Co-Authorship and Bibliographic Coupling Network Effects on Citations

This paper analyzes the effects of the co-authorship and bibliographic coupling networks on the citations received by scientific articles. It expands prior research that limited its focus on the position of co-authors and incorporates the effects of the use of knowledge sources within articles: references. By creating a network on the basis of shared references, we propose a way to understand whether an article bridges among extant strands of literature and infer the size of its research community and its embeddedness. Thus, we map onto the article – our unit of analysis – the metrics of authors' position in the co-authorship network and of the use of knowledge on which the scientific article is grounded. Specifically, we adopt centrality measures – degree, betweenneess, and closeness centrality – in the co-authorship network and degree, betweenness centrality and clustering coefficient in the bibliographic coupling and show their influence on the citations received in first two years after the year of publication. Findings show that authors' degree positively impacts citations. Also closeness centrality has a positive effect manifested only when the giant component is relevant. Author's betweenness centrality has instead a negative effect that persists until the giant component - largest component of the network in which all nodes can be linked by a path - is relevant. Moreover, articles that draw on fragmented strands of literature tend to be cited more, whereas the size of the scientific research community and the embeddedness of the article in a cohesive cluster of literature have no effect.

[1]  蔡文川 評"The New Geography of Jobs" , 2015 .

[2]  R. Kasperson,et al.  A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Thomas Heinze,et al.  Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective , 2007, Scientometrics.

[4]  M. Janssen,et al.  Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change , 2006 .

[5]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Ed Calmull How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity , 2008 .

[7]  Melissa A. Schilling A "Small-World" Network Model of Cognitive Insight , 2005 .

[8]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[9]  David M. Blei,et al.  Probabilistic topic models , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[10]  Massimo Riccaboni,et al.  A few special cases: scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases , 2011, Scientometrics.

[11]  Mohammed Shahadat Uddin,et al.  Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network , 2011, Scientometrics.

[12]  K. Goh,et al.  Betweenness centrality correlation in social networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Pablo Dorta-González,et al.  Impact maturity times and citation time windows: The 2-year maximum journal impact factor , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[14]  J. Ziman The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory , 2000 .

[15]  Sarah Kaplan,et al.  Identifying Breakthroughs: Using Topic Modeling to Distinguish the Cognitive from the Economic , 2012 .

[16]  M. M. Kessler Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[17]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[18]  Kim J. R. Rasmussen,et al.  Network Effects on Scientific Collaborations , 2013, PloS one.

[19]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

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

[21]  Martin Suter,et al.  Small World , 2002 .

[22]  R. Burt Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[24]  J. Perry-Smith Social Yet Creative: The Role Of Social Relationships In Facilitating Individual Creativity , 2006 .

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

[26]  D. Simonton Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention : Is the Creative Process Darwinian ? , 2022 .

[27]  John D. Lafferty,et al.  A correlated topic model of Science , 2007, 0708.3601.

[28]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  How Citation Boosts Promote Scientific Paradigm Shifts and Nobel Prizes , 2011, PloS one.

[29]  David M. Blei,et al.  Hierarchical relational models for document networks , 2009, 0909.4331.

[30]  D. Helbing,et al.  Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Concentration of the Most-Cited Papers in the Scientific Literature: Analysis of Journal Ecosystems , 2006, PloS one.

[32]  M. E. J. Newman,et al.  The first-mover advantage in scientific publication , 2008, 0809.0522.

[33]  A. Jose,et al.  Vulnerability assessment of Angat water reservoir to climate change , 1996, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.

[34]  池谷 壽夫,et al.  Vulnerability: reflections on a new ethical foundation for law and politics , 2013 .

[35]  M. Janssen An update on the scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change , 2007 .

[36]  Talya N. Bauer,et al.  Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Version 2.0: A review and Qualitative Investigation of OCBs for Knowledge Workers at Google and beyond , 2013 .

[37]  K. Strzepek,et al.  Vulnerability assessment of water resources in Egypt to climatic change in the Nile Basin , 1996 .

[38]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Social Dynamics of Science , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[40]  The nature of insight , 1996 .

[41]  Gábor Csárdi,et al.  The igraph software package for complex network research , 2006 .

[42]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[43]  Patricia E. Gaynor,et al.  Determinants of Scholarly Productivity among Male and Female Economists , 2003 .

[44]  T. Heckelei,et al.  Global Environmental Change , 2018, The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology.

[45]  M. Polanyi The Republic of science , 1962 .

[46]  M. Polanyi The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory , 1962 .

[47]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  A Small World of Citations? The Influence of Collaboration Networks on Citation Practices , 2011, PloS one.

[48]  S. Redner Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review , 2005, physics/0506056.

[49]  Sarah Kaplan,et al.  Identifying Breakthroughs: Cognitive vs. Economic , 2012 .