26

2 1899 16.14 3798 18.98

3 727 6.18 2181 10.90

4 337 2.86 1348 6.74

5 186 1.58 930 4.65

6 97 0.82 582 2.91

7 61 0.52 427 2.13

8 49 0.42 392 1.96

9 33 0.28 297 1.48

10 22 0.19 220 1.10

11 20 0.17 220 1.10

12 19 0.16 228 1.14

13 8 0.07 104 0.52

14 3 0.03 42 0.21

15 13 0.11 195 0.97

16 4 0.03 64 0.32

17 3 0.07 51 0.25

18 8 0.03 144 0.72

20 3 0.02 60 0.30

21 2 0.01 42 0.21

22 1 0.01 22 0.11

23 2 0.02 46 0.23

28 1 0.01 28 0.14

30 1 0.01 30 0.15

35 1 0.01 35 0.17

37 1 0.01 37 0.18

38 1 0.01 38 0.19

39 1 0.01 39 0.19

47 1 0.01 47 0.23

54 1 0.01 54 0.27

55 1 0.01 55 0.27

11761 100 20014 100

125

Table No. 4.2.4.2: Applicability of Price’s Square Root Law and 80/20 Rules

Authors No. of Authors No. of Papers Percentage

Square root of Total no. of Authors 108.4481442 1711 8.54

10% 1176.10 6665 33.30

20% 2352.20 9448 47.20

30% 3528.30 11778 58.84

40% 4704.40 12955 64.72

50% 5880.50 14131 70.60

60% 7056.60 15308 76.48

70% 8232.70 16484 82.36

80% 9408.80 17660 88.23

90% 10584.90 18836 94.11

100% 11761 20014 100.00

It can be observed from table no. 4.2.4.2 that, square root of total authors is

108.4481442 contributed 8.54% of the total papers, which is much below 50% as

predicted by De Solla Price. Similarly it is observed that 20% of the authors

contributed only 47.20% of the total papers. This is much below the 80% as predicted

by 80/20 Rule. It can be observed that 30% of the authors contributed 58.84% of the

total papers, and 40% of authors have contributed 64.72% papers, 50% authors

contributed 70.60 while slightly more than 80% of the authors have contributed to

88.23% of the total papers. Which means neither price square root law nor 80/20 rule

fits into the present set of data.

4.2.5 Year wise Productivity: Growth of Literature

Year wise productivity means the productions (publications) of authors

counted chronologically to see most productive year and most productive subject in a

particular year.

1972 was the first publication year; hence the study covers the data from the

year 1972 to 2010 i.e. 39 years time period.

An attempt was made to analyze the year wise productivity of various fifteen

subjects of Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy journal. The total publications of

all 44119 authors were analyzed subject wise and year wise. It is represented in table

no. 4.2.5.1 and figure no. 4.2.5.1.

126

Table No. 4.2.5.1: Year and Subject wise Productivity

Year A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Total

1972 12 10 10 0 10 10 10 10 20 10 47 10 10 10 5 184

1973 5 10 7 0 10 7 5 25 25 25 35 15 50 17 15 251

1974 9 27 7 0 5 27 16 29 30 15 38 17 14 11 27 272

1975 3 7 10 0 15 42 19 15 15 20 37 17 40 48 0 288

1976 0 0 43 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 147 0 356

1977 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 120 0 348

1978 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 108 137 0 362

1979 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 45 0 74 85 35 321

1980 2 7 6 0 15 12 14 17 55 25 116 35 0 10 45 368

1981 0 0 14 0 25 13 15 27 27 17 115 14 14 32 69 382

1982 1 0 0 0 1 35 1 45 2 35 108 3 55 45 66 397

1983 2 33 15 2 25 37 1 0 2 5 117 6 45 36 67 393

1984 1 15 25 0 5 4 15 5 55 25 108 25 26 37 69 415

1985 3 2 37 0 9 15 9 8 35 0 125 15 45 48 55 406

1986 1 3 25 0 6 25 7 9 40 37 99 27 50 56 77 463

1987 1 5 37 0 6 25 18 15 37 34 95 25 48 56 45 447

1988 2 4 30 0 9 20 30 18 29 30 86 27 37 45 55 421

1989 1 5 29 0 8 19 35 25 35 35 85 35 45 44 55 456

1990 2 4 36 0 15 18 19 37 45 1 83 64 55 67 77 523

1991 1 3 30 0 1 33 29 15 1 36 125 45 65 55 88 527

1992 3 15 29 0 55 32 27 15 1 46 88 45 69 47 70 542

1993 2 14 28 0 47 35 29 14 0 1 96 66 70 40 87 529

1994 2 15 38 0 25 37 19 15 14 66 75 69 56 55 66 552

1995 1 10 25 0 20 33 20 19 28 43 100 59 73 58 69 558

1996 1 9 20 0 19 30 19 18 20 47 132 64 74 45 89 587

1997 2 8 19 0 25 35 18 17 19 45 127 50 66 46 70 547

1998 3 65 0 17 2 0 26 0 86 39 165 100 0 0 123 626

1999 0 54 0 12 5 0 20 0 85 45 154 78 0 0 119 572

2000 1 65 0 6 9 0 31 0 101 75 193 69 0 0 100 646

2001 4 66 0 25 3 0 17 0 75 58 188 73 0 0 115 629

2002 3 94 0 3 6 0 15 0 98 53 229 54 0 0 131 686

2003 0 66 0 8 6 0 22 0 108 48 215 57 0 0 151 681

2004 2 112 0 7 16 0 36 0 103 91 242 50 0 0 131 787

2005 5 101 0 4 9 0 25 0 110 89 294 47 0 0 126 836

2006 2 74 0 4 6 0 50 0 95 98 212 32 0 0 105 678

2007 10 103 0 6 7 0 54 0 97 104 199 37 0 0 107 724

2008 6 101 0 6 8 0 40 0 77 58 226 40 0 0 132 694

2009 14 112 0 2 6 0 33 0 97 91 219 126 0 0 125 825

2010 9 108 0 1 7 0 32 0 89 72 201 102 0 0 114 735

116 1327 774 103 446 605 776 398 1781 1519 4857 1598 1404 1397 2880 20014

Analytical Procedures; B= Antiviral Agents; C= Biosynthesis, Chemistry,

Mechanisms of Action and Resistance; D= Biologic response Modifiers;

