Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks

We analyze whether preferential attachment in scientific coauthorship networks is different for authors with different forms of centrality. Using a complete database for the scientific specialty of research about “steel structures,” we show that betweenness centrality of an existing node is a significantly better predictor of preferential attachment by new entrants than degree or closeness centrality. During the growth of a network, preferential attachment shifts from (local) degree centrality to betweenness centrality as a global measure. An interpretation is that supervisors of PhD projects and postdocs broker between new entrants and the already existing network, and thus become focal to preferential attachment. Because of this mediation, scholarly networks can be expected to develop differently from networks which are predicated on preferential attachment to nodes with high degree centrality.

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

[2]  Wesley Shrum,et al.  Structures of scientific collaboration , 2007 .

[3]  Tiago Moreira,et al.  Structures of Scientific Collaboration , 2009 .

[4]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Social Networks , 2013, Handbook of Graph Drawing and Visualization.

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

[6]  John M. Levine,et al.  Encyclopedia of group processes and intergroup relations , 2010 .

[7]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Internet: Diameter of the World-Wide Web , 1999, Nature.

[8]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies , 2004, Scientometrics.

[9]  S. W. Woolgar.  The Identification and Definition of Scientific Collectivities , 1976 .

[10]  Mohammed Shahadat Uddin,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis , 2011, Scientometrics.

[11]  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..

[12]  Liaquat Hossain,et al.  Investigating Attachment Behavior of Nodes during Evolution of a Complex Social Network: - A Case of a Scientific Collaboration Network , 2011, KES.

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

[14]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[15]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[16]  C. Wagner,et al.  The New Invisible College , 2009 .

[17]  Luka Kronegger,et al.  Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities , 2012, Scientometrics.

[18]  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.

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

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

[21]  Derek de Solla Price,et al.  A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes , 1976, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[22]  H. KRETSCHMER,et al.  Patterns of behaviour in coauthorship networks of invisible colleges , 1997, Scientometrics.

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

[24]  Linton C. Freeman,et al.  The gatekeeper, pair-dependency and structural centrality , 1980 .

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

[26]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity , 2005 .

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

[28]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[29]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Coauthorship Patterns and Trends in the Sciences (1980-1998): A Bibliometric Study With Implications for Database Indexing and Search Strategies , 2002, Libr. Trends.

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

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

[32]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  Evaluating scholars based on their academic collaboration activities: two indices, the RC-index and the CC-index, for quantifying collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities , 2010, Scientometrics.

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

[34]  Thomas A. DiPrete,et al.  Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments , 2006 .

[35]  Jonathan Furner,et al.  Scholarly communication and bibliometrics , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[36]  Gert Sabidussi,et al.  The centrality index of a graph , 1966 .

[37]  S. Borgatti.  Centrality and AIDS , 1995 .

[38]  D. Sonnenwald.  Scientific collaboration , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[39]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[40]  Alex Bavelas.  A Mathematical Model for Group Structures , 1948 .

[41]  H SonnenwaldDiane,et al.  An emerging view of scientific collaboration , 2003 .

[42]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Network Structure, Self-Organization and the Growth of International Collaboration in Science.Research Policy, 34(10), 2005, 1608-1618. , 2005, 0911.4299.

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

[44]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[46]  Alex Bavelas,et al.  Communication Patterns in Task‐Oriented Groups , 1950 .

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

[48]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[49]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..