Understanding persistent scientific collaboration

Common sense suggests that persistence is key to success. In academia, successful researchers have been found more likely to be persistent in publishing, but little attention has been given to how persistence in maintaining collaborative relationships affects career success. This paper proposes a new bibliometric understanding of persistence that considers the prominent role of collaboration in contemporary science. Using this perspective, we analyze the relationship between persistent collaboration and publication quality along several dimensions: degree of transdisciplinarity, difference in coauthor's scientific age and their scientific impact, and research‐team size. Contrary to traditional wisdom, our results show that persistent scientific collaboration does not always result in high‐quality papers. We find that the most persistent transdisciplinary collaboration tends to output high‐impact publications, and that those coauthors with diverse scientific impact or scientific ages benefit from persistent collaboration more than homogeneous compositions. We also find that researchers persistently working in large groups tend to publish lower‐impact papers. These results contradict the colloquial understanding of collaboration in academia and paint a more nuanced picture of how persistent scientific collaboration relates to success, a picture that can provide valuable insights to researchers, funding agencies, policy makers, and mentor–mentee program directors. Moreover, the methodology in this study showcases a feasible approach to measure persistent collaboration.

[1]  J. Hackman,et al.  Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions , 1970 .

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

[3]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Arthur Peacocke,et al.  Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming-Natural, Divine and Human , 1993 .

[5]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect , 1996 .

[6]  Leon Eisenberg,et al.  Committee on Building Bridges in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences , 2000 .

[7]  J. Dawson,et al.  It's what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes , 2001 .

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

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

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

[11]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[12]  Daniel Stokols,et al.  Toward a Science of Transdisciplinary Action Research , 2006, American journal of community psychology.

[13]  Ruoming Jin,et al.  A Topic Modeling Approach and Its Integration into the Random Walk Framework for Academic Search , 2008, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[14]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[15]  Jie Tang,et al.  ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks , 2008, KDD.

[16]  David W. McDonald,et al.  Incorporating collaboratory concepts into informatics in support of translational interdisciplinary biomedical research , 2009, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[17]  Simin Davoudi,et al.  Centenary paper: The evolution of planning as an academic discipline , 2010 .

[18]  Gitta Domik,et al.  Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Lifelong Learning: Fostering and Supporting New Learning Opportunities , 2011, Rainbow of Computer Science.

[19]  Yu-Wei Chang,et al.  A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: using direct citation and co-authorship analysis , 2011, J. Inf. Sci..

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

[21]  Luka Kronegger,et al.  Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study , 2012, Scientometrics.

[22]  Jie Tang,et al.  A Unified Probabilistic Framework for Name Disambiguation in Digital Library , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[23]  F. M. Anegón,et al.  Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in terms of projects and co-authored publications. A case study of library and information science in Argentina , 2012, Inf. Res..

[24]  Jian Wang,et al.  Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation , 2013, Scientometrics.

[25]  Maxine A Adegbola,et al.  Scholarly tailgating defined: A diverse, giant network. , 2013, The ABNF journal : official journal of the Association of Black Nursing Faculty in Higher Education, Inc.

[26]  Victoria Millar,et al.  The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance , 2013 .

[27]  Stefan Schaltegger,et al.  Transdisciplinarity in Corporate Sustainability: Mapping the Field , 2013 .

[28]  S. Derry,et al.  Interdisciplinary Collaboration : An Emerging Cognitive Science , 2014 .

[29]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  D. Hsiehchen,et al.  Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research , 2015, Science Advances.

[31]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  Jian Wang,et al.  Interdisciplinarity and Impact: Distinct Effects of Variety, Balance, and Disparity , 2014, ISSI.

[33]  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.

[34]  Jian Xu,et al.  Author Credit for Transdisciplinary Collaboration , 2015, PloS one.

[35]  Yan Wu,et al.  Research collaboration and topic trends in Computer Science based on top active authors , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[36]  Kerstin Pull,et al.  Mentoring in higher education: does it enhance mentees’ research productivity? , 2016 .

[37]  L. Bromham,et al.  Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success , 2016, Nature.

[38]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production , 2016, Social studies of science.

[39]  Ying Ding,et al.  Data-driven Discovery: A New Era of Exploiting the Literature and Data , 2016, J. Data Inf. Sci..

[40]  Min Song,et al.  Standing on the shoulders of giants , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[41]  Yiming Zhao,et al.  Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[42]  Ying Ding,et al.  Understanding scientific collaboration: Homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..