127

E=Chemistry; Biosynthesis; F=Chemistry, Mechanisms of Action, and Resistance;

G= Clinical Therapeutics; H= Experimental and Clinical Therapeutics;

I= Experimental Therapeutics; J= Mechanisms of Action; K= Mechanisms of

Resistance; L= Pharmacology; M= Pharmacology and Therapeutics;

N= Physiological Effects and Microbial Susceptibility; O= Susceptibility.

Figure No. 4.2.5.1: Year wise Productivity: Year wise distribution

�

It can be observed from table no.4.2.5.1 and figure no. 4.2.5.1 that, most

productive year was 2005, as total productivity in this year was 836, followed by

(825) 2009 and (787) in 2004. As regards the year and subject wise productivity,

Mechanisms of Resistance has produced 294 publications in the year 2005 which is

highest number in year wise publication during 1972 to 2010 time period. The table

No. 4.2.5.1 also reveals that, in the year 2003 Susceptibility has produced 151

publications which are second highest in the year wise publications. The third highest

year wise publications produced in 2005 were by Experimental Therapeutics. It can

be observed from the table no. 4.2.5.1 and figure no. 4.2.5.1 that, the year wise

productivity is increased from 1972 to 2010.

The figure no. 4.2.5.2 reveals that, the Initial growth of articles was very slow

up to the year 1975. From 1976, the next stage of exponential growth started and

continued up to 2005. Year wise growth rate of publications was also calculated

which is shown in table no. 4.2.5.2 and figure no.4.2.5.3

128

Figure No. 4.2.5.2: Year wise productivity: Growth of literature

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

Series1

Table No. 4.2.5.2: Growth rate of publications

Year Total Publications Cumulative Total No. of Paper Growth Rate

1972 184 184 -

1973 251 435 26.69

1974 272 707 7.72

1975 288 995 5.55

1976 356 1351 19.1

1977 348 1699 -2.29

1978 362 2061 3.86

1979 321 2382 -12.77

1980 368 2750 12.77

1981 382 3132 3.66

1982 397 3529 3.77

1983 393 3922 -1.01

1984 415 4337 5.3

1985 406 4743 -2.21

1986 463 5206 12.31

1987 447 5653 -3.57

1988 422 6074 -5.92

1989 456 6530 7.45

1990 523 7053 12.81

1991 527 7580 0.75

1992 542 8122 2.76

1993 529 8651 -2.45

129

1994 552 9203 4.16

1995 558 9761 1.07

1996 587 10348 4.94

1997 547 10895 -7.31

1998 626 11521 12.61

1999 572 12093 -9.44

2000 646 12739 11.45

2001 628 13368 -2.86

2002 686 14054 8.45

2003 681 14735 -0.73

2004 787 15522 13.46

2005 836 16358 5.86

2006 678 17036 -23.3

2007 724 17760 6.35

2008 694 18454 -4.32

2009 825 19279 15.87

2010 735 20014 -12.24

Total 20014

Figure No. 4.2.5.3: Year wise growth rate of publications

-

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

It can be noted from the table no. 4.2.5.2 and figure no. 4.2.5.3 that, there are

ups and downs in growth rate while during the years 1977, 1979, 1983, 1985, 1987,

1988, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, etc. There is negative growth rate.

Table No. 4.2.5.2: Growth rate of publications Cont…

130

4.2.6 Year wise productivity of Key authors

Year wise productivity deals with chronological distribution of publications. It

covers a specific period or time span. Key author means an author who produces more

research papers is called key author or an author who has published ten or more

articles in a year.

Year wise productivity of key author is given in ways two one is author at any

position and second is author at first position.

Year wise productivity of key authors (author at any position)

An attempt was made to analyze the data collected from Antimicrobial Agents

and Chemotherapy Journal, year wise to find out key authors. It was also observed

from the figure no 4.2.6.1 that, Appelbaum Peter. C Who has published 12 (1997), 14

(1998), 10 (2002), 11 (2003), 12 (2004), 11 (2006) and 11 (2009) articles during 1972

to 2010.

However as regards publication of maximum papers during productivity life,

Appelbaum Peter.C is the key author producing in all 156 papers.

Year wise productivity of key authors (author at first position)

It was also observed from the figure no 4.2.6.1 that, Goldstein, Ellie.J.C Who

has published 6 (1999), 5 (2002), 4 (2003) and 5 articles (2006) during 1972 to 2010.

However as regards publication of maximum papers during productivity life,

Goldstein, Ellie.J.C is the key author producing in all 55 papers.

Figure No. 4.2.6.1 Year wise Productivity of Key Authors

131

Table no. 4.2.6.1 shows Appelbaum, Peter.C and Goldstein, Ellie.J.C is key

authors. Most productivity year of Appelbaum is 1998 this year he published 14 articles

followed by 12 (1997), 11 (2003), 11 (2006) at any position. Goldstein’s most productivity

year is 1999 this year he published 6 articles, second most productivity is 1995, 2002, 2006

(5) followed by 4 (2003) at first position.

4.2.7 Gender wise productivity

Attempt has been made to analyze the data by gender of authors which is

presented in table no. 4.2.7.1

Table No.4.2.7.1: Productivity of Authors: Gender wise Distribution

Gender No. of Scientists No. of Publications Percentage

Male 10921 18477 92.32

Female 839 1537 7.68

Totals 11760 20014 100

Data of all Authors was analyzed according to gender. It can be found from

table no. 4.2.7.1 that male authors have published 18477 publications giving 1.69

publications per male authors and female authors have published 1537 publications

giving 1.83 publications per female authors.

