Homophily versus preferential attachment: Evolutionary mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks

Homophily and preferential attachment are among the most recognized mechanisms of network evolution. Instead of examining the two mechanisms separately, this study considers them jointly in a scholarly collaboration network. Specifically, when a new scholar enters a field, how does he/she choose the first collaborator from the pool of available scholars? We find that new scholars tend to collaborate with someone who works in the same institution (which is called constrained acceptance), shares similar specialty interests (active choice), or has already worked with many collaborators (random action). We view constrained acceptance and active choice as supporting evidence for homophily (because similarity is attractive) and random action as supporting evidence for preferential attachment (because popularity is attractive). As such, both homophily and preferential attachment affect the evolution of collaboration networks. Furthermore, the influences vary over time with random action, constrained acceptance, and active choice taking turns to act the dominant force at the beginning, middle and later phases of the evolution process, respectively.

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

[2]  Razia Azen,et al.  Using Dominance Analysis to Determine Predictor Importance in Logistic Regression , 2009 .

[3]  Z. Neda,et al.  Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks , 2001, cond-mat/0104131.

[4]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[5]  L. Smith-Lovin,et al.  Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. , 1987 .

[6]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[7]  Tore Opsahl,et al.  Prominence and control: the weighted rich-club effect. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[8]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[9]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[10]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[11]  Peter van den Besselaar,et al.  Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators , 2011, Scientometrics.

[12]  G. Yule,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evolution, Based on the Conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis, F.R.S. , 1925 .

[13]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[14]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Preferential attachment in the growth of social networks: the case of Wikipedia , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation among U.S. Entrepreneurs , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[16]  E. Levanon,et al.  Preferential attachment in the protein network evolution. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[17]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Network science: Luck or reason , 2012, Nature.

[18]  M. Kalmijn,et al.  Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. , 1998, Annual review of sociology.

[19]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  Popularity versus similarity in growing networks , 2011, Nature.

[20]  D. Kandel Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.