Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars’ academic ages

Scientists may encounter many collaborators of different academic ages throughout their careers. Thus, they are required to make essential decisions to commence or end a creative partnership. This process can be influenced by strategic motivations because young scholars are pursuers while senior scholars are normally attractors during new collaborative opportunities. While previous works have mainly focused on cross-sectional collaboration patterns, this work investigates scientific collaboration networks from scholars’ local perspectives based on their academic ages. We aim to harness the power of big scholarly data to investigate scholars’ academic-age-aware collaboration patterns. From more than 621,493 scholars and 2,646,941 collaboration records in Physics and Computer Science, we discover several interesting academic-age-aware behaviors. First, in a given time period, the academic age distribution follows the long-tail distribution, where more than 80% scholars are of young age. Second, with the increasing of academic age, the degree centrality of scholars goes up accordingly, which means that senior scholars tend to have more collaborators. Third, based on the collaboration frequency and distribution between scholars of different academic ages, we observe an obvious homophily phenomenon in scientific collaborations. Fourth, the scientific collaboration triads are mostly consisted with beginning scholars. Furthermore, the differences in collaboration patterns between these two fields in terms of academic age are discussed.

[1]  Qing Ke,et al.  Tie Strength Distribution in Scientific Collaboration Networks , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  Aric Hagberg,et al.  Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function using NetworkX , 2008, Proceedings of the Python in Science Conference.

[3]  Albert-Lszl Barabsi,et al.  Network Science , 2016, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[4]  Michael Ley,et al.  DBLP - Some Lessons Learned , 2009, Proc. VLDB Endow..

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

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

[7]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Microscopic evolution of social networks , 2008, KDD.

[8]  Yang Song,et al.  An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications , 2015, WWW.

[9]  Yuosre F. Badir,et al.  The moderating roles of academic age and institutional sector on the relationship between co-authorship network centrality and academic research performance , 2014, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[10]  John Skvoretz,et al.  Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths , 2010, Soc. Networks.

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

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

[13]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time , 2016, ArXiv.

[14]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  What is network science? , 2013, Network Science.

[15]  Joon-Oh Park,et al.  The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2011 .

[16]  Julie M. Hite,et al.  Knowledge network centrality, formal rank and research performance: evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects , 2015, Scientometrics.

[17]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  Inferring user demographics and social strategies in mobile social networks , 2014, KDD.

[19]  Mark S. Granovetter Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Reputation and impact in academic careers , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[23]  Amr M. Tolba,et al.  Exploiting Publication Contents and Collaboration Networks for Collaborator Recommendation , 2016, PloS one.

[24]  Feng Xia,et al.  MVCWalker: Random Walk-Based Most Valuable Collaborators Recommendation Exploiting Academic Factors , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing.

[25]  Terrill L. Frantz,et al.  Research performance and degree centrality in co-authorship networks: The moderating role of homophily , 2016, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[26]  Alexander Michael Petersen,et al.  Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Age stratification and cohort effects in scholarly communication: a study of social sciences , 2016, Scientometrics.

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

[29]  Marcos André Gonçalves,et al.  A brief survey of automatic methods for author name disambiguation , 2012, SGMD.

[30]  Sonia Hernández-Díaz,et al.  Age, Academic Performance, and Stimulant Prescribing for ADHD: A Nationwide Cohort Study , 2012, Pediatrics.

[31]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[32]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact , 2016, Science.

[33]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity , 2005 .

[34]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[35]  Jie Tang,et al.  Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks , 2013, TKDD.

[36]  Stuart R. Borrett,et al.  The rise of Network Ecology: Maps of the topic diversity and scientific collaboration , 2013, 1311.1785.

[37]  İlker Türker,et al.  Patterns of collaboration in four scientific disciplines of the Turkish collaboration network , 2014 .

[38]  A. Çavusoglu,et al.  Detailing the co-authorship networks in degree coupling, edge weight and academic age perspective , 2016 .

[39]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Inferring social roles and statuses in social networks , 2013, KDD.