There is significant association between gender of authors and productivity.

It is studied by confidence level as computed by chi-square which is shown in table

no. 4.2.7.2

Table No. 4.2.7.2: Productivity of Authors: Chi-Square Test

Gender No. of Authors Expected No. of

Publication

Expected

Male 10921 5880 18477 10007

Female 839 5880 1537 10007

Total 11760 11760 20014 20014

Chi-square Value 8643.42 6.64 14338.14 6.64

Probability (P=0.01) (P=0.01)

132

It can be observed from table no. 4.2.7.2 that the value of chi-Square is � is

3.84 at P=0.05 and it is 6.64 at P=0.01 as obtained value higher than 6.64, it can be

assumed that deviation between observed and expected value is significant hence

observation are not as per expected. Which indicates that, the total number of female

scientists is not reflected by the total contributions they made in academic

publications. However, if we consider per male or female publications, then their

productivity is more or less equal, which confirms the hypothesis “Male and female

scientists produce equal number of publications” (Hypothesis no. 3) is valid.

Roberts, (1990), Sanders, (1977), Giacometti, (2000), Wexler, (1994) found

that male scientists contributed more than the female… this points out that male

authors productivity is higher than the female authors. This may be due to other

responsibilities that female authors have to share in the family apart from their routine

work in the office. It also indicates that hypothesis “Male and female scientists

produce equal number of publications “(Hypothesis no. 3) is valid.

4.2.8 Subject wise productivity

Table no.4.2.8.1 and figure no.4.2.8.1 gives details of the total 20014 articles

analyzed on the subjects.

Table No. 4.2.8.1: Subject wise productivity

Sr. No Subjects Total Percentage

1 Mechanisms of Resistance 4857 24.27

2 Susceptibility 2880 14.39

3 Experimental Therapeutics 1781 8.9

4 Pharmacology 1598 7.98

5 Mechanisms of Action 1519 7.59

6 Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1413 7.06

7 Physiological Effects and Microbial Susceptibility 1397 6.98

8 Antiviral Agents 1327 6.63

9 Clinical Therapeutics 802 4.01

10 Biosynthesis, Chemistry, Mechanisms of Action and Resistance 774 3.87

11 Chemistry, Mechanisms of Action, and Resistance 605 3.02

12 Chemistry; Biosynthesis 443 2.21

13 Experimental and Clinical Therapeutics 398 1.99

14 Analytical Procedures 117 0.58

15 Biologic Response Modifiers 103 0.51

20014 100

133

The figure no. 4.2.8.1 and table no. 4.2.8.1 reveal that 10372 (51.82%) articles

were in the area of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics i.e. Pharmacology,

Physiological Effects and Microbial Susceptibility and Experimental and Clinical

Therapeutics, Biologic response modifiers, 9455 (47.59%) articles were in the area of

Pharmaceutical Medicinal Chemistry i.e. Antiviral Agents, Biosynthesis, Chemistry,

Mechanisms of Action and Resistance, While only 117 (0.58%) articles were in the

area of Pharmaceutical Analysis i.e. Analytical Procedures.

It can be further noted that 99.41% articles were in the area of Pharmacology

& Pharmacotherapeutics and Pharmaceutical Medicinal Chemistry. This indicates that

the hypothesis “Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy is a major forum

exclusively devoted to the subjects Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics and

Pharmaceutical Medicinal Chemistry” (Hypothesis no. 4) is valid.

Figure No.4.2.8.1: Subject wise productivity

134

4.2.9 Department wise productivity

In the table 4.2.9.1 the contribution of papers from different department is

presented.

The department wise productivity is shown in table no.4.2.9.1 It shows that the

highest contributions are Microbiology department 8402 (41.98%) followed by

Pharmacology 7294 (36.44%), Chemistry 2085 (10.42%), Pharmaceutical Science

1532 (7.65%), Biochemistry 481 (2.40) of the total papers. Lowest number of papers

is contributions from the Biotechnology 220 (1.10%).

Table No. 4.2.9.1: Department wise productivity

Department of publication No. of articles Percent of Total

Microbiology 8402 41.98

Pharmacology 7294 36.44

Chemistry 2085 10.42

Pharmaceutical Science 1532 7.65

Biochemistry 481 2.40

Biotechnology 220 1.10

Total 20014 100.00

4.2.10 Institution wise productivity

The contributing authors belong to various institutions: universities, hospitals,

private research centres and government departments, etc. Attempt has been made to

analyse the data by Institution wise productivity. Table 4.2.10.1 analyses that a high

percentage 52.24 percent of the institution wise productivity is drawn from the

Medicine & Health Science. Second in rank is the Pharmacy with a rate of 5.19

percent, Science and Technology is third with 142 (0.71%). As very low, nearly

5.19% of articles were from Pharmacy, it indicates that “Majority of Pharmacist

give input to the Journal” (Hypothesis no. 2) is invalid.

135

Table No. 4.2.10.1: Institution wise productivity

Institution No. of articles Percentage

Medicine & Health Science 10456 52.24

Pharmacy 1038 5.19

Science and Technology 142 0.71

Agriculture 67 0.33

Others 8311 41.53

Total 20014 100

Figure No.4.2.10.1: Institution wise productivity

4.2.11 Country wise productivity

The objective here was to find out where the publication of the literature is

concentrated, and how much each service draws from it own country and from foreign

literature.

