Resilience and Volatility in Academic Publishing: The Case of the University of Maribor (2004–2023)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and should be published. However, some issues should be fixed before publishing, in order to increase quality, clarity, and readability.

Abstract: It should be a little bit shorter and less technical.

Introduction: I would suggest to separate introduction and state of the art (review of literature). The introduction should present some basic data on the University of Maribor (number of scientists and publications, faculties...) and on the Slovenian academic environment.

Methodology: I would suggest that you include definitions of some observed variables (survival fraction and so on) which may not be familiar for many potential readers (perhaps as a short glossary).

Results: You should improve the structure of the section into sub-sections. Yet, the main issue is that results and discussion of results are merged. You should clearly separate the presentation of results (in this section) and their discussion, including their comparison with results from other studies (in the following section). Some examples:

Page 6 lines 197-199 and 205-207 and 220-222: this is discussion, not presentation of results.

Figure 4: You should introduce the dashed lines (comparative data from Kwiek & Szymula, 2024) in the state of the art and discuss your results against this data in the discussion section.

Figures 5 and 6: Same comment regarding the data from the University of Ljubljana. Is the data part of your results? Then, you should mention it in the methodology section. If not, mention them in the state of the art and then discuss your results (comparison) in the discussion section.

Page 9 lines 283-285: discussion, not presentation of results.

Page 12 lines 339-343 and 356-358 and 361-363/366: idem.

Page 12 line 370 to page 13 line 376: idem. An additional comment: here, you cite Uzzi & Spiro (2005) in order to explain your results. That's ok; but usually, all sources that you cite to discuss your results should already be part of the literature review (state of the art), as they are the empirical and theoretical framework of your study. Please make sure that all literature cited in the discussion section is already mentioned in the state of the art.

Discussion: Because of the richness of your data, I would suggest a structure with different subsections (unique authors, changing conditions, network analysis, implications, limitations...).

Conclusion: Please tell the reader a little bit more about research perspectives, in particular about qualitative analysis.     

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your suggestions and have made the following revisions to improve the clarity and organization of the paper.

Comment 1: "Abstract: It should be a little bit shorter and less technical."
Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have substantially shortened the abstract from 533 words to approximately 300 words and simplified the technical language while preserving the key findings. The revised abstract maintains all essential information but in a more accessible format for a broader audience (Page 1).

Comment 2: "Introduction: I would suggest to separate introduction and state of the art (review of literature). The introduction should present some basic data on the University of Maribor (number of scientists and publications, faculties...) and on the Slovenian academic environment."
Response: We have restructured the introduction section as suggested. 

We now have:
a focused introduction that includes basic data on the University of Maribor and the Slovenian academic environment,
a separate "Literature Review and Theoretical Framework" section that systematically presents relevant studies and theoretical concepts.
This restructuring provides better context for readers unfamiliar with the Slovenian academic system and more clearly presents the theoretical foundations of our work.

Comment 3: "Methodology: I would suggest that you include definitions of some observed variables (survival fraction and so on) which may not be familiar for many potential readers (perhaps as a short glossary)."
Response: We have added definitions of key technical terms at the end of the Materials and Methods section. This glossary-style addition includes clear explanations of Jaccard Index, Churn Rate, Survival Fraction, Kaplan-Meier Estimator, Largest Connected Component, Betweenness Centrality, Assortativity, and Clustering Coefficient. These definitions will help readers less familiar with network analysis and survival analysis to better understand our methodological approach.

Comment 4: "Results: You should improve the structure of the section into sub-sections. Yet, the main issue is that results and discussion of results are merged. You should clearly separate the presentation of results (in this section) and their discussion, including their comparison with results from other studies (in the following section)."
Response: We have substantially restructured the Results section to address this important point:

We have organized the Results into four clear subsections:

3.1 Evolution of Research Staff and Unique Authors
3.2 Author Turnover and Persistence
3.3 Co-authorship Network Structure and Resilience
3.4 Structural Transition in Collaboration Patterns

We have moved all interpretative content and comparisons with other studies from the Results to the Discussion section.
This restructuring ensures a cleaner separation between empirical findings and their interpretation, improving the logical flow of the manuscript.

