Structure and patterns of cross-national Big Data research collaborations

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the structure and patterns of cross-national collaborations in Big Data research through application of various social network analysis and geographical visualization methods. Design/methodology/approach The sample includes articles containing Big Data research, covering all years, in the Web of Science Core Collection as of December 2015. First, co-occurrence data representing collaborations among nations were extracted from author affiliations. Second, the descriptive statistics, network indicators of collaborations, and research communities were calculated. Third, topological network maps, geographical maps integrated with topological network projections, and proportional maps were produced for visualization. Findings The results show that the scope of international collaborations in Big Data research is broad, but the distribution among nations is unbalanced and fragmented. The USA, China, and the UK were identified as the major contributors to this research area. Five research communities are identified, led by the USA, China, Italy, South Korea, and Brazil. Collaborations within each community vary, reflecting different levels of research development. The visualizations show that nations advance in Big Data research are centralized in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Originality/value This study applied various informetric methods and tools to reveal the collaboration structure and patterns among nations in Big Data research. Visualized maps help shed new light on global research efforts.

[1]  Xindong Wu,et al.  Data mining with big data , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

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

[3]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies: An exploration of patterns of network formation , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties , 1974 .

[5]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impact , 2012, MIS Q..

[6]  Honggang Wang,et al.  A survey of big data research , 2015, IEEE Network.

[7]  Haitao Ma,et al.  Structure of Chinese city network as driven by technological knowledge flows , 2015, Chinese Geographical Science.

[8]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists’ field mobility? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[9]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Big Data and Management , 2014 .

[10]  Neal S. Coulter,et al.  Software Engineering as Seen through Its Research Literature: A Study in Co-Word Analysis , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[11]  A. Budden,et al.  Big data and the future of ecology , 2013 .

[12]  Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent,et al.  Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis , 2012, PloS one.

[13]  Cong Yu,et al.  Data Cube Materialization and Mining over MapReduce , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[14]  Gohar Feroz Khan,et al.  Network of the core: mapping and visualizing the core of scientific domains , 2011, Scientometrics.

[15]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Web site design with the patron in mind: A step-by-step guide for libraries , 2006 .

[16]  Muhammad Shiraz,et al.  Big Data: Survey, Technologies, Opportunities, and Challenges , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[17]  Muhammad Younas,et al.  Emerging trends and technologies in big data processing , 2015, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

[18]  Gobinda G. Chowdhury,et al.  Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis , 2001, Inf. Process. Manag..

[19]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[20]  Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo,et al.  Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962–2008: a co-word analysis , 2012 .

[21]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , 2009, Scientometrics.

[22]  Keith W. Miller,et al.  Big Data: New Opportunities and New Challenges [Guest editors' introduction] , 2013, Computer.

[23]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Integrated Impact Indicators (I3) compared with Impact Factors (IFs): An alternative research design with policy implications , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Scott Tonidandel,et al.  Big Data Methods , 2018 .

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[26]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Stata commands for importing bibliometric data and processing author address information , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[27]  Yunhao Liu,et al.  Big Data: A Survey , 2014, Mob. Networks Appl..

[28]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek , 2005 .

[29]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web , 2004, Scientometrics.

[30]  Patrick Doreian,et al.  Partitioning large signed two-mode networks: Problems and prospects , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[31]  Katy Börner,et al.  Plug-and-play macroscopes , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[32]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Visualizing knowledge domains , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Christophe Nicolle,et al.  Understandable Big Data: A survey , 2015, Comput. Sci. Rev..

[34]  Krzysztof Janowicz,et al.  Linked Data, Big Data, and the 4th Paradigm , 2013, Semantic Web.

[35]  R. Kitchin,et al.  Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts , 2014, Big Data Soc..

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

[37]  Sebastian Grauwin,et al.  Mapping scientific institutions , 2011, Scientometrics.

[38]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[39]  Sumit Kumar Banshal,et al.  Scientometric mapping of research on ‘Big Data’ , 2015, Scientometrics.

[40]  Peter Marcus Kristensen.  Revisiting the “American Social Science”—Mapping the Geography of International Relations , 2015 .

[41]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index: Is internationalization leading the Network? , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[42]  C. L. Philip Chen,et al.  Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data , 2014, Inf. Sci..

[43]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The semantic mapping of words and co-words in contexts , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[44]  Shahriar Akter,et al.  How ‘Big Data’ Can Make Big Impact: Findings from a Systematic Review and a Longitudinal Case Study , 2015 .

[45]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Mapping (USPTO) Patent Data using Overlays to Google Maps , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[46]  T. Murdoch,et al.  The inevitable application of big data to health care. , 2013, JAMA.

[47]  Michael Mattioli,et al.  Big data, bigger dilemmas: A critical review , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[48]  V. Marx.  Biology: The big challenges of big data , 2013, Nature.