Search

In this study we compare the titles of scientific letters and those of research papers published in the field of astrophysics in order to identify the possible differences and/or similarities between both genres in terms of several linguistic and extra-linguistic variables (length, lexical density, number of prepositions, number of compound groups, number of authors and number of countries mentioned in the paper bylines). We also carry out a cross-genre and cross-journal analysis of the referred six variables. Our main findings may be summarized as follows: (1) When compared to research paper titles, scientific letter titles are usually shorter, they have a lower lexical density, they include a higher number of prepositions per number of words and a lower number of compound groups per number of words, although they have more up to 4-word compound groups, i.e. the simplest ones. As a consequence, scientific letter titles include less information, which is also less condensed, than research paper titles. (2) The predominance of compound adjectives over compound nouns in the titles of both genres highlights the scientificity of astrophysical discourse. (3) In general terms, our data show a positive correlation between title length and the number of countries mentioned in the bylines for both genres. The positive correlation between title length and number of authors is only met in the case of research papers. In light of these findings, it may be concluded that scientific letters are a clear example of a timeliness and more "immediate" science, whereas research papers are connected to a more timeless and "elaborate" science. It may also be concluded that two different collaboration scenarios are intertwining on the basis of three separate geographic and linguistic publication contexts (Mainland Europe, The United Kingdom and The United States of North America).

Introduction: We report an investigation on collaboration practices in research papers published in the most prestigious English-medium astrophysics journals. Method: We propose an evaluation method based on three numerical indicators to study and compare, in absolute terms, three different types of collaboration (international, national and local) and authors' mobility on the basis of co-authorship. Analysis: We analysed 300 randomly selected research papers in three different time periods and used the student's t-test to determine whether the paired two-sample differences observed were statistically significant or not. Results: International collaboration is more common than national and local collaboration. International, national and local authors' mobility and intra-national collaboration do not seriously affect the indicators of the principal levels of collaboration. International collaboration and authors' mobility are more relevant for authors publishing in European journals, whereas national and intra-national collaboration and national mobility are more important for authors publishing in US journals. Conclusions: We explain the observed differences and patterns in terms of the specific scope of each journal and the socio-economic and political situation in both geographic contexts (Europe and the USA). Our study provides a global picture of collaboration practices in astrophysics and its possible application to many other sciences and fields would undoubtedly help bring into focus the really big issues for overall research management and policy.

In this study, we carry out a qualitative and quantitative analysis of abbreviations in 300 randomly collected research paper titles published in the most prestigious European and US-based Astrophysics journals written in English. Our main results show that the process of shortening words and groups of words is one of the most characteristic and recurrent features in Astrophysics research paper titling construction. In spite of the convenience of abbreviations as a mechanism for word-formation, some of them may pose certain difficulties of understanding and/or misinterpretation because of their specificity, ambiguity, or overlapping. To overcome these difficulties, we propose a series of options which with no doubt would lead to a better interaction among the different branches of Astrophysics in particular and of science in general and would definitely improve how research is currently performed and communicated.