Udy and results more interesting. In contrast to previous empirical studies

Udy and results more interesting. In contrast to previous empirical studies (i.e., [20, 21]), our study addresses a diverse set of Anlotinib solubility research questions, which includes not only the perceived benefits and motivations of co-authorship and author-order protocols but also their preferences in RP54476 site associating with other researchers based on socio-academic parameters. The survey was administered to researchers who had contributed to the field of Economics in 2015 through publications in journals indexed in Thomson Reuters SSCI databases. Economics is one of the foremost fields in the Social Sciences that has remained in tandem with the growth of the entire discipline of Social Science [22]. Unsurprisingly, Economics has remained the subject of several bibliometric studies [22?5]. The respondents in our survey were asked pressing questions related to co-authorship, i.e., what is the percentage of papers co-authored by the researchers in their lifetime? What do the researchers feel or perceive are the benefits of co-authorship (i.e., sharing of expertise or increase in number of publications for promotion, rewards, etc.)? What is the general order of authorship based on, significant contribution to work or alphabetical order? Traditionally, Economics papers have been known to follow the alphabetical order of authorship [26]. Hence, it would be interesting to see whether this really is the case with the researchers from our sample. We also wanted to know whether there is a difference in the contribution of researchers according to whether they are working as a mentor or working with a colleague while carrying out the various tasks associated with completing a study (i.e., writing paper or designing study). One of the least researched aspects of co-authorship involves the understanding of whether authors prefer associating with others for specific reasons, such as gender, nationality or professional position, among others. Thus, we also asked our respondents about these factors. Specifically, we formulated the following questions: 1. Do authors prefer co-authorship to solo paper writing? 2. Is there any significant difference in the proportion of co-authored papers based on demographic and other parameters, such as age, gender, number of years in the present institution, etc.? 3. What are the perceived benefits of and motivations for co-authorship? 4. What is the practiced protocol of author-order based on, significant contribution to the work or alphabetical order? 5. In producing a research paper, is there a significant difference regarding the importance of tasks according to whether the researcher is a mentor or a colleague? 6. Do authors associate with others based on specific socio-academic parameters, such as race, gender, nationality, professional position or field of research? The findings of the study provide insights into co-authorship associations from the direct experience of researchers. In the next section, we discuss the research methods. We then discuss the results and, finally, end with our concluding thoughts.Materials and MethodsEthics Statement: The University of Malaya Medical Centre EC [27] states that “Researches that may not require ethical review by the MEC are (a) research solely involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures and data collection in the public domain, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures thatPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.015.Udy and results more interesting. In contrast to previous empirical studies (i.e., [20, 21]), our study addresses a diverse set of research questions, which includes not only the perceived benefits and motivations of co-authorship and author-order protocols but also their preferences in associating with other researchers based on socio-academic parameters. The survey was administered to researchers who had contributed to the field of Economics in 2015 through publications in journals indexed in Thomson Reuters SSCI databases. Economics is one of the foremost fields in the Social Sciences that has remained in tandem with the growth of the entire discipline of Social Science [22]. Unsurprisingly, Economics has remained the subject of several bibliometric studies [22?5]. The respondents in our survey were asked pressing questions related to co-authorship, i.e., what is the percentage of papers co-authored by the researchers in their lifetime? What do the researchers feel or perceive are the benefits of co-authorship (i.e., sharing of expertise or increase in number of publications for promotion, rewards, etc.)? What is the general order of authorship based on, significant contribution to work or alphabetical order? Traditionally, Economics papers have been known to follow the alphabetical order of authorship [26]. Hence, it would be interesting to see whether this really is the case with the researchers from our sample. We also wanted to know whether there is a difference in the contribution of researchers according to whether they are working as a mentor or working with a colleague while carrying out the various tasks associated with completing a study (i.e., writing paper or designing study). One of the least researched aspects of co-authorship involves the understanding of whether authors prefer associating with others for specific reasons, such as gender, nationality or professional position, among others. Thus, we also asked our respondents about these factors. Specifically, we formulated the following questions: 1. Do authors prefer co-authorship to solo paper writing? 2. Is there any significant difference in the proportion of co-authored papers based on demographic and other parameters, such as age, gender, number of years in the present institution, etc.? 3. What are the perceived benefits of and motivations for co-authorship? 4. What is the practiced protocol of author-order based on, significant contribution to the work or alphabetical order? 5. In producing a research paper, is there a significant difference regarding the importance of tasks according to whether the researcher is a mentor or a colleague? 6. Do authors associate with others based on specific socio-academic parameters, such as race, gender, nationality, professional position or field of research? The findings of the study provide insights into co-authorship associations from the direct experience of researchers. In the next section, we discuss the research methods. We then discuss the results and, finally, end with our concluding thoughts.Materials and MethodsEthics Statement: The University of Malaya Medical Centre EC [27] states that “Researches that may not require ethical review by the MEC are (a) research solely involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures and data collection in the public domain, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures thatPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.015.