Motifs in co-authorship networks and their relation to the impact of scientific publications

Abstract Co-authorship networks, where the nodes are authors and a link indicates joint publications, are very helpful representations for studying the processes that shape the scientific community. At the same time, they are social networks with a large amount of data available and can thus serve as vehicles for analyzing social phenomena in general. Previous work on co-authorship networks concentrates on statistical properties on the scale of individual authors and individual publications within the network (e.g., citation distribution, degree distribution), on properties of the network as a whole (e.g., modularity, connectedness), or on the topological function of single authors (e.g., distance, betweenness). Here we show that the success of individual authors or publications depends unexpectedly strongly on an intermediate scale in co-authorship networks. For two large-scale data sets, CiteSeerX and DBLP, we analyze the correlation of (three- and four-node) network motifs with citation frequencies. We find that the average citation frequency of a group of authors depends on the motifs these authors form. In particular, a box motif (four authors forming a closed chain) has the highest average citation frequency per link. This result is robust across the two databases, across different ways of mapping the citation frequencies of publications onto the (uni-partite) co-authorship graph, and over time. We also relate this topological observation to the underlying social and socio-scientific processes that have been shaping the networks. We argue that the box motif may be an interesting category in a broad range of social and technical networks.

[1]  M. Newman Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  András Schubert,et al.  Incremental citation impact due to international co-authorship in Hungarian higher education institutions , 2007, Scientometrics.

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

[4]  Jie Zhou,et al.  Chinese lexical networks: The structure, function and formation , 2012 .

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

[6]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Marc-Thorsten Hütt,et al.  Dissecting the logical types of network control in gene expression profiles , 2008, BMC Systems Biology.

[9]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

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

[11]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[12]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[14]  Martin Vingron,et al.  Design and statistical properties of robust functional networks: a model study of biological signal transduction. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  Marc-Thorsten Hütt,et al.  Organization of Excitable Dynamics in Hierarchical Biological Networks , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[16]  Alexander S. Mikhailov,et al.  Evolutionary design of functional networks robust against noise , 2007 .

[17]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

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

[19]  Michael A. Rodriguez,et al.  Clickstream Data Yields High-Resolution Maps of Science , 2009, PloS one.

[20]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Quantitative analysis of robustness and fragility in biological networks based on feedback dynamics , 2008, Bioinform..

[21]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[22]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Markus J. Herrgård,et al.  Reconciling gene expression data with known genome-scale regulatory network structures. , 2003, Genome research.

[24]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Genomic analysis of regulatory network dynamics reveals large topological changes , 2004, Nature.

[25]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Topology of biological networks and reliability of information processing , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  J. Ferrell,et al.  Interlinked Fast and Slow Positive Feedback Loops Drive Reliable Cell Decisions , 2005, Science.

[27]  C. Marr,et al.  Outer-totalistic cellular automata on graphs , 2008, 0812.2408.

[28]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Less Is More in Modeling Large Genetic Networks , 2005, Science.

[29]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  Structural holes in social networks , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[30]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[31]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  Lotka' s Law, Co-authorship and Interdisciplinary Publishing , 2008 .

[32]  S. Redner How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution , 1998, cond-mat/9804163.

[33]  Arnab Chatterjee,et al.  Small-world properties of the Indian railway network. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[34]  S. N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Self-organization of collaboration networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[35]  A. Vanraan,et al.  Fractal dimension of co-citations , 1990, Nature.

[36]  A. Mikhailov,et al.  Self-correcting networks: function, robustness, and motif distributions in biological signal processing. , 2008, Chaos.

[37]  U. Alon Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[38]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks , 2004, Science.

[39]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[40]  Alex Arenas,et al.  Synchronization reveals topological scales in complex networks. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[41]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[42]  Sandeep Krishna,et al.  Oscillation patterns in negative feedback loops , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

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