Table No. 4.2.11.1: Country wise productivity

Countries of publication No. of articles Percentage

USA 6560 32.78

France 1882 9.40

Japan 1295 6.47

Spain 1148 5.74

Italy 813 4.06

Germany 766 3.83

United Kingdom 723 3.61

Netherlands 634 3.17

Australia 551 2.75

India 20 0.10

Others 5622 28.09

Total 20014 100.00

136

Attempt has been made to analyse the data by country of author. Table

4.2.11.1 analyses that a high percentage 32.78 percent of the literature is drawn from

the USA. Second in rank is the France with a rate of 9.40 percent, Japan is third with

1295 (6.47%) and India is on Fifty four rank with 20 (0.10 %) articles. As the Journal

is published from U.S.A and high percentage nearly 33% of articles were from

U.S.A., it indicates that “authors prefer to publish in the journal which is

published from home town or home country” (Hypothesis no. 5) is partially valid.

4.3 Authorship pattern

The application of statistical techniques to the study of the subject literature

has many dimensions. An example of these statistical techniques is the study of

authorship patterns in a subject literature. This is of primary importance in

understanding the structure of the subject field. In communication system, authors

contributing to a subject field constitute a population. Within this population may

emerge patterns such as single and multiple authorship. Studies in this area of

statistical techniques (Bibliometrics) have made useful discoveries which shed more

light in our knowledge of structure of subject literatures (Subramanyam, 1983). When

two or more authors jointly produce a publication, the act is operationally termed as

collaboration.

Authorship pattern is important for scientists and researchers to know the research

work, hence, authorship pattern of scientific literature was analysed in order to

determine the number of authors (both single and joint collaborative) contributing

their work for analysis and statistical interpretation.

Authorship pattern was analysis to determine the percentage of corporate, single

and multiple authors and the number of anonymous papers.

Following concepts have been used in this section in relation to authorship pattern

viz.

1. Single author 2. Collaborator

3. Authorship credit 4. Principle author

5. Status of authorship 6. Most prolific author

7. Collaboration co-efficient 8. Salton index

9. Equivalence index.

The above terminology can be defined as under.

137

1. Single author

The word single author, single authorship is used synonymously. Single author

is against multi author. Single author means an author who writes an article in

journals or periodicals or writes a book and expresses his own views is called single

author.

2. Collaborator

Collaborative research is one of the characteristics of modern science. “It can

apparently be measured adequately from multiple authorship of papers”. There have

been a number of studies which analysed and interpreted the trends in multiple

authorship, thus indicating the trend towards collaborative research in different

disciplines of Science and Technology.

3. Authorship credit

The credit given to each author of a collaborative paper. Normally each author

figuring in a collaborative paper gets one credit regardless of the position as first or

last in the byline.

4. Principle author

The common author among the authors forming a collaborative group.

(Munnoli and Kalyane, 2003).

5. Status of authorship

The position of the author, i.e. first, second, third, etc. sequence in the byline

of a paper. (Munnoli and Kalyane, 2003).

It is assumed that the first author plays a major role in a research project.

Where international collaboration exists, Indian researchers shoulder different

responsibilities in each case of collaboration, such as a team member or as a team

leader. Mostly, a team leader holds the position of the first author in the research

output and team members hold the subsequent position.

138

6. Most prolific Author

Most prolific author is a collaborator of a principal author, but he produces

more publications than the other collaborators.

7. Collaboration co-efficient

The terms collaboration coefficient and degree of collaboration are used

synonymously. The degree of collaboration was defined as the ratio of the number of

collaborative research papers to the total number of research papers in the discipline

during a certain period of time (Rana and Agarwal, 1994). The extent of degrees of

collaboration in research is measured with the help of the formula derived by

Subramanyam. According to this formula

Nm

C = -------------

Nm + Ns

Where

C= Degree of collaboration in a discipline.

Nm= Number of multiauthored research paper in the discipline published

during a certain period.

Ns = Number of single authored research papers in the discipline published

during the same period.

Collaboration coefficient means the ratio of the number of collaborative papers to

the total number of papers published (Munnoli and Kalyane, 2003).

The degree of collaboration varies from one discipline to another. It is generally

high in the intensely collaborative scientific and technical fields, but low in

humanities in which the lonely scholar, working without the trappings of “big

science” still produces much of the scholarly literature (Garfield, 1979).

Collaboration in research is said to have taken place when two or more

persons work together on a scientific problem or project and effort, both physical and

139

intellectual. Depending upon the types of participants, their status and location, etc.

following possible kinds of collaborations are identified by Subramanyam.

1) Teacher-pupil collaboration;

2) Collaboration among colleagues;

3) Supervisor-assistant collaboration;

4) Researcher-consultant collaboration;

5) Collaboration between or among organizations; and

6) International collaboration.

8. Salton Index

“A Statistical measure of the co-author strength in a cluster. This has been

calculated using the formula

Cij

Sij = ----------------------------------

�Ci * Cj

9. Equivalence Index

A Statistical measure of the linkage/ association between two authors in a

cluster. EI for a pair of authors (a key author and one co-author) has been calculated

using the formula:

(Cij)2

Eij = __________________

Ci * Cj

Where (Ci) and (Cj) are respectively the frequencies of occurrence of the author (i)

and (j).

140

To measure the authorship pattern following parameters were considered, viz.

4.3.1 Year wise authorship

4.3.2 Single Vs Multiple authorship

4.3.3 Department wise authorship

4.3.4 Institution wise authorship

4.3.5 Country wise authorship

4.3.6 Most prolific author

- Salton Index

- Equivalence Index

- Collaboration co-efficient

4.3.7 Status of Authorship

4.3.8 Authorship position of key authors

4.3.1 Year wise authorship pattern

Since this is an era of team research, attempts were made to see the extent to

which the works in the present study are result of collaborations which is shown in

table no. 4.3.1.1.

