Sara Rovira-Esteva, Javier Franco Aixelá, Christian Olalla-Soler
{"title":"《翻译研究》中合著者的文献计量学研究","authors":"Sara Rovira-Esteva, Javier Franco Aixelá, Christian Olalla-Soler","doi":"10.7764/ONOMAZEIN.47.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main aims of this article are, on the one hand, to gain a better understanding of co-authorship practices in Translation Studies (TS) by examining how they have evolved over time and, on the other, to find out whether there is a citation advantage for co-authored works. Most of the data used for this study have been retrieved from BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation), containing over 69,000 TS records. The analysis covering 54 years has focused on parameters including the percentage of co-authored documents versus single-authored, co-authored contributions by document type, evolution of co-authorship over time, mean \nnumber of authors per contribution, citations of co-authored vs. single-authored documents, or the ratio of international cooperation in TS. In order to complement the bibliometric analysis, we also weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of co-authorship taking a more qualitative approach. Our data yield the following interesting results. Firstly, the number of co-authored documents and the number of citations accrued by co-authored documents are on the increase. Secondly, there is a slight co-authorship citation advantage in the case of journal articles. Thirdly, the average number of authors is nowadays higher in TS as compared \nwith other disciplines in Humanities. Fourthly, the ratio of international collaboration is rather poor, below 10%. Our findings represent an initial insight into the evolution and current situation of co-authorship in TS, and hopefully it might prove inspiring and a valuable starting point not only for future research, but also for research assessment policies that should be permeable to new trends in publication patterns in TS.","PeriodicalId":44966,"journal":{"name":"Onomazein","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A bibliometric study of co-authorship in Translation Studies\",\"authors\":\"Sara Rovira-Esteva, Javier Franco Aixelá, Christian Olalla-Soler\",\"doi\":\"10.7764/ONOMAZEIN.47.09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The main aims of this article are, on the one hand, to gain a better understanding of co-authorship practices in Translation Studies (TS) by examining how they have evolved over time and, on the other, to find out whether there is a citation advantage for co-authored works. Most of the data used for this study have been retrieved from BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation), containing over 69,000 TS records. The analysis covering 54 years has focused on parameters including the percentage of co-authored documents versus single-authored, co-authored contributions by document type, evolution of co-authorship over time, mean \\nnumber of authors per contribution, citations of co-authored vs. single-authored documents, or the ratio of international cooperation in TS. In order to complement the bibliometric analysis, we also weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of co-authorship taking a more qualitative approach. Our data yield the following interesting results. Firstly, the number of co-authored documents and the number of citations accrued by co-authored documents are on the increase. Secondly, there is a slight co-authorship citation advantage in the case of journal articles. Thirdly, the average number of authors is nowadays higher in TS as compared \\nwith other disciplines in Humanities. Fourthly, the ratio of international collaboration is rather poor, below 10%. Our findings represent an initial insight into the evolution and current situation of co-authorship in TS, and hopefully it might prove inspiring and a valuable starting point not only for future research, but also for research assessment policies that should be permeable to new trends in publication patterns in TS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Onomazein\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Onomazein\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7764/ONOMAZEIN.47.09\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Onomazein","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7764/ONOMAZEIN.47.09","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
本文的主要目的是,一方面,通过研究合作作者的实践如何随着时间的推移而演变,更好地理解翻译研究(TS)中的合作作者实践,另一方面,找出合作作者的作品是否存在引用优势。本研究使用的大部分数据来自BITRA (Bibliography of interpretation and Translation),其中包含69,000多条TS记录。该分析涵盖了54年,主要关注的参数包括合著文献与单个合著文献的百分比、按文献类型划分的合著文献贡献、合著文献随时间的演变、每篇论文的平均作者数量、合著文献与单个合著文献的被引次数,或TS中的国际合作比例。我们还采用更定性的方法来衡量合作作者的利弊。我们的数据产生了以下有趣的结果。首先,合著文献的数量和被合著文献累计引用的次数呈增加趋势。其次,在期刊文章中存在轻微的共同作者引用优势。第三,与其他人文学科相比,科技学科的平均作者人数更高。第四,国际合作比例较低,不足10%。我们的研究结果代表了对TS中共同作者的演变和现状的初步洞察,希望它不仅可以为未来的研究提供启发和有价值的起点,而且可以为研究评估政策提供一个有价值的起点,这些政策应该能够渗透到TS出版模式的新趋势中。
A bibliometric study of co-authorship in Translation Studies
The main aims of this article are, on the one hand, to gain a better understanding of co-authorship practices in Translation Studies (TS) by examining how they have evolved over time and, on the other, to find out whether there is a citation advantage for co-authored works. Most of the data used for this study have been retrieved from BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation), containing over 69,000 TS records. The analysis covering 54 years has focused on parameters including the percentage of co-authored documents versus single-authored, co-authored contributions by document type, evolution of co-authorship over time, mean
number of authors per contribution, citations of co-authored vs. single-authored documents, or the ratio of international cooperation in TS. In order to complement the bibliometric analysis, we also weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of co-authorship taking a more qualitative approach. Our data yield the following interesting results. Firstly, the number of co-authored documents and the number of citations accrued by co-authored documents are on the increase. Secondly, there is a slight co-authorship citation advantage in the case of journal articles. Thirdly, the average number of authors is nowadays higher in TS as compared
with other disciplines in Humanities. Fourthly, the ratio of international collaboration is rather poor, below 10%. Our findings represent an initial insight into the evolution and current situation of co-authorship in TS, and hopefully it might prove inspiring and a valuable starting point not only for future research, but also for research assessment policies that should be permeable to new trends in publication patterns in TS.