A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation

This paper focuses on methods to study patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks at the mesoscopic level. We combine qualitative methods (participant interviews) with quantitative methods (network analysis) and demonstrate the application and value of our approach in a case study comparing three research fields in chemistry. A mesoscopic level of analysis means that in addition to the basic analytic unit of the individual researcher as node in a co-author network, we base our analysis on the observed modular structure of co-author networks. We interpret the clustering of authors into groups as bibliometric footprints of the basic collective units of knowledge production in a research specialty. We find two types of coauthor-linking patterns between author clusters that we interpret as representing two different forms of cooperative behavior, transfer-type connections due to career migrations or one-off services rendered, and stronger, dedicated inter-group collaboration. Hence the generic coauthor network of a research specialty can be understood as the overlay of two distinct types of cooperative networks between groups of authors publishing in a research specialty. We show how our analytic approach exposes field specific differences in the social organization of research.     

Identity and publication in non-university settings: academic co-authorship and collaboration

Increased collaboration between researchers working in university, industry, and governmental settings is changing the landscape of academic science. Traditional models of the interaction between these sectors, such as the triple helix concept, draw clear distinctions between academic and non-academic settings and actors. This study surveyed scientists (n = 469) working outside of university settings who published articles indexed in the Web of Science about their modes of collaboration, perceptions about publishing, workplace characteristics, and information sources. We study the association between these variables, and use text analysis to examine the roles, duties, sites, topics, and workplace missions among non-university based authors. Our analysis shows that 72% of authors working in non-university settings who collaborate and publish with other scientists self-identify as academics. Furthermore, their work life resembles that of those working in university settings in that the majority report doing fundamental research in government research organizations and laboratories. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, this research suggests that peer-reviewed publications are much more dominated by non-university academics than we previously thought and that collaboration as co-authors on academic publications is not likely to be a primary conduit for the transfer of scientific knowledge between academe and industry.

     

Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding

Summary Analysing co-authored publications has become the standard way to measure research collaborations. At the same time bibliometric researchers have advised that co-authorship based indicators should be handled with care as a source of evidence on actual scientific collaboration. The aim of this study is to assess how well university-industry collaborations can be identified and described using co-authorship data. This is done through a comparison of co-authorship data with industrial funding to a medical university. In total 436 companies were identified through the two methods. Our results show that one third of the companies that have provided funding to the university had not co-authored any publications with the university. Further, the funding indicator identified only 16% of the companies that had co-authored publications. Thus, both co-authorship and funding indicators provide incomplete results. We also observe a case of conflicting trends between funding and co-authorship indicators. We conclude that uncritical use of the two indicators may lead to misinterpretation of the development of collaborations and thus provide incorrect data for decision-making.     

Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis

Several studies exist which use scientific literature for comparing scientific activities (e.g., productivity, and collaboration). In this study, using co-authorship data over the last 40 years, we present the evolutionary dynamics of multi level (i.e., individual, institutional and national) collaboration networks for exploring the emergence of collaborations in the research field of “steel structures”. The collaboration network of scientists in the field has been analyzed using author affiliations extracted from Scopus between 1970 and 2009. We have studied collaboration distribution networks at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels for the 40 years. We compared and analyzed a number of properties of these networks (i.e., density, centrality measures, the giant component and clustering coefficient) for presenting a longitudinal analysis and statistical validation of the evolutionary dynamics of “steel structures” collaboration networks. At all levels, the scientific collaborations network structures were central considering the closeness centralization while betweenness and degree centralization were much lower. In general networks density, connectedness, centralization and clustering coefficient were highest in marco-level and decreasing as the network size grow to the lowest in micro-level. We also find that the average distance between countries about two and institutes five and for authors eight meaning that only about eight steps are necessary to get from one randomly chosen author to another.     

The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship

Given the high priority accorded to research collaboration on the assumption that it yields higher productivity and impact rates than do non-collaborative results, research collaboration modes are assessed for their benefits and costs before being executed. Researchers are accountable for selecting their collaboration modes, a decision made through strategic decision making influenced by their environments and the trade-offs among alternatives. In this context, by using bibliographic information and related internal data from the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM, a representative Korean government institute of mechanical research), this paper examines the suggested yet unproven determinants of research collaboration modes that the SCI data set cannot reveal through a Multinomial Probit Model. The results indicate that informal communication, cultural proximity, academic excellence, external fund inspiration, and technology development levels play significant roles in the determination of specific collaboration modes, such as sole research, internal collaboration, domestic collaboration, and international collaboration. This paper refines collaboration mode studies by describing the actual collaboration phenomenon as it occurs in research institutes and the motivations prompting research collaboration, allowing research mangers to encourage researchers to collaborate in an appropriate decision-making context.     