141

Tab

le N

o.4

.3.1

.1:

Yea

r w

ise

au

thors

hip

patt

ern

Year

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

26

27

28

Tota

l %

1972

15

66

55

27

13

4

2

1

1

184

0.9

2

1973

17

82

87

37

18

5

3

1

1

251

1.2

5

1974

26

96

80

37

22

6

3

1

1

272

1.3

6

1975

23

82

90

49

30

6

6

2

288

1.4

4

1976

31

110

98

69

32

9

4

3

356

1.7

8

1977

33

115

102

58

24

10

4

1

1

348

1.7

4

1978

25

113

104

65

34

18

2

1

362

1.8

1

1979

13

83

89

75

28

16

11

3

1

1

1

321

1.6

0

1980

17

89

109

77

41

20

8

3

3

1

368

1.8

4

1981

16

98

111

87

40

17

8

2

2

1

382

1.9

1

1982

16

85

116

77

57

29

11

4

1

1

397

1.9

8

1983

16

80

110

73

58

35

8

7

2

2

2

393

1.9

6

1984

11

81

106

95

56

36

15

6

4

5

415

2.0

7

1985

15

86

94

85

67

29

11

13

3

3

406

2.0

3

1986

16

88

118

98

68

42

20

9

4

463

2.3

1

1987

19

73

97

93

70

38

26

16

9

6

447

2.2

3

1988

16

86

88

93

58

35

22

12

4

8

422

2.1

1

1989

19

81

110

83

76

39

23

15

4

6

456

2.2

8

1990

16

79

103

118

94

51

27

21

7

7

523

2.6

1

1991

15

85

113

98

85

55

34

25

5

12

527

2.6

3

1992

13

63

110

110

87

62

36

21

19

21

542

2.7

1

1993

15

63

97

90

100

69

43

21

8

23

529

2.6

4

142

1994

17

58

100

111

83

65

39

34

17

28

552

2.7

6

1995

9

49

101

106

104

71

43

28

16

31

558

2.7

9

1996

6

56

97

130

92

71

47

39

16

13

10

2

4

2

1

1

587

2.9

3

1997

8

54

101

81

85

67

55

42

19

12

7

6

2

2

3

2

1

547

2.7

3

1998

6

60

101

109

93

85

59

43

17

18

16

6

1

3

6

2

1

626

3.1

3

1999

9

56

95

99

107

70

48

35

32

8

5

2

4

1

1

572

2.8

6

2000

9

49

87

105

111

105

71

47

23

28

7

2

1

1

646

3.2

3

2001

6

60

77

107

85

95

64

55

41

20

9

5

1

3

628

3.1

4

2002

3

46

76

96

138

102

93

41

41

22

6

12

4

2

2

1

1

686

3.4

3

2003

4

48

96

120

110

97

58

59

31

29

14

7

3

3

1

1

681

3.4

0

2004

6

34

81

110

129

124

112

78

58

30

11

9

3

2

787

3.9

3

2005

4

50

85

132

136

121

134

96

46

21

6

4

1

836

4.1

8

2006

2

48

80

115

106

114

105

62

29

12

2

3

678

3.3

9

2007

2

27

70

100

115

97

122

114

53

13

6

3

1

1

724

3.6

2

2008

34

61

100

159

181

90

40

20

5

4

694

3.4

7

2009

4

32

80

99

252

243

92

22

0

1

825

4.1

2

2010

3

31

88

103

91

115

71

61

47

40

20

17

15

7

6

3

3

3

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

735

3.6

7

Tota

l 535

2703

3702

3576

3176

2363

1580

1059

569

428

124

77

42

25

24

8

7

5

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

20014

100.0

0

%

2.6

7

13.5

1

18.5

0

17.8

7

15.8

7

11.8

1

7.8

9

5.2

9

2.8

4

2.1

4

0.6

2

0.3

8

0.2

1

0.1

2

0.1

2

0.0

4

0.0

3

0.0

2

0.0

2

0.0

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

100.0

0

Tab

le N

o.4

.3.1

.1:

Yea

r w

ise

au

thors

hip

patt

ern

Con

t…

143

The authorship pattern of single, double, and corporate authorship is shown in

table no. 4.3.1.1. It shows that the highest contributions are collaborative papers;

Gradually collaboration is increasing year by year. The table further reveals that

2.67% papers were single authored, 13.51% two authored, 18.50% three authored,

17.87% four authored, 15.87% five authored, 11.81% six authored, 7.89% seven

authored, 5.29% eight authored, 2.85% nine authored, 2.14% ten authored, 0.62%

eleven authored, 0.38% twelve authored, 0.21% thirteen authored, 0.12% fourteen

authored, 0.12% fifteen authored, 0.04% sixteen authored, 0.03% seventeen authored,

0.02% eighteen authored, 0.02% nineteen authored, 0.01% twenty authored which

indicates that collaboration up to 4 authors is prominent. It is further observed that, in

the year wise authorship pattern the highest number of single authored publications

i.e. 34 in the year 2008 and highest number of multiple authors i.e. upto 28 authors

were found in the year 2010, which indicates that “Research is shifting from solo to

team” (hypothesis no. 5) is valid.

4.3.2 Single V/s Multiple authorship

It observed that that in 1972 the percentage of single authored and multi-

authored papers was 2.80 and 0.87 respectively. However, in 2008 the percentage of

single authored papers was 6.36 and that of multi-authored papers increased to 4.21 in

2009. It is very interesting to note here that the trend of research is in favour of team

research. This is because of the advent of multi-authored papers in disciplines of

Science and Technology where such studies can be conducted by a team of

researchers employing specialists from various fields table no. 4.3.2.1 and fig.

no.4.3.2.1.

It is clearly shows that the percentage of multi-authored papers is far more

than that of the single-authored papers. They are 97.33% (multi-authored papers) and

2.67% (single-authored papers) respectively.