Comment 5: "Discussion: Because of the richness of your data, I would suggest a structure with different subsections (unique authors, changing conditions, network analysis, implications, limitations...)."
Response: We have restructured the Discussion section with six subsections that systematically address different aspects of our findings:

4.1 Divergence Between Employment and Authorship
4.2 Short-term Volatility vs. Long-term Stability
4.3 Evolution of Collaboration Network Structure
4.4 The Shift from Dissassortative to Assortative Mixing
4.5 Implications for Research Policy and University Management
4.6 Limitations and Methodological Considerations

This structure provides a more organized and nuanced discussion of our rich dataset and helps readers navigate the complex implications of our findings.

Comment 6: "Conclusion: Please tell the reader a little bit more about research perspectives, in particular about qualitative analysis."
Response: We have expanded the Conclusion section (Page 16) to include more detailed research perspectives, with particular emphasis on qualitative analysis. We now discuss how qualitative approaches through interviews or focus groups could provide valuable insights into the motivations and experiences behind the quantitative patterns observed. We also outline other potential research directions including comparative studies across institutions, integration of quality/impact metrics with network analysis, and investigation of demographic dimensions in researcher participation.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the organization and clarity of our manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the impact of economic fluctuations and policy changes on the ecology of scholarly publishing through a multidimensional analytical approach, with an innovative research design and a data coverage period (20 years) of scientific value.

Here are a few of my suggestions:

1. It is recommended that the screening criterion “author_position=first/is_corresponding” be rationalized. In many countries, early career researchers such as PhD and Master's students are very likely not to have their names prominently displayed when they are named as authors of a paper, regardless of the size of their contributions.
2. It is recommended to clarify the rules of co-authorship network construction, such as whether author renaming is disambiguated, and how to define the act of co-publishing and its weight.
3. The “counterintuitive phenomenon” of a decline in employment and a rise in authorship from 2011-2016 is shown in Figure 1, and it is recommended that additional information (e.g., yearly changes in the percentage of doctoral publications) be provided to verify this.
4. The explanation of the shift from hetero- to homogamy in the network in 2016 is too thin, and it is suggested to strengthen it by calculating the indicator of disciplinary intersectionality (Rao-Stirling) and analyzing the change in the collaboration pattern of high-impact authors.
5. It is recommended to strengthen the quantitative research on policy impacts, such as quantifying the impact of the 2012 change in UM's title evaluation criteria on publication behavior.
6. Enhancement of graphical information is recommended to facilitate readership. For example, supplementing Figures 1-2 with double Y-axis labeling (quantitative differences in number of authors vs. number of employees).
7. It is recommended that the references be updated to remove some of the obsolete literature and add the latest research.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive critique of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points as detailed below:

Comment 1: "This study relies exclusively on data from the University of Maribor. While the findings are valuable, they only reflect the situation at one institution. The question arises regarding to which the findings can be generalized to other universities, both in Slovenia and internationally."
Response: We fully agree with this important limitation and have addressed it explicitly in the revised manuscript. We have added a substantial paragraph to the Limitations subsection of the Discussion that acknowledges the single-institution focus of our study and carefully qualifies the generalizability of our findings. We also note that international generalization is further complicated by substantial differences in national funding systems, academic career structures, and research evaluation frameworks.

Comment 2: "Given that the university research landscape was largely impacted by the outbreak of COVID-19 between 2019 and 2022, how did you account for the influence of this data in your study? In the authors' opinion, did the data from this timeframe fundamentally affect the quality of the study's findings or not?"
Response: This is an excellent point that deserved explicit attention. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Limitations subsection discussing the COVID-19 impact on our analysis. We acknowledge that the pandemic may have accelerated some pre-existing trends but does not appear to have fundamentally altered the direction of long-term patterns observed since 2016. We also note that the full impact of COVID-19 will likely emerge over a longer timeframe than captured in our study.

Comment 3: "The 'counterintuitive phenomenon' of a decline in employment and a rise in authorship from 2011-2016 is shown in Figure 1, and it is recommended that additional information (e.g., yearly changes in the percentage of doctoral publications) be provided to verify this."

Response:
The reviewer suggests adding yearly changes in the percentage of doctoral publications to verify the "counterintuitive phenomenon" of increasing authorship despite employment declines from 2011–2016.

