7633 June 20,3 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associationsare an accepted part of treatment and are recognized as a current practice by the appropriate professional body”. The data were collected using an anonymous online survey, and no direct human interaction was involved. Those interested in participating were informed that participation in the online survey is voluntary; they could also discontinue participation in the study at any time. Hence the very completion and submission of online form is sufficient evidence of consent. Authors’ names and their e-mail IDs were extracted from `Articles’ indexed in the year 2015 in the Web of Science with `Economics’ as the subject category. A total of 1043 email addresses were extracted from the records using simple random sampling. A web-based questionnaire in the form of a google survey was posted online, and an individualized email was then sent to all 1043 researchers requesting them to participate in the online survey. The questionnaire MLN9708 site assessed the respondents’ demographic characteristics (age, nationality, name of institution, qualification or professional position, etc.) and their perceptions of four aspects of co-authorship: benefits of co-authorship, models of working relationships, author order and working preferences. In the last section, respondents were asked to write about any other issue or provide additional information about co-authorship. The first set of Mitochondrial division inhibitor 1 chemical information emails (as a pilot test) was sent to approximately 100 respondents. Based on the average of the first 50 responses, the relevant questionnaire sub-sets had acceptable internal reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.809. A request to respond to the survey was then sent to the rest of the e-mail IDs. Overall, 114 emails either bounced or returned with an automated vacation message. Between November 5th and November 12th, 2015, we received 581 responses (see Fig 1), reflecting an overall response rate of approximately 62.54 . One of the records had to be discarded due to the absence of demographic data, bringing the total number of valid records to 580. To design the questionnaire, Hart [20] was used as a guide. The analyses were determined based on our research questions. For example, three sections enefits and motivations of coauthorship, order of authorship and work preference–were assessed mainly by descriptive analysis, whereas the mentor-colleague working relationship was examined using inferential statistics. The respondents (n = 580) represented 69 countries (see Tables 1 and 2). As can be observed, over two-thirds of responses came from Europe and the US. These respondents had their primary place of work in these countries at the time of responding. We also noticed that close to 23 of the respondents did not work in their home countries or had dual nationality; thus, they were either working abroad or were immigrants. Most respondents worked in academia, held a PhD, and were above 35 years of age and married (see Table 3). The male to female ratio of the sample was 3:1, meaning there were three male respondents to each female respondent. This also largely represents the overallFig 1. Frequency of responses received. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633.gPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,4 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship AssociationsTable 1. Frequency distribution of respondents as per country of work. Country Argenti.7633 June 20,3 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associationsare an accepted part of treatment and are recognized as a current practice by the appropriate professional body”. The data were collected using an anonymous online survey, and no direct human interaction was involved. Those interested in participating were informed that participation in the online survey is voluntary; they could also discontinue participation in the study at any time. Hence the very completion and submission of online form is sufficient evidence of consent. Authors’ names and their e-mail IDs were extracted from `Articles’ indexed in the year 2015 in the Web of Science with `Economics’ as the subject category. A total of 1043 email addresses were extracted from the records using simple random sampling. A web-based questionnaire in the form of a google survey was posted online, and an individualized email was then sent to all 1043 researchers requesting them to participate in the online survey. The questionnaire assessed the respondents’ demographic characteristics (age, nationality, name of institution, qualification or professional position, etc.) and their perceptions of four aspects of co-authorship: benefits of co-authorship, models of working relationships, author order and working preferences. In the last section, respondents were asked to write about any other issue or provide additional information about co-authorship. The first set of emails (as a pilot test) was sent to approximately 100 respondents. Based on the average of the first 50 responses, the relevant questionnaire sub-sets had acceptable internal reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.809. A request to respond to the survey was then sent to the rest of the e-mail IDs. Overall, 114 emails either bounced or returned with an automated vacation message. Between November 5th and November 12th, 2015, we received 581 responses (see Fig 1), reflecting an overall response rate of approximately 62.54 . One of the records had to be discarded due to the absence of demographic data, bringing the total number of valid records to 580. To design the questionnaire, Hart [20] was used as a guide. The analyses were determined based on our research questions. For example, three sections enefits and motivations of coauthorship, order of authorship and work preference–were assessed mainly by descriptive analysis, whereas the mentor-colleague working relationship was examined using inferential statistics. The respondents (n = 580) represented 69 countries (see Tables 1 and 2). As can be observed, over two-thirds of responses came from Europe and the US. These respondents had their primary place of work in these countries at the time of responding. We also noticed that close to 23 of the respondents did not work in their home countries or had dual nationality; thus, they were either working abroad or were immigrants. Most respondents worked in academia, held a PhD, and were above 35 years of age and married (see Table 3). The male to female ratio of the sample was 3:1, meaning there were three male respondents to each female respondent. This also largely represents the overallFig 1. Frequency of responses received. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633.gPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,4 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship AssociationsTable 1. Frequency distribution of respondents as per country of work. Country Argenti.
http://calcium-channel.com
Calcium Channel
