Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search

The main objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between research impact and the structural properties of co-author networks. A new bibliographic source, Microsoft Academic Search, is introduced to test its suitability for bibliometric analyses. Citation counts and 500 one-step ego networks were extracted from this engine. Results show that tiny and sparse networks – characterized by a high Betweenness centrality and a high Average path length – achieved more citations per document than dense and compact networks – described by a high Clustering coefficient and a high Average degree. According to disciplinary differences, Mathematics, Social Sciences and Economics & Business are the disciplines with more sparse and tiny networks; while Physics, Engineering and Geosciences are characterized by dense and crowded networks. This suggests that in sparse ego networks, the central author have more control on their collaborators being more selective in their recruitment and concluding that this behaviour has positive implications in the research impact.

[1]  Debora Shaw,et al.  Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

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

[5]  H. Herbertz,et al.  Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case study in molecular biology , 1995, Scientometrics.

[6]  Diana Hicks,et al.  How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model , 1997, Scientometrics.

[7]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[8]  José Luis Ortega Academic search engines : a quantitative outlook , 2014 .

[9]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective , 2011 .

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

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

[12]  Linton C. Freeman,et al.  The gatekeeper, pair-dependency and structural centrality , 1980 .

[13]  Guillaume Cabanac,et al.  Experimenting with the partnership ability φ-index on a million computer scientists , 2013, Scientometrics.

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

[15]  M. Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar citations and Google Web-URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis , 2007 .

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

[17]  Aparna Basu,et al.  International Collaboration in Science in India and its Impact on Institutional Performance , 2001, Scientometrics.

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

[19]  Alex Bavelas,et al.  Communication Patterns in Task‐Oriented Groups , 1950 .

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

[21]  G. Melin Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level , 2000 .

[22]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Language Use in International Research: A Citation Analysis , 1990 .

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

[24]  Ajith Kumar,et al.  Social-structural foundations of publication productivity in the Journal of Consumer Research , 2002 .

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

[26]  Jin Chen,et al.  Structural indicators in citation networks , 2011, Scientometrics.

[27]  R. Wigand,et al.  Measuring social capital through network analysis and its influence on individual performance , 2014 .

[28]  Africa Hands,et al.  Microsoft Academic Search – http://academic.research.microsoft.com , 2012 .

[29]  Ying Ding,et al.  Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis , 2009 .

[30]  Elizabeth S. Vieira,et al.  Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[31]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  International collaboration: Will it be keeping alive East European research? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[32]  Barbara Stefaniak,et al.  International Co-operation in Science and in Social Sciences as Reflected in Multinational Papers Indexed in SCI and SSCI , 2001, Scientometrics.

[33]  S. Berg Snowball Sampling—I , 2006 .

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

[35]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[37]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities , 2006, Scientometrics.

[38]  H. Hotelling Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. , 1933 .

[39]  J. Koricheva,et al.  Does Scientific Collaboration Increase the Impact of Ecological Articles? , 2005 .