Community evolution analysis based on co-author network: a case study of academic communities of the journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”

Academic community evolution reveals the development of scientific collaboration among scientists. These social interactions of researchers can be well reflected by co-author network, making it feasible to investigate academic community through looking into co-author network, and to study community evolution through dynamic co-author network analysis. Existing metrics measure an author’s impact or centrality in co-author network individually, rather than considering the academic community as a whole. Besides, co-authors of a paper usually make different contributions reflected in the name order, which is often ignored in traditional co-author network analysis. Furthermore, attention has been paid mainly on those structure-level characteristics like the small-world coefficient and the clustering coefficient, the content-level characteristics like community, author, and topics, however, are crucial in the understanding of community evolution. To address those problems, we firstly propose a “comprehensive impact index” to evaluate the author in a co-author network by comprehensively considering the statistic-based impact and the network-based centrality. Then the comprehensive index value of all authors in a community is added up to evaluate the community as a whole. Further, a lifecycle strategy is proposed for the community evolution analysis. Taking geography academic community as a pilot study, we select 919 co-authored papers from the flagship journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”. The co-author groups are generated by community detection method. Top three co-author groups are identified through computing with the proposed index and analyzed through the proposed lifecycle strategy from perspective of community structures, member authors, and impacts respectively. The results demonstrate our proposed index and strategy are more efficient for analyzing academic community evolution than traditional methods.

[1]  Richard Healey,et al.  Regional geography in the Computer Age: a further commentary on 'The Highest Form of the Geographer's Art' , 1983 .

[2]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[3]  Norman P. Hummon,et al.  Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory☆ , 1989 .

[4]  Edward J. Wegman,et al.  Social networks of author-coauthor relationships , 2008, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

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

[6]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Citation indexing - its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities , 1979 .

[8]  Zoran Ognjanovic,et al.  The structure and evolution of scientific collaboration in Serbian mathematical journals , 2014, Scientometrics.

[9]  Claude Caron,et al.  GIScience Journals Ranking and Evaluation: An International Delphi Study , 2008, Trans. GIS.

[10]  Ke Wang,et al.  Global trends in DEM-related research from 1994 to 2013: a bibliometric analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[11]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Harmonic Allocation of Authorship Credit: Source-Level Correction of Bibliometric Bias Assures Accurate Publication and Citation Analysis , 2008, PloS one.

[12]  Andrea Bergmann,et al.  Citation Indexing Its Theory And Application In Science Technology And Humanities , 2016 .

[13]  Amber Dance,et al.  Authorship: Who's on first? , 2012, Nature.

[14]  Leon Danon,et al.  Comparing community structure identification , 2005, cond-mat/0505245.

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

[16]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically , 2009, Scientometrics.

[17]  Ying Ding,et al.  Understanding scientific collaboration from the perspective of collaborators and their network structures , 2016 .

[18]  Luka Kronegger,et al.  Dynamic Scientific Co-Authorship Networks , 2012 .

[19]  P. Bonacich.  Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[20]  Peter Mutschke,et al.  Mining Networks and Central Entities in Digital Libraries. A Graph Theoretic Approach Applied to Co-author Networks , 2003, IDA.

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

[22]  Randy Goebel,et al.  Mining Research Communities in Bibliographical Data , 2007, WebKDD/SNA-KDD.

[23]  André Skupin,et al.  The world of geography: Visualizing a knowledge domain with cartographic means , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  Haihong Zhu,et al.  A bibliometric and visual analysis of global geo-ontology research , 2017, Comput. Geosci..

[25]  S.,et al.  An Efficient Heuristic Procedure for Partitioning Graphs , 2022 .

[26]  Yvonne Herz.  All Possible Worlds A History Of Geographical Ideas , 2016 .

[27]  J. De Haan,et al.  Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology , 1997, Scientometrics.

[28]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[29]  Ying Ding,et al.  Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[31]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Commentary On “The Highest Form of the Geographer's Art” , 1982 .

[32]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[33]  J. Hart.  The Highest Form Of The Geographer's Art , 1982 .

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

[35]  Luka Kronegger,et al.  The stability of co-authorship structures , 2015, Scientometrics.

[36]  Liang Mao,et al.  The Geography, Structure, and Evolution of the GIS Research Community in the US: A Network Analysis from 1992 to 2011 , 2014, Trans. GIS.

[37]  Robert C. Balling,et al.  Historical Rainfall Patterns and Arroyo Activity within the Zuni River Drainage Basin, New Mexico , 1990 .

[38]  Diyar Akay,et al.  A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[39]  Peng Zhao,et al.  A bibliometric analysis for the research on river water quality assessment and simulation during 2000–2014 , 2016, Scientometrics.

[40]  Xiao Liang,et al.  The Changing Impact of Geographic Distance: A Preliminary Analysis on the Co-author Networks in Scientometrics (1983-2013) , 2015, 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[41]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Visualizing evolving networks: minimum spanning trees versus pathfinder networks , 2003, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2003 (IEEE Cat. No.03TH8714).

[42]  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.

[43]  Mathieu Bastian,et al.  Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks , 2009, ICWSM.

[44]  Chengliang Liu,et al.  Mapping intellectual structures and dynamics of transport geography research: a scientometric overview from 1982 to 2014 , 2016, Scientometrics.

[45]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.