Thank you for this suggestion. However, as clearly stated in the methods, PhD publications at UM are typically co-authored with supervisors or senior researchers and are thus inherently included in the existing dataset. Additional metrics focused solely on doctoral publications would not add substantially new insights, as the current methodology already captures these contributions implicitly.

Comment 4: "The explanation of the shift from hetero- to homogamy in the network in 2016 is too thin, and it is suggested to strengthen it by calculating the indicator of disciplinary intersectionality (Rao-Stirling) and analyzing the change in the collaboration pattern of high-impact authors."

Response:
The reviewer recommends calculating the Rao-Stirling indicator of disciplinary intersectionality and analyzing changes in the collaboration pattern of high-impact authors to further explain the observed shift from heterogamy to homogamy in the co-authorship network.

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful recommendation. However, the transition from dissassortative to assortative network mixing around 2016 has already been comprehensively documented and analyzed through robust quantitative measures (assortativity, clustering coefficients, and targeted network resilience). Adding further indicators such as Rao-Stirling would not significantly enhance the clarity or strength of our conclusions, as the existing analysis adequately supports our findings.

Comment 5: "It is recommended to strengthen the quantitative research on policy impacts, such as quantifying the impact of the 2012 change in UM's title evaluation criteria on publication behavior."

Response:
The reviewer recommends enhancing quantitative analysis on policy impacts, specifically quantifying the impact of the 2012 UM title evaluation criteria changes on publication behavior.

Thank you for highlighting this aspect. We recognize the potential interest in quantifying specific policy impacts. However, explicitly attributing shifts in publication behavior to the 2012 policy change would require additional assumptions and extensive qualitative evidence beyond the scope of our current quantitative framework. Our existing data and analytical approach sufficiently illustrate the broader policy influences without necessitating this narrower policy quantification.

Comment 6: "Enhancement of graphical information is recommended to facilitate readership. For example, supplementing Figures 1-2 with double Y-axis labeling (quantitative differences in number of authors vs. number of employees)."

Response:
The reviewer suggests enhancing graphical information by supplementing Figures 1–2 with double Y-axis labeling to compare author and employee numbers.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Nevertheless, our current visualizations clearly depict the relevant trends and relationships between the number of authors and employees. Introducing double Y-axis labels could risk visual confusion and reduce readability without significantly improving interpretative clarity. We have chosen graphical simplicity to effectively communicate our key messages to a broad readership.

Comment 7: "It is recommended that the references be updated to remove some of the obsolete literature and add the latest research."

Response:
The reviewer recommends updating references by removing obsolete literature and adding more recent studies.

We acknowledge the importance of maintaining current and relevant literature. The references included in the manuscript were carefully selected for their foundational and contextual relevance to our analysis. While newer studies could potentially add perspective, the existing references adequately support our theoretical and empirical framework. Thus, updating references is not essential to enhance the manuscript's validity or impact.

We greatly appreciate the constructive and thoughtful suggestions provided and hope these clarifications explain our considered decisions to retain the current manuscript structure.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a good article, but there are a few points to address:

1. This study relies exclusively on data from the University of Maribor. While the findings are valuable, they only reflect the situation at one institution. The question arises regarding to which the findings can be generalized to other universities, both in Slovenia and internationally. This is particularly significant since the article mentions various economic, political, and similar challenges that are not uniform everywhere; even within Slovenia, universities may not interpret these challenges in the same way. Thus, generalizing these results to other institutions is questionable.
2. Given that the university research landscape was largely impacted by the outbreak of COVID-19 between 2019 and 2022, how did you account for the influence of this data in your study? In the authors' opinion, did the data from this timeframe fundamentally affect the quality of the study's findings or not?
3. The methodology section states that a mixed method was used. A mixed method typically refers to a combination of qualitative and quantitative data; however, the data in this study is entirely quantitative. Therefore, this needs correction. In my view, this article employs a multi-method approach rather than a mixed method. Additionally, the methodology section should provide more details on how the data was collected, including network analysis, survival indicators, and similar aspects.
4. In addition to the University of Maribor, Tables 5 and 6 also include data from the University of Ljubljana, which was not referenced in previous sections. Why was this university selected for comparison?
5. In the discussion section, the practical suggestions offered are good, but considering that the data was solely derived from the University of Maribor, caution is advised in recommending these management suggestions to all universities. While these suggestions are quite general, they should be elaborated upon further.
6. Based on the research findings, it would be beneficial to provide recommendations for future research.