144

Table no. 4.3.2.1 Single authored V/s Multi authors

Year single authored multi authored

Papers % Papers % Total papers

1972 15 2.80 169 0.87 184

1973 17 3.18 234 1.20 251

1974 26 4.86 246 1.26 272

1975 23 4.30 265 1.36 288

1976 31 5.79 325 1.67 356

1977 33 6.17 315 1.62 348

1978 25 4.67 337 1.73 362

1979 13 2.43 309 1.59 322

1980 17 3.18 351 1.80 368

1981 16 2.99 366 1.88 382

1982 16 2.99 381 1.96 397

1983 16 2.99 377 1.94 393

1984 11 2.06 404 2.07 415

1985 15 2.80 391 2.01 406

1986 16 2.99 447 2.29 463

1987 19 3.55 428 2.20 447

1988 16 2.99 406 2.08 422

1989 19 3.55 437 2.24 456

1990 16 2.99 507 2.60 523

1991 15 2.80 512 2.63 527

1992 13 2.43 529 2.72 542

1993 15 2.80 514 2.64 529

1994 17 3.18 535 2.75 552

1995 9 1.68 549 2.82 558

1996 6 1.12 581 2.98 587

1997 8 1.50 538 2.76 546

1998 6 1.12 620 3.18 626

1999 9 1.68 563 2.89 572

2000 9 1.68 637 3.27 646

2001 6 1.12 622 3.19 628

2002 3 0.56 683 3.51 686

2003 4 0.75 677 3.48 681

2004 6 1.12 780 4.00 786

2005 4 0.75 833 4.28 837

2006 2 0.37 676 3.47 678

2007 2 0.37 722 3.71 724

2008 34 6.36 660 3.39 694

2009 4 0.75 821 4.21 825

2010 3 0.56 732 3.76 735

535 100.00 19479 100.00 20014

145

Figure No. 4.3.2.1 Single authored V/s Multi authors

4.3.3 Department wise authorship

In the table no. 4.3.3.1 the contribution of authors from different department is

presented below.

The department wise productivity is shown in table no.4.3.3.1. It shows that

the highest contributions are Microbiology department 21337 (48.38%) followed by

Pharmacology 13703 (31.06), Chemistry 4240 (9.61%), Pharmaceutical Science 3272

(7.42%), Biochemistry 1126 (2.55%) of the total papers. Lowest number of papers is

contributions from the Biotechnology 441 (1.00%).

Table No. 4.3.3.1 Department wise authorship

Sr. No. Department of publication No. of articles Percent of Total

1 Microbiology 21337 48.36

2 Pharmacology 13703 31.06

3 Chemistry 4240 9.61

4 Pharmaceutical Science 3272 7.42

5 Biochemistry 1126 2.55

6 Biotechnology 441 1.00

44119 100.00

4.3.4 Institution wise authorship

146

The contributing authors belong to various institutions: universities, hospitals,

private research centres and government departments, etc. Attempt has been made to

analyse the data by Institution wise productivity. Table 4.3.4.1 analyses that a high

percentage 46.47 percent of the institution wise productivity is drawn from the

Medicine & Health Science. Second in rank is the Pharmacy with a rate of 7.66

percent, Science and Technology is third with 357 (0.81%). As very low percentage

nearly 7.66% of articles were from Pharmacy. It indicates that “Majority of

Pharmacist give input to the Journal” (Hypothesis no. 2) is invalid.

Table No. 4.3.4.1 Institution wise authorship

Institution No. of articles Percentage

Medicine & Health Science 20504 46.47

Pharmacy 3380 7.66

Science and Technology 357 0.81

Agriculture 335 0.76

Others 19543 44.3

44119 100

4.3.5 Country wise authorship

A high percentage 14928 (33.81%) of literature is drawn from USA, while

5223 (11.84%) percent of the literature is drawn from the France. Japan is third with

2927 (6.63%) and India is in eighty third rank with a rate of 0.06 percent (25). As the

Journal is published from U.S.A and high percentage nearly 34% of articles were

from U.S.A., it indicates that “authors prefer to publish in the journal which is

published from home town or home country” (Hypothesis no. 5) is partially valid.

Table No. 4.3.5.1 Country wise authorship

Country Total. No. Author Percentage

USA 14928 33.84

France 5223 11.84

Japan 2927 6.63

Spain 2729 6.19

Italy 1626 3.69

Germany 1532 3.47

United Kingdom 1446 3.28

Netherlands 1268 2.87

Table No. 4.3.5.1 Country wise authorship Cont…

147

Australia 1102 2.50

Georgia 1024 2.32

China 744 1.69

Switzerland 700 1.59

Chicago 672 1.52

West Indies 660 1.50

Pennsylvania 640 1.45

Canada 576 1.31

India 25 0.06

Others 6297 14.27

Total 44119 100

4.3.6 Most prolific author

Appelbaum, Peter. C author at any position and Goldstein, Ellie.J.C author at

first position are respectively key authors. (Table no. 4.2.1.1.1 & 4.2.1.2.1)

Attempt was further made to identify most prolific author collaborating with

these key authors, attempt was made to calculate Salton Index, Equivalence Index &

collaboration Co-efficient with most prolific authors i.e. Appelbaum, Peter.C &

Goldstein, Ellie.J.C respectively. (Table no. 4.3.7.1 & 4.3.7.2)

By using data from these tables, Salton Index, Equivalence Index &

Collaboration Co-efficient with most prolific author’s i.e Appelbaum, Peter.C &

Goldstein, Ellie.J.C respectively, were calculated Salton index is 0.76 and 1.55,

Equivalence index is 0.57 and 0.89 and the collaboration coefficient is 0.95 and 0.18

respectively.

4.3.7 Status of Authorship

There is two part of status of authorship collaborator one is author at any

position and second is author at first position.

