On the Relation between the Small World Structure and Scientific Activities

The modern science has become more complex and interdisciplinary in its nature which might encourage researchers to be more collaborative and get engaged in larger collaboration networks. Various aspects of collaboration networks have been examined so far to detect the most determinant factors in knowledge creation and scientific production. One of the network structures that recently attracted much theoretical attention is called small world. It has been suggested that small world can improve the information transmission among the network actors. In this paper, using the data on 12 periods of journal publications of Canadian researchers in natural sciences and engineering, the co-authorship networks of the researchers are created. Through measuring small world indicators, the small worldiness of the mentioned network and its relation with researchers’ productivity, quality of their publications, and scientific team size are assessed. Our results show that the examined co-authorship network strictly exhibits the small world properties. In addition, it is suggested that in a small world network researchers expand their team size through getting connected to other experts of the field. This team size expansion may result in higher productivity of the whole team as a result of getting access to new resources, benefitting from the internal referring, and exchanging ideas among the team members. Moreover, although small world network is positively correlated with the quality of the articles in terms of both citation count and journal impact factor, it is negatively related with the average productivity of researchers in terms of the number of their publications.

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

[2]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry , 1995 .

[3]  Catherine Beaudry,et al.  Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology , 2012 .

[4]  Matt Marx,et al.  Managing Creativity in Small Worlds , 2006 .

[5]  M. Newman Erratum: Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality (Physical Review e (2001) 64 (016132)) , 2006 .

[6]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

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

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

[9]  Choong Kwai Fatt,et al.  The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance , 2010, Scientometrics.

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

[11]  Donald Hedeker,et al.  Longitudinal Data Analysis , 2006 .

[12]  Yves Gingras Bibliometric Analysis of Funded Research. A Feasibility Study , 1996 .

[13]  M. Newman 1 Who is the best connected scientist ? A study of scientific coauthorship networks , 2004 .

[14]  Andrea Schiffauerova,et al.  Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: the case of biotechnology in Canada , 2013, Scientometrics.

[15]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Citation analysis of research performer quality , 2004, Scientometrics.

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

[17]  S. Goyal,et al.  Economics: An Emerging Small World , 2004, Journal of Political Economy.

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

[19]  Anthony F. J. van Raan Performance-related differences of bibliometric statistical properties of research groups: Cumulative advantages and hierarchically layered networks , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[21]  R. Srikanth,et al.  Modified collaborative coefficient: a new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration , 2010, Scientometrics.

[22]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek , 2005 .

[23]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Small Worlds in Networks of Inventors and the Role of Academics: An Analysis of France , 2013 .

[24]  Robert A. Hanneman,et al.  Concepts and Measures for Basic Network Analysis , 2014 .

[25]  B. N. Sullivan,et al.  Small-world networks, absorptive capacity and firm performance: evidence from the US venture capital industry , 2012 .

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

[27]  Stanley Milgram,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem , 1969 .

[28]  Veronique Kiermer,et al.  Six degrees of separation , 2006, Nature Methods.

[29]  David Lazer,et al.  The Network Structure of Exploration and Exploitation , 2007 .

[30]  A NascimentoMario,et al.  Analysis of SIGMOD's co-authorship graph , 2003 .

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

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

[33]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles , 2004 .

[34]  P. Erdos,et al.  On the evolution of random graphs , 1984 .

[35]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Where Do Small Worlds Come From? , 2003 .

[36]  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 .

[37]  Robin Cowan,et al.  Network Structure and the Diffusion of Knowledge , 2004 .

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

[39]  B. Kogut,et al.  The Small World of Germany and the Durability of National Networks , 2001, American Sociological Review.

[40]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  The Rise and Fall of Small Worlds: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Structure , 2013 .

[41]  Mark Newman,et al.  Models of the Small World , 2000 .

[42]  B. Bollobás The evolution of random graphs , 1984 .

[43]  Jörg Sander,et al.  Analysis of SIGMOD's co-authorship graph , 2003, SGMD.

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

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

[46]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Turnout in a Small World , 2007 .

[47]  Sameer Kumar,et al.  Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of ‘Energy Fuels’, 2009–2011 , 2013, Scientometrics.

[48]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[49]  Andrew V. Shipilov,et al.  The Small World of Canadian Capital Markets: Statistical Mechanics of Investment Bank Syndicate Networks, 1952–1989 , 2009 .

[50]  A. Rbnyi ON THE EVOLUTION OF RANDOM GRAPHS , 2001 .

[51]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations , 2004, Scientometrics.

[52]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship , 1979, Scientometrics.

[53]  Jiancheng Guan,et al.  The impact of small world on innovation: An empirical study of 16 countries , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[54]  Yoshiko Okubo,et al.  Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems , 1997 .

[55]  Paulo Veríssimo,et al.  Handling self-citations using Google Scholar , 2009 .

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

[57]  John A. Centra,et al.  Research productivity and teaching effectiveness , 1981 .

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

[59]  Yoshiko Okubo,et al.  Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems : methods and examples , 1997 .

[60]  Sameer Kumar,et al.  Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010 , 2013, Scientometrics.

[61]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Small Worlds and Regional Innovation , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[62]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship , 1984 .

[63]  W. Briggs,et al.  Authorship, collaboration, and predictors of extramural funding in the emergency medicine literature. , 2008, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[64]  Alain Degenne Social capital: a theory of social structure and action , 2004 .

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

[66]  Corey C. Phelps,et al.  Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[67]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[68]  Jiang He,et al.  Is Inventors Network Structure a Predictor of Cluster Evolution? , 2007, PICMET '07 - 2007 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology.

[69]  L. A. Amaral,et al.  Small‐World Networks and Management Science Research: A Review , 2007 .