Homophily in coauthorship networks of East European sociologists

We study to what degree and how homophily and network properties affect individual citation counts of researchers in the sociology departments of three East European countries, namely Poland, Romania, and Slovenia. We built first-order personal coauthorship networks out of the Web of Science publication records. Each sociologist is assigned as a focal node or ego, while her coauthors are alters. We analyze the data using structural measurements methods, hierarchical regression models, and we make visualizations based on the clustered graph technique. For all three populations, our results indicate that the mean score of the citations of alters substantially predicts the citation counts of egos. In particular, citation similarity increases the chances for coauthorship ties. Evidence for the impact of network properties on the citation levels of egos is mixed. For Poland, normalized ego-betweenness shows a negative effect on citation counts, while network density displays a positive one. For Romania and Slovenia, network characteristics have only a minor impact. Even if the visual summarization of the personal networks uncovers a wide palette of coauthorship patterns, homophily appears to be pervasive. These results are relevant for domestic policy makers who aim to improve the aggregated research performance in East European countries.

[1]  R. Burt.  Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  C. McCarty,et al.  Personal Networks and Ethnic Identifications , 2007 .

[3]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences , 2002, J. Inf. Sci..

[4]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[5]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Recognizing modes of acculturation in personal networks of migrants , 2010 .

[6]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century - A review , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Challenges in Collecting Personal Network Data: The Nature of Personal Network Analysis , 2007 .

[8]  Nan Lin,et al.  SOCIAL NETWORKS AND STATUS ATTAINMENT , 1999 .

[9]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Visual Statistics for Collections of Clustered Graphs , 2008, 2008 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium.

[10]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Longitudinal analysis of personal networks. The case of Argentinean migrants in Spain , 2010, Soc. Networks.

[11]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Network Analysis in the Social Sciences , 2009, Science.

[12]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[13]  Martin Everett,et al.  Ego network betweenness , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[14]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  The Matthew effect in empirical data , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[15]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective , 2004 .

[16]  D.F. Kocaoglu,et al.  Bibliometrics and Social Network Analysis of the Nanotechnology Field , 2007, PICMET '07 - 2007 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology.

[17]  M. Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  Ruth M. Ripley,et al.  Manual for RSiena , 2011 .

[19]  Alan Vaux,et al.  Support network characteristics associated with support satisfaction and perceived support , 1985 .

[20]  R. Jackson,et al.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1988, International journal of dermatology.

[21]  Eldon Y. Li,et al.  Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective , 2013 .

[22]  B. Wellman.  The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science , 2008 .

[23]  Thomas Faist.  Transnational social spaces out of international migration: evolution, significance and future prospects , 1998, European Journal of Sociology.

[24]  Daniel J. Brass.  A Social Network Perspective on Organizational Psychology , 2012 .

[25]  Christopher McCarty,et al.  A Comparison of Social Network Mapping and Personal Network Visualization , 2007 .

[26]  Amber Wutich,et al.  Conceptual and Empirical Arguments for Including or Excluding Ego from Structural Analyses of Personal Networks , 2005 .

[27]  Joseph G. Davis,et al.  Exploring Sociocentric and Egocentric Approaches for Social Network Analysis , 2005 .

[28]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[29]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Social Network Analysis , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[30]  Stephen P. Borgatti,et al.  Network Theory , 2013 .

[31]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[32]  M. Newman.  Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Growth and structure of Slovenia's scientific collaboration network , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[34]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[35]  Kon Shing Kenneth Chung,et al.  Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance , 2012, Inf. Process. Manag..

[36]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[37]  Dorothea Wagner,et al.  Analysis and Visualization of Social Networks , 2003, Graph Drawing Software.

[38]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers , 1974 .

[39]  Ajay Mehra.  The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science , 2005 .

[40]  T. Snijders.  Models for longitudinal network datain , 2005 .

[41]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Analysis and Visualization of Social Networks , 2003, Graph Drawing Software.

[42]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups , 2001 .

[43]  M E Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[44]  R. Burt.  Secondhand Brokerage: Evidence On The Importance Of Local Structure For Managers, Bankers, And Analysts , 2007 .

[45]  Christopher McCarty,et al.  Predicting author h-index using characteristics of the co-author network , 2013, Scientometrics.

[46]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  Mikolaj Morzy,et al.  Social Network Analysis in Scientometrics , 2012, 2012 Eighth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems.

[48]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[49]  Matjaž Perc,et al.  Fragmented Romanian Sociology: Growth and Structure of the Collaboration Network , 2014, PloS one.

[50]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[51]  V. Cattell.  Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social networks and social capital. , 2001, Social science & medicine.

[52]  Noémi Gaskó,et al.  A new network model for the study of scientific collaborations: Romanian computer science and mathematics co-authorship networks , 2016, Scientometrics.

[53]  Srebrenka Letina,et al.  Network and actor attribute effects on the performance of researchers in two fields of social science in a small peripheral community , 2016, J. Informetrics.