Reflection of co-authorship networks in the Web: Web hyperlinks versus Web visibility rates

About ten years ago a new research field called “webometrics” emerged. Similarities between methods used in webometrics and scientometrics or informetrics are evident from the literature. Are there also similarities between scientometric and Web indicators of collaboration for possible use in technology policy making? Usually, the bibliometric method used to study collaboration is the investigation of co-authorships.In this paper, Web hyperlinks and Web visibility indicators are examined to establish their usefulness as indicators of collaboration and to explore whether similarities exist between Web-based structures and bibliographic structures.Three empirical studies of collaboration between institutions and individual scientists show that hyperlink structures at the Web don’t reflect collaboration structures collected by bibliographic data. However Web visibility indicators of collaboration are different from hyperlinks and can be successfully used as Web indicators of collaboration.     

Evolutionary analysis of collaboration networks in the field of information systems

In recent years, collaborations between scholars have drastically increased in all fields. Using individual and country collaboration data from the past 30 years, this paper studies the evolution and trend of collaboration networks in the field of information systems. Our research shows that individual scholars and all countries display the “long tail” phenomenon in article publishing. Average collaboration degree and co-authorship ratio of articles over time are on the rise overall. Evolutionary analysis of collaboration networks manifest that the network development is basically mature although it has not yet reached a stable status. International collaborations have shown a gradual increase, with the increase in participating countries distributed mainly in Europe and Asia and increase in collaborations mainly in North America and Europe, especially the United States, England and Canada.     

Social dynamics of research collaboration: norms,practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights

Co-authorship has become common practice in most science and engineering disciplines and, with the growth of co-authoring, has come a fragmentation of norms and practices, some of them discipline-based, some institution-based. It becomes increasingly important to understand these practices, in part to reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding in collaborations among authors from different disciplines and fields. Moreover, there is also evidence of widespread satisfaction with collaborative and co-authoring experiences. In some cases the dissatisfactions are more in the realm of bruised feelings and miscommunication but in others there is clear exploitation and even legal disputes about, for example, intellectual property. Our paper is part of a multiyear study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and draws its data from a representative national survey of scientists working in 108 Carnegie Doctoral/Research Universities—Very High Research Activity (n = 641). The paper tests hypotheses about the determinants of collaboration effectiveness. Results indicate that having an explicit discussion about co-authorship reduces the odds of a bad collaboration on a recent scholarly article. Having co-authors from different universities also reduces the odds of a bad collaboration, while large numbers of co-authors have the reverse effect. The results shed some systematic, empirical light on research collaboration practices, including not only norms and business-as-usual, but also routinely bad collaborations.     

Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship

A review of selected parameters of the growth of scientific collaboration over the last century provides further confirmation of the dependency of teamwork on the increasing professionalization of science. Analysis reveals significant inaccuracies in current views of the recency and prevalence of collaborative research, and affords a more correct picture of twentieth century developments. A change in the growth rate of the practice of scientific collaboration at about the time of World War I, and indications of associations of teamwork with financial support and research publication in leading journals are discussed. Characteristics of the natural history of scientific collaboration signify that collaboration reflects relationships of dependency within a hierarchically stratified professional community, and serves as a means of professional mobility. As such, it continues to fulfil its original functions.     

Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study

The paper introduces the use of blockmodeling in the micro-level study of the internal structure of co-authorship networks over time. Variations in scientific productivity and researcher or research group visibility were determined by observing authors?? role in the core-periphery structure and crossing this information with bibliometric data. Three techniques were applied to represent the structure of collaborative science: (1) the blockmodeling; (2) the Kamada-Kawai algorithm based on the similarities in co-authorships present in the documents analysed; (3) bibliometrics to determine output volume, impact and degree of collaboration from the bibliographic data drawn from publications. The goal was to determine the extent to which the use of these two complementary approaches, in conjunction with bibliometric data, provides greater insight into the structure and characteristics of a given field of scientific endeavour. The paper describes certain features of Pajek software and how it can be used to study research group composition, structure and dynamics. The approach combines bibliometric and social network analysis to explore scientific collaboration networks and monitor individual and group careers from new perspectives. Its application on a small-scale case study is intended as an example and can be used in other disciplines. It may be very useful for the appraisal of scientific developments.     

