Mining enriched contextual information of scientific collaboration: A meso perspective

Studying scientific collaboration using coauthorship networks has attracted much attention in recent years. How and in what context two authors collaborate remain among the major questions. Previous studies, however, have focused on either exploring the global topology of coauthorship networks (macro perspective) or ranking the impact of individual authors (micro perspective). Neither of them has provided information on the context of the collaboration between two specific authors, which may potentially imply rich socioeconomic, disciplinary, and institutional information on collaboration. Different from the macro perspective and micro perspective, this article proposes a novel method (meso perspective) to analyze scientific collaboration, in which a contextual subgraph is extracted as the unit of analysis. A contextual subgraph is defined as a small subgraph of a large-scale coauthorship network that captures relationship and context between two coauthors. This method is applied to the field of library and information science. Topological properties of all the subgraphs in four time spans are investigated, including size, average degree, clustering coefficient, and network centralization. Results show that contextual subgprahs capture useful contextual information on two authors' collaboration. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

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

[3]  J. Moody.  The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999 , 2004 .

[4]  Yehuda Koren,et al.  Measuring and extracting proximity in networks , 2006, KDD '06.

[5]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies , 2004, Scientometrics.

[6]  J. A. Rodríguez-Velázquez,et al.  Subgraph centrality in complex networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

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

[9]  Richard A. Wanner,et al.  Research Productivity in Academia: A Comparative Study of the Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. , 1981 .

[10]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  Factors that Impact Interdisciplinary Natural Science Research Collaboration in Academia 1 , 2005 .

[11]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  Mapping library and information science in China: a coauthorship network analysis , 2009, Scientometrics.

[12]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry , 2004, Scientometrics.

[13]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Collaboration and Productivity: an investigation into ‘Scientometrics’ journal and ‘UHasselt’ repository , 2008 .

[14]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Discovering informative connection subgraphs in multi-relational graphs , 2005, SKDD.

[15]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Fast discovery of connection subgraphs , 2004, KDD.

[16]  Jie Tang,et al.  ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks , 2008, KDD.

[17]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Center-piece subgraphs: problem definition and fast solutions , 2006, KDD '06.

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

[19]  Ying Ding,et al.  Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Jonathan Furner,et al.  Scholarly communication and bibliometrics , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Noriko Hara,et al.  An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Jon Cohen.  Balancing the Collaboration Equation , 2000, Science.

[23]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration , 2005, Scientometrics.

[24]  Francis Narin,et al.  Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers , 1991, Scientometrics.

[25]  D. Sonnenwald.  Scientific collaboration , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration , 1994, Scientometrics.

[27]  O. Persson,et al.  Understanding Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration , 1992 .

[28]  Anthony E. Cawkell.  Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol 36) , 2002, J. Documentation.

[29]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities , 1994, Scientometrics.

[30]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[31]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[32]  Robyn Tamblyn,et al.  A randomized trial of the effectiveness of on-demand versus computer-triggered drug decision support in primary care. , 2008, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[33]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future , 2001, Scientometrics.

[34]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[35]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams , 2005, Complex..

[36]  Robyn Tamblyn,et al.  The development and evaluation of an integrated electronic prescribing and drug management system for primary care. , 2006, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[37]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[38]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Science in Scandinavia: A Bibliometric Approach , 2004, Scientometrics.

[39]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[40]  Olle Persson,et al.  Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialties , 1995, Scientometrics.

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

[42]  G. Olson,et al.  From Laboratories to Collaboratories: A New Organizational Form for Scientific Collaboration , 1997 .

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

[44]  Mapheus Smith.  The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. , 1958 .

[45]  Olle Persson,et al.  Studying research collaboration using co-authorships , 1996, Scientometrics.

[46]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[47]  Tibor Braun,et al.  International collaboration in the sciences 1981–1985 , 1990, Scientometrics.