In this study an attempt to examine the dependence between the productivity of core journals and the shape of the distribution curve in the upper section is made. For this purpose, the impact of the core journal productivity increase over an extended time interval was investigated. As a referent point in relation to which the changes were followed, equalized inverse relationship between the core and periphery in terms of the number of journals and the number of papers published in them in a given subject field has been hypothesized. The degree to which a particular set of data conforms to that relationship expressed as , is taken as an indicator of the changes in the core/periphery relation. The applicability of Lotka's exponent in the journal productivity context is also discussed.
Methodological implications of four accounting procedures applied in multiple authorship treatment relating to author productivity distribution were investigated. The emphasis was given to the individual author rank and inequality pattern of data. It was found that similar pattern of inequality holds in three of the four analysed cases, in spite of the fact that significant changes were observed on the individual level. By introducing the concept of dual approach a plausible interpretation of that phenomenon was obtained.
This paper presents an empirical study of the relations between scientific output and collaboration performed on two scales: (1) an individual scale, for members of a study model, and (2) a group scale, for three samples varying in the level of productivity. The rank approach was applied in the preparation of the study model resulting in the selection of a set of the most prolific authors. In the course of that process, multiple authorship problem was solved by a dual approach, consisting of normal count and modified straight count procedures. As shown by the analysis of collaborative patterns, either on individual or on group scales, scientific output is highly dependent on the frequency of collaboration among the same authors. Expressed as the collaboration measure, it might serve as an indicator in comparative analyses of scientific productivity in a given field of science.