Author at any position

148

Appelbaum, Peter. C has collaborated with 102 authors till 2010. Which

means be has a cluster of 102 authors of productivity. The publication productivity of

Appelbaum’s research group in decreasing order. (Table no. 4.3.7.1)

It is observed that Jacobs, Michale. R has collaborated with Appelbaum, in

producing maximum number of 100 papers. Ednie, L.M follows next with 21 papers,

Davies, T with 19 papers, Spangler, Sheila.K with 16 papers. Authors collaborated

with Appelbaum, Peter. C only in one paper was 73; two papers each 8; and three

papers each 4 collaborators only.

From the 156 research papers, Appelbaum, Peter.C had 7 single authored

papers. Among multi authored papers he had two authored (11), three authored (48),

four authored (36), and five authored (15), six authored (16), seven authored (10),

eight authored (5), nine authored (6), ten (1), eleven 1 papers.

The total authorship credit for 102 authors count 521, each collaborating

author being given one authorship credit for each paper. Appelbaum Peter. C to his

credit has 29.94 percent of total authorships.

Table No. 4.3.7.1 Authors collaborating with Appelbaum, Peter. C

Sr.No No. of Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

1 Appelbaum, Peter. C 7 11 48 36 15 16 10 5 6 1 1 156

2 Jacobs, Michale. R 16 25 20 9 11 9 10 100

3 Ednie, L.M 4 6 1 3 3 1 2 1 21

4 Davies, T 3 3 6 2 2 2 1 19

5 Spangler, Sheila K 15 1 16

6 Visalli, Melissa A 4 9 1 1 15

7 Hoellamn, Dianne B 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 14

8 Bajaksouzian, S 6 3 2 1 12

9 Lin, Gengrong 4 2 2 1 1 1 11

10 Credito, Kim 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 10

11 Kelly, Linda.M 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 9

12 Bozdogan, Bulent 1 2 1 1 2 2 9

13 Nagai, Kensuke 1 1 1 2 2 7

14 Dewasse, Bonifacio.E 1 3 2 6

15 Clark, Catherine 1 1 1 1 2 6

16 Kosowska, Klaudia 2 2 1 5

Table No. 4.3.7.1 Authors collaborating with Appelbaum, Peter. C Cont…

149

17 Pankuch, Glenn A 1 1 1 1 4

18 Tait-Kamradt, A 1 1 1 3

19 Sutcliffe, J 1 1 1 3

20 Peric, Mihaela 1 1 1 3

21 Bryskier, Andre 1 2 3

22 Urbaskova, Pavla 1 1 2

23

Syrogiannopoulos,

George.A 1 1 2

24 Rattan, Ashok 1 1 2

25 Katopodis, George.D 1 1 2

26 Grivea, Ioanna.N 1 1 2

27 Fasola, E.L 1 1 2

28 Beratis, Nicholas. G 1 1 2

29

Andrasevic, Arjana

Tambic 1 1 2

30 Zilles, Anne 1 1

31 Yamabe, S 1 1

32 Wondranck, L 1 1

33 Windau, Anne 1 1

34 Weigel, Linda. M 1 1

35 Walker, A 1 1

36 Tepes, Nastja K 1 1

37 Tenover, Fred C 1 1

38 Tambic-Andrasevic, A 1 1

39 Tambic, Tera 1 1

40 Stratchounski, Leonid 1 1

41 Storb, R 1 1

42 Souza, Noel. J 1 1

43 Smith, Kathy 1 1

44 Shiman, R 1 1

45 Sheila, K 1 1

46 Schuening, F 1 1

47 Schoenwald, Slavko 1 1

48 Sattler, F.R 1 1

49 Rittenhouse, S.F 1 1

50 Renzi, F.A 1 1

51 Potter, C.K 1 1

52 Plesko, Sanja 1 1

53 Philippon, A 1 1

Table No. 4.3.7.1 Authors collaborating with Appelbaum, Peter. C Cont…

150

54 Petitpas, J 1 1

55 Patel, Mahesh V 1 1

56 Patel, Jean. B 1 1

57 Palavecino, Elizabeth 1 1

58 Ohara, Caroline. M 1 1

59 Oh, Herin 1 1

60 Nicholas, G 1 1

61 Moore, T.D 1 1

62 Meyers, J.D 1 1

63 Mcdougal Linda.K 1 1

64 Mcallister, Sigrid 1 1

65 Matic, Vlatka 1 1

66 Malbruny, Brigitte 1 1

67 Lichtenberger, C 1 1

68 Leclercq, Roland 1 1

69 Kozloy, Roman S 1 1

70 Kotarski, Zdenka 1 1

71 Kolman, Jana 1 1

72 Koeth, L 1 1

73 Killgore, George 1 1

74 Khorakiwala, Habil F 1 1

75 Kalenic, Smilja 1 1

76 Jueneman, Shane. A 1 1

77 Jevitt, Laura 1 1

78 Jafri, Mohammad. A 1 1

79 Hryniewicz, Waleria 1 1

80 Gutmann, L 1 1

81 Gupte, Shrikant V 1 1

82 Graham, T 1 1

83 Edlund, Charlott 1 1

84 Drukalska, Liga 1 1

85 Depardieu, F 1 1

86 Deeg, H.J 1 1

87 Dagan, Ron 1 1

88 Cronan, M 1 1

89 Couturier, Catherine 1 1

90 Courvalin, P 1 1

91 Coquemont, Maolle 1 1

92 Clark, Nancye 1 1

Table No. 4.3.7.1 Authors collaborating with Appelbaum, Peter. C Cont…

151

93 Chugh, Yati 1 1

94 Chatterton, Sheila.A 1 1

95 Chaitram, Jasmine 1 1

96 Canu, Annie 1 1

97 Burch, Daniel. J 1 1

98 Browne, Frederick A 1 1

99 Bogdaovitch, Tatiana 1 1

100 Bhagwat, Sachin. N 1 1

101 Anthony, Lauren 1 1

102 Amin, Nagwa 1 1

Total 7 13 93 111 67 65 48 18 51 8 40 521

Author at first position

Goldstein, Ellie.J.C has collaborated with 60 authors till 2010. Which means

be has a cluster of 60 authors of productivity. The publication productivity of

Goldstein’s research group in decreasing order is depicted in table no. 4.3.7.2.