Research collaboration in Ghana: patterns,motives and roles

This study had three objectives: to examine patterns of research collaboration in Ghana, to study reasons why Ghanaian-affiliated researchers collaborate with others (both inside and outside Ghana), and to determine the roles of Ghanaian-affiliated researchers in collaborations. The methodology comprised a bibliometric analysis of articles in the Web of Science for the years 1990 to 2013, and an online survey of 190 Ghanaian-affiliated corresponding authors of articles. Collaboration increased from 73% in 1990–1997 to 93% in 2006–2013, and international collaboration from 49 to 73% over the same time. The public university and government sectors, together with the three most research-productive organisations in each sector, were found to be highly dependent on collaboration for research production. The online survey revealed that collaboration with researchers in three regions (within Ghana, within the rest of Africa, and outside Africa) was to a large extent initiated by existing personal/working relationships. Access to expertise and enhanced productivity were the main reasons why Ghanaian-affiliated researchers collaborated with others in these three regions. Collaborators within Ghana were largely involved in the collection of data or fieldwork. Collaborators from outside Africa played instrumental roles in providing resources and securing research funds.     

Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks,and visibility on the Web

The increasing cooperation in science, which has led to larger co-authorship networks, requires the application of new methods of analysis of social networks in bibliographic co-authorship networks as well as in networks visible on the Web. In this context, a number of interesting papers on the “Erdős Number”, which gives the shortest path (geodesic distance) between an author and the well-known Hungarian mathematician Erdős in a co-authorship network, have been published recently. This paper develops new methods concerning the position of highly productive authors in the network. Thus a relationship of distribution of these authors among the clusters in the co-authorship network could be proved to be dependent upon the size of the clusters. Highly productive authors have, on average, low geodesic distances and thus shorter length of paths to all the other authors of a specialism compared to low productive authors, whereas the influencing possibility of highly productive scientists gets distributed amongst others in the development of the specialism. A theory on the stratification in science with respect to the over random similarity of scientists collaborating with one another, previously covered with other empirical methods, could also be confirmed by the application of geodesic distances. The paper proposes that the newly developed methodology may also be applied to visible networks in future studies on the Web. Further investigation is warranted into whether co-authorship and web networks have similar structures with regards to author productivity and geodesic distances. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities

Summary A basic dichotomy is generally made between publication practices in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE) on the one hand and social sciences and humanities (SSH) on the other. However, while researchers in the NSE share some common practices with researchers in SSH, the spectrum of practices is broader in the latter. Drawing on data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index from 1980 to 2002, this paper compares collaboration patterns in the SSH to those in the NSE. We show that, contrary to a widely held belief, researchers in the social sciences and the humanities do not form a homogeneous category. In fact, collaborative activities of researchers in the social sciences are more comparable to those of researchers in the NSE than in the humanities. Also, we see that language and geographical proximity influences the choice of collaborators in the SSH, but also in the NSE. This empirical analysis, which sheds a new light on the collaborative activities of researchers in the NSE compared to those in the SSH, may have policy implications as granting councils in these fields have a tendency to imitate programs developed for the NSE, without always taking into account the specificity of the humanities.     

Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part II. A comparative study on the extent and change of international scientific collaboration links

The present study is focused on international collaboration in science, involving more than two countries. The authors developed a promising model to measure and analyse the extent of multilateral co-authorship links in a previous study. The model is based on a series expansion approach which relates a new indicator, the Multilateral Collaboration Index (ρ), to the share of internationally co-authored papers (f). The model was found suitable to classify both the share of international papers, as well as the extent of multilateral links through the deviations from their expectations. A comparative analysis is made of changing collaboration patterns between 1983 and 1993 for 8 selected subfields, as well as all fields combined of the most active 38 countries. As expected an intensification of international scientific collaboration was observed, especially for a number of former COMECON countries. Different types of behaviour for different countries and science subfields emerged.     

Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks

Many studies have tried to describe patterns of research collaboration through observing coauthorship networks. Those studies mainly analyze static networks, and most of them do not consider the development of networks. In this study, we turn our attention to the development of personal collaboration networks. On the basis of an analysis from two viewpoints, i.e., growth in the number of collaborating partners and change in the relationship strength with partners, we describe and compare the characteristics of four different domains, i.e., electrical engineering, information processing, polymer science, and biochemistry. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields

The purpose of this paper is to give a macro-picture of collaboration in research groups and networks across all academic fields in Norwegian research universities, and to examine the relative importance of membership in groups and networks for individual publication output. To our knowledge, this is a new approach, which may provide valuable information on collaborative patterns in a particular national system, but of clear relevance to other national university systems. At the system level, conducting research in groups and networks are equally important, but there are large differences between academic fields. The research group is clearly most important in the field of medicine and health, while undertaking research in an international network is most important in the natural sciences. Membership in a research group and active participation in international networks are likely to enhance publication productivity and the quality of research.