With respect and devotion

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive critique of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points as detailed below:

Comment 1: "This study relies exclusively on data from the University of Maribor. While the findings are valuable, they only reflect the situation at one institution. The question arises regarding to which the findings can be generalized to other universities, both in Slovenia and internationally."

Response: We fully agree with this important limitation and have addressed it explicitly in the revised manuscript. We have added a substantial paragraph to the Limitations subsection of the Discussion that acknowledges the single-institution focus of our study and carefully qualifies the generalizability of our findings. We also note that international generalization is further complicated by substantial differences in national funding systems, academic career structures, and research evaluation frameworks.

Comment 2: "Given that the university research landscape was largely impacted by the outbreak of COVID-19 between 2019 and 2022, how did you account for the influence of this data in your study? In the authors' opinion, did the data from this timeframe fundamentally affect the quality of the study's findings or not?"

Response: This is an excellent point that deserved explicit attention. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Limitations subsection discussing the COVID-19 impact on our analysis. We acknowledge that the pandemic may have accelerated some pre-existing trends but does not appear to have fundamentally altered the direction of long-term patterns observed since 2016. We also note that the full impact of COVID-19 will likely emerge over a longer timeframe than captured in our study.

Comment 3: "The methodology section states that a mixed method was used. A mixed method typically refers to a combination of qualitative and quantitative data; however, the data in this study is entirely quantitative. Therefore, this needs correction. In my view, this article employs a multi-method approach rather than a mixed method."

Response: Thank you for this methodological clarification. We have corrected the terminology in the methodology section to accurately describe our approach as a "multi-method quantitative approach" rather than a "mixed-methods approach." This correction more accurately reflects the nature of our study, which combines different quantitative methodologies but does not incorporate qualitative data.

Comment 4: "In addition to the University of Maribor, Tables 5 and 6 also include data from the University of Ljubljana, which was not referenced in previous sections. Why was this university selected for comparison?"

Response: We have addressed this oversight by adding clear explanations for the inclusion of University of Ljubljana data in both the Methodology and Results sections. We explain that as Slovenia's largest and oldest university, UL provides a useful comparison point to determine whether the patterns observed at UM reflect institution-specific dynamics or broader national trends.

Comment 5: "In the discussion section, the practical suggestions offered are good, but considering that the data was solely derived from the University of Maribor, caution is advised in recommending these management suggestions to all universities. While these suggestions are quite general, they should be elaborated upon further."

Response: We appreciate this important point about the scope of our recommendations. We have substantially revised the Implications subsection of the Discussion to both qualify the practical suggestions and elaborate on them further and stating that while these suggestions emerge from our analysis of UM data, their implementation should be carefully tailored to the specific characteristics, goals, and constraints of individual institutions.

Comment 6: "Based on the research findings, it would be beneficial to provide recommendations for future research."
Response: We have added specific recommendations for future research based on our findings at the end of the Conclusion section (Page 16). These recommendations  provide clear directions for extending and building upon our work, addressing both methodological advances and substantive questions raised by our findings.

Thank you for your thoughtful critique, which has helped us better acknowledge the limitations of our study and provide more nuanced and elaborated implications for both practice and future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think there is still some room for quality improvement in the paper, such as:

1. The readability of the figures in the paper can be improved;

2. It is recommended to update the references, delete some outdated papers and add the latest research.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, "Resilience and Volatility in Academic Publishing: The Case of the University of Maribor (2004–2023)." We appreciate the constructive feedback and have addressed the points raised to improve the quality and timeliness of our paper.

Regarding the specific suggestions:

Readability of the figures: We have carefully revised the figure captions to improve their clarity and to better guide the reader in interpreting the visual information presented. While the core graphical elements remain unchanged as they are integral to conveying specific data trends, we believe these enhanced captions will significantly improve readability and address the reviewer's concerns.

Updating references: We have updated the manuscript by incorporating one crucial new and recent study (from 2025). This reference provides important insights into the role and benefits of indirect international collaboration ties for the research performance of young scientists. This addition has been integrated into the Discussion section to ensure our paper engages with highly relevant current scholarly conversations.

We believe these revisions, including the enhanced figure captions and the integration of this new literature, have strengthened the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Mojca Tancer Verboten and Dean Korošak