Frequency and structure of long distance scholarly collaborations in a physics community

The authors present results from a real-world study depicting remote collaboration trends of a community of more than 87,000 scientists over 30 years. They utilize publication records of more than 200,000 scholarly journal articles, together with affiliations of the authors to infer distance collaborations. The longevity of their study is of interest because it covers several years before and after the birth of the Internet and computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) technologies. Thus, they provide one lens through which the impact of computer-assisted collaborative work technologies can be viewed. Their results show that there has been a steady and constant growth in the frequency of both interinstitute and cross-country collaborations in a particular physics domain, regardless of the introduction of these technologies. This suggests that we are witnessing an evolution, rather than a revolution, with respect to long-distance collaborative behavior. An interdisciplinary approach, combining numerical statistics, graph visualizations, and social network measurements, facilitates their remarks on the changes in the size and structure of these collaborations over this period of history. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  R. Over,et al.  Collaborative research and publication in psychology. , 1982 .

[2]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  The centrality of pivotal points in the evolution of scientific networks , 2005, IUI.

[3]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future , 2001, Scientometrics.

[4]  Paul Ginsparg,et al.  First steps towards electronic research communication , 1994 .

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

[6]  K. Brad Wray,et al.  The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research , 2002, Philosophy of Science.

[7]  Paul Ginsparg,et al.  Creating a global knowledge network , 2000 .

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

[9]  B. Wellman,et al.  Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization , 1998 .

[10]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing , 2004, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[11]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Computer-supported cooperative work: history and focus , 1994, Computer.

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

[13]  Debora Shaw,et al.  Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  D. Price,et al.  Collaboration in an invisible college. , 1966, The American psychologist.

[15]  Armand Navabi,et al.  Graphael: A System for Generalized Force-Directed Layouts , 2004, GD.

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

[17]  O. Persson,et al.  Understanding Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration , 1992 .

[18]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? , 2004, Scientometrics.

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

[20]  Daniel B. Horn,et al.  Six degrees of jonathan grudin: a social network analysis of the evolution and impact of CSCW research , 2004, CSCW.

[21]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  New Product Ideas from ‘Lead Users’ , 1989 .

[22]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Linked: The New Science of Networks , 2002 .

[23]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Relationships and Tasks in Scientific Research Collaboration , 1987, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[25]  Gary G. Yen,et al.  Time line visualization of research fronts , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration , 1978, Scientometrics.

[27]  Maximino Aldana-Gonzalez,et al.  Linked: The New Science of Networks , 2003 .

[28]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major U.S. research institutions , 2006, Scientometrics.

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

[30]  Jeremy Birnholtz.  What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science , 2006 .

[31]  A. J. Bernheim Brush,et al.  Assessing differential usage of usenet social accounting meta-data , 2005, CHI.

[32]  Caroline S. Wagner,et al.  Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000 , 2005 .

[33]  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..

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