It is observed that Citron, Diane M has collaborated with Goldstein, Ellie.J.C

in the production of maximum number of 55 papers published. Merriam, C. Vreni

follows next with 34 papers published, Warren, Yumi with 29 papers published,

Tyrrel, Kerin with 28 papers published. Authors collaborated with Goldstein, Ellie.J.C

only in one paper number 34; two papers each number 15; and three papers each

number 2 only.

From the 67 papers published by Goldstein, Ellie.J.C for 55 research papers at

first position which are single authored papers only. He had published 55 single

authored papers. Among multi authored papers he had two authored (2), three

authored (2), four authored (2), and five authored (2), six authored (2), thirteen

authored (1), fifteen 1 papers.

The total authorship credit for 60 authors count 255, each collaborating author

being given one authorship credit for each paper .Goldstein, Ellie.J.C to his credit has

26.27 percent of total authorships.

Table No. 4.3.7.2 Authors collaborating with Goldstein, Ellie.J.C

152

Sr.No Authors 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 13 15 Total

1 Goldstein, Ellie.J.C 55 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 67

2 Citron, Diane M 9 9 4 11 20 1 1 55

3 Merriam, C. Vreni 2 10 20 1 1 34

4 Warren, Yumi 7 19 1 1 1 29

5 Tyrrell, Kerin 8 18 1 1 28

6

Finegold,

Sydney.M 2 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 24

7 Conrads, Georg 1 4 1 6

8 Sutter, Vera.L 1 3 1 5

9 Gerardo, S.H 1 3 4

10 Hudspeth, Marie 3 3

11 Cherubin, C.E 3 3

12 Venezia, R 1 1 2

13 Vagvolgyi, A.E 2 2

14 Snydman, D.R 1 1 2

15 Ruthazer, R 1 1 2

16 Rihs, J 1 1 2

17 Pierson, C 1 1 2

18 Mcdermott, L.A 1 1 2

19 Kwok, Y.Y 1 1 2

20 Jenkins, S 1 1 2

21 Jacobus, N.V 1 1 2

22 Hecht, D.W 1 1 2

23 Harrell, L 1 1 2

24 Gorbach, S.L 1 1 2

25 Gombert, M.E 1 1 2

26 Fernandez, Helen 2 2

27 Yu, V 1 1

28 Stein, Gary E 1 1

29 Stang, Peter.J 1 1

30 Smith, S.M 1 1

31 Shulman, M 1 1

32 Schooley, Sharon 1 1

33 Richwald, G.A 1 1

34 Radhakrishnan, U 1 1

35 Quah, S.E 1 1

36 Peraino, Victoria 1 1

37 Ostovari, M.I 1 1

38 Nesbit, C.A 1 1

39 Mulligan, M.E 1 1

40 Mullane, K 1 1

41 Miyasaki, K.T 1 1

42 Miller, M 1 1

43 Meilbohm, Anne. R 1 1

44 Ma, M.Y 1 1

45 Lu, Shuang 1 1

46 Louie, T 1 1

47 Lewis, R.P 1 1

48 Golan, Y 1 1

Table No. 4.3.7.2 Authors collaborating with Goldstein, Ellie.J.C Cont…

153

49 Ginsberg, B.P 1 1

50 Friedman, M.H 1 1

51 Eng, R.H 1 1

52 Elgourt, Tanya 1 1

53 Donskey, C 1 1

54 Claros, M.C 1 1

55 Buccini, F 1 1

56 Bryskier, Andre 1 1

57 Brazier, J.S 1 1

58 Anderson, M.S 1 1

59 Alpert, M.L 1 1

60 Agyare, E.O 1 1

Total 55 10 28 12 61 103 6 8 12 15 255

4.3.8 Authorship position of key authors

There is two part of authorship position of key authors one is authorship

position of key authors at any position and second is authorship position of key

authors at first position.

Authorship position of key authors (at any position)

For any researcher, the authorship position changes from paper to paper. In

some papers he may be the first author, in some others his position may be second,

third, fourth and so on.

Table No. 4.3.8.1 Appelbaum’s Authorship Position

Publications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

Single author 7 7

Two author 8 8

Three author 42 42

Four author 1 1 34 36

Five author 1 2 14 17

Six author 1 1 16 18

Seven author 1 1 9 11

Eight author 1 5 6

Nine author 6 6

Ten author 1 1 2

Eleven author 1 1 1 3

Total 7 11 48 36 15 16 10 5 6 1 1 156

154

Table no. 4.3.8.1 depicts Appelbaum, Peter.C position as author in all his

papers. He is the first or primary author in 156 papers, second author in 11 papers,

third author in 48 papers, fourth author in 36 papers, five authors in 15 papers, six

authors in 16 papers, seven authors in 10 papers, eight authors in 8 papers, nine

authors in 6 papers, ten and eleven author in 1 paper each.

Authorship position of key authors (at first position)

Goldstein, Ellie.J.C (author at first position) is the first or primary author for

55 papers, second to sixth author for 1 paper each and thirteenth and also fifteenth

author for 1 paper each. Which means Goldstein is at first position in single authored

papers only.

Table No. 4.3.8.2 Goldstein’s Authorship Position

Publications 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 15 Total

Single author 55 55

Two author 2 02

Three author 2 02

Four author 2 02

Five author 2 02

Six author 2 02

Thirteen author 1 01

Fifteen author 1 01

Total 55 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 67

4.4 Conclusion

Present chapter has analysed contents of the “Antimicrobial Agents and

Chemotherapy Journal” by using various scientometric tools & techniques.

Conclusions and Implications based on the analysis are presented in chapter-5.