Convexity in scientific collaboration networks

Convexity in a network (graph) has been recently defined as a property of each of its subgraphs to include all shortest paths between the nodes of that subgraph. It can be measured on the scale [0, 1] with 1 being assigned to fully convex networks. The largest convex component of a graph that emerges after the removal of the least number of edges is called a convex skeleton. It is basically a tree of cliques, which has been shown to have many interesting features. In this article the notions of convexity and convex skeletons in the context of scientific collaboration networks are discussed. More specifically, we analyze the co-authorship networks of Slovenian researchers in computer science, physics, sociology, mathematics, and economics and extract convex skeletons from them. We then compare these convex skeletons with the residual graphs (remainders) in terms of collaboration frequency distributions by various parameters such as the publication year and type, co-authors' birth year, status, gender, discipline, etc. We also show the top-ranked scientists by four basic centrality measures as calculated on the original networks and their skeletons and conclude that convex skeletons may help detect influential scholars that are hardly identifiable in the original collaboration network. As their inherent feature, convex skeletons retain the properties of collaboration networks. These include high-level structural properties but also the fact that the same authors are highlighted by centrality measures. Moreover, the most important ties and thus the most important collaborations are retained in the skeletons.

[1]  Luka Kronegger,et al.  Dynamic Scientific Co-Authorship Networks , 2012 .

[2]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  Collaboration in computer science: a network science approach. Part II , 2011, ArXiv.

[3]  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.

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

[5]  L. Krumov,et al.  Motifs in co-authorship networks and their relation to the impact of scientific publications , 2011 .

[6]  Mirella M. Moro,et al.  The strength of co-authorship ties through different topological properties , 2017, Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society.

[7]  Frank Harary,et al.  Convexity in graphs , 1981 .

[8]  Ying Ding,et al.  Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Romina Rodela On the use of databases about research performance: comments on Karlovčec and Mladenić (2015) and others using the SICRIS database , 2016, Scientometrics.

[10]  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..

[11]  Marcelo Bronzo Ladeira,et al.  An analysis of international coauthorship networks in the supply chain analytics research area , 2017, Scientometrics.

[12]  A. R.,et al.  Review of literature , 1969, American Potato Journal.

[13]  A-L Barabási,et al.  Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[16]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web , 2004, Scientometrics.

[17]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[18]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature , 2011, J. Informetrics.

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

[20]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Full and fractional counting in bibliometric networks , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[21]  P. Leifeld,et al.  Collaboration patterns in the German political science co-authorship network , 2017, PloS one.

[22]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[23]  Lovro Subelj,et al.  Convex skeletons of complex networks , 2017, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

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

[25]  Jana Diesner,et al.  Distortive effects of initial‐based name disambiguation on measurements of large‐scale coauthorship networks , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

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

[28]  Van de M. L. J. Vel Theory of convex structures , 1993 .

[29]  Jana Diesner,et al.  The effect of data pre-processing on understanding the evolution of collaboration networks , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[30]  G. Laudel What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .

[31]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Growth and structure of Slovenia's scientific collaboration network , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[32]  M. Farber,et al.  Convexity in graphs and hypergraphs , 1986 .

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

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

[35]  Stefano Nasini,et al.  Research impact in co-authorship networks: a two-mode analysis , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[36]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Collaboration over time: characterizing and modeling network evolution , 2008, WSDM '08.

[37]  M. Newman,et al.  Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[39]  Ding-wei Huang,et al.  Correlation between impact and collaboration , 2011, Scientometrics.

[40]  Luka Kronegger,et al.  Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system , 2015, Scientometrics.

[41]  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.

[42]  Jana Diesner,et al.  Over-time measurement of triadic closure in coauthorship networks , 2017, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[43]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Research Collaboration and Team Science , 2014 .

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

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

[46]  Lovro Subelj,et al.  Convexity in complex networks , 2016, Network Science.

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

[48]  Edward M Marcotte,et al.  LGL: creating a map of protein function with an algorithm for visualizing very large biological networks. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.