Assessing scientific collaboration through coauthorship and content sharing

Over the past decade there have been many investigations aimed at defining the role of scientists and research groups in their coauthorship networks. Starting from the assumptions of network analysis, in this work we propose an analytical definition of a collaboration potential between authors of scientific papers based on both coauthorships and content sharing. The collaboration potential can also be considered a useful tool to investigate the relationships between a single scientist and research groups, thus allowing for the identification of characteristic “types” of scientists (integrated, independent, etc.). We computed the collaboration potential for a set of authors belonging to research groups of an institute specialized in the field of Medical Genetics. The methods presented in the paper are rather general as they can be applied to compute a collaboration potential for a network of cooperating actors in every situation in which one can qualify the content of some activities and which of them are in common among the actors of the network.

[1]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geography of collaborative knowledge production: entropy techniques and results for the European Union , 2002 .

[2]  Christina Courtright,et al.  Context in information behavior research , 2007 .

[3]  W. Glänzel.  BIBLIOMETRICS AS A RESEARCH FIELD A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators , 2003 .

[4]  Gabor Pataki,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis for Trees , 2008, 0810.0944.

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

[7]  Alexander I. Pudovkin,et al.  Algorithmic citation-linked historiography - Mapping the literature of science , 2005, ASIST.

[8]  Katy Börner,et al.  Mapping knowledge domains , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Bethany S. Dohleman.  Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek , 2006 .

[10]  Martin H. Levinson.  Linked: The New Science of Networks , 2004 .

[11]  R. Whitley.  The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .

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

[13]  Stephen P. Borgatti,et al.  Identifying sets of key players in a social network , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[14]  Tim Berners-Lee,et al.  Publishing on the semantic web , 2001, Nature.

[15]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[16]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Indicators in a research institute: A multi-level classification of scientific journals , 1999, Scientometrics.

[17]  M. Szklo.  Impact factor: good reasons for concern. , 2008, Epidemiology.

[18]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Similarities and Dissimilarities in Coauthorship Networks: Gestalt Theory as Explanation for Well-ordered Collaboration Structures and Production of Scientific Literature , 2002, Libr. Trends.

[20]  Jarno Hoekman,et al.  Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program , 2009, J. Informetrics.

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

[22]  Johan Bollen,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures , 2009, PloS one.

[23]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Patterns and dynamics of users' behavior and interaction: Network analysis of an online community , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  E. Garfield.  Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[25]  H. Kretschmer.  Social stratification of authors revealed from the coauthorship network , 1990 .

[26]  D. King.  The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[27]  Renaud Lambiotte,et al.  Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[28]  Wessel Kraaij,et al.  MeSH Up: effective MeSH text classification for improved document retrieval , 2009, Bioinform..

[29]  Terry Shinn,et al.  New sources of radical innovation: research-technologies, transversality and distributed learning in a post-industrial order , 2005 .

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

[31]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams , 2005, Complex..

[32]  Marius T.H. Meeus,et al.  Innovation, science, and institutional change , 2006 .

[33]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Cooperation structure, group size and productivity in research groups , 2005, Scientometrics.

[34]  J. Hoekman,et al.  The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe , 2009 .

[35]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Structure and Dynamics of Networks , 2009 .

[36]  Roderic B. Mast,et al.  Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles , 2011, PloS one.

[37]  Michael Batty,et al.  The geography of scientific productivity: scaling in US computer science , 2006 .

[38]  James Hendler,et al.  Science and the Semantic Web , 2003, Science.

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

[40]  K. Bretonnel Cohen,et al.  Frontiers of biomedical text mining: current progress , 2007, Briefings Bioinform..

[41]  Stephen P. Borgatti.  Identifying sets of key players in a network , 2003, IEMC '03 Proceedings. Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: The Human Side of Innovation and Change (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37502).

[42]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Using detailed maps of science to identify potential collaborations , 2009, Scientometrics.

[43]  Brij Mohan Gupta,et al.  Networks of scientific papers: A comparative analysis of co-citation, bibliographic coupling and direct citation , 1977 .

[44]  Huajun Chen,et al.  Semantic web for integrated network analysis in biomedicine , 2009, Briefings Bioinform..

[45]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities , 1994, Scientometrics.