<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with researchevaluat]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with researchevaluat]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/researchevaluat</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:00:03 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/researchevaluat.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[A recent Journal of Informetrics study shows – There is no universal number of “too many authors.”]]></title><description><![CDATA[A recent Journal of Informetrics study shows  – There is no universal number of “too many authors.”In some fields, 3–6 may already be unusual.In medicine – dozens are common.In physics – large teams are often the norm. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2026.101803Yes, #hyperauthorship can signal problems (e.g., honorary authorship, metric inflation). But the key question is not “how many authors?”  it is: Is this abnormal for this field and time?#Scientometrics #ResearchEvaluation #Bibliometrics]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/5199bd9a-6785-4822-8c16-68167a2e452a/a-recent-journal-of-informetrics-study-shows-there-is-no-universal-number-of-too-many-authors.</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/5199bd9a-6785-4822-8c16-68167a2e452a/a-recent-journal-of-informetrics-study-shows-there-is-no-universal-number-of-too-many-authors.</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[serhii@mstdn.science]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>