New methods for an old debate: Utilizing reader response to investigate the relationship between collaboration and quality in academic journal articles

There has been a longstanding debate about the merits of collaborative research, with most studies focusing on the citation advantage of such research. However, citation studies provide only one lens on the issues. New methods of inquiry are necessary to incorporate other audiences of scholarly literature. Reader response surveys were used to evaluate the quality of collaborative versus single-authored research. Graduate students in three sections of the same library and information science course during the 2010 academic year used surveys to rate each week's assigned readings according to overall quality, usefulness for class discussion, and enjoyability. Students voted whether to keep each article in the reading list for the following semester. Data were analyzed to compare results for single-author versus multi-author works. Multi-author works were favored over single-author. These findings provide another layer of empirical support for the benefits of collaborative research and inform both scientometricians and educators.

Average ratings of single and multi-author paper on quality, usefulness and enjoyability. Students were asked to rate 42 journal articles on a 1–10 Likert scale in three categories: quality, usefulness and enjoyability. In all, 758 observations were utilized in this study. Multi-authored journal articles were rated higher in quality and enjoyability.Figure optionsDownload as PowerPoint slideHighlights
► Students were surveyed about assigned readings over the course of a year.
► Ratings for papers with one author and multiple authors were examined.
► Multi-author papers were better received than single-author papers.
► No correlation was found between highly cited and highly rated papers.
► This is a unique method of analysis offering new insight into this subject of study.