, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 587–604 | Cite as

What connections lead to good scientific performance?



This paper concentrates on the connections in the collaboration network and aims to explore what kinds of connections improve the joint output of the two nodes in connection, using the collaboration data of top institutions in the field of Information Science and Library Science for the period 2007–2016. More intensive connections are found between top institutions, and most institutions are connected into the largest component. The effect of international connection on performance is compared between US and non-US institutions. The homophily of centrality, tie strength and h-index measured as assortativity coefficient is described to show how institutions of similar properties tend to connect with each other in the graph. Furtherly, a negative binomial regression model is employed to investigate the relationship between the homogenous connections and the citation counts received by the connections. Characteristics of connections that contribute to good performance are then obtained.


Connections Inter-institutional collaboration Structural homophily Performance 


  1. Abbasi, A. (2016). A longitudinal analysis of link formation on collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 685–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). 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. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badar, K., Frantz, T. L., & Jabeen, M. (2016). Research performance and degree centrality in co-authorship networks: The moderating role of homophily. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(6), 756–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Badar, K., Hite, J. M., & Ashraf, N. (2015). Knowledge network centrality, formal rank and research performance: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1553–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabasi, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., González-Albo, B., & Díaz-Faes, A. A. (2015). The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehdarirad, T., & Nasini, S. (2017). Research impact in co-authorship networks: A two-mode analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks? Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., & Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Han, P., Shi, J., Li, X., Wang, D., Shen, S., & Su, X. (2014). International collaboration in LIS: Global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics, 98(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hâncean, M. G., & Perc, M. (2016). Homophily in coauthorship networks of East European sociologists. Scientific Reports, 6, 36152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He, B., Ding, Y., Tang, J., Reguramalingam, V., & Bollen, J. (2013). Mining diversity subgraph in multidisciplinary scientific collaboration networks: A meso perspective. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leeuwen, T. N. V. (2009). Strength and weakness of national science systems: A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns. Scientometrics, 79(2), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lungeanu, A., & Contractor, N. S. (2015). The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: The emergence of a new scientific field. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(5), 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mcpherson, M., Smithlovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E Statistical Nonlinear & Soft Matter Physics, 64(2), 016131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 67(2), 026126.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nguyen, T. V., Ho-Le, T. P., & Le, U. V. (2017). International collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam: An analysis of patterns and impact. Scientometrics, 110(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nomaler, Ö., Frenken, K., & Heimeriks, G. (2013). Do more distant collaborations have more citation impact? Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 966–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pepe, A., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2010). Collaboration in sensor network research: An in-depth longitudinal analysis of assortative mixing patterns. Scientometrics, 84(3), 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Persson, O. (2010). Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics, 83(2), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114(3), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabidussi, G. (1966). The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika, 31(4), 581–603.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Suárez-Balseiro, C., García-Zorita, C., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2009). Multi-authorship and its impact on the visibility of research from Puerto Rico. Information Processing and Management, 45(4), 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ubfal, D., & Maffioli, A. (2011). The impact of funding on research collaboration: Evidence from a developing country. Research Policy, 40(9), 1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verleysen, F. T., & Weeren, A. (2016). Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 254–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1633–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, J. (2016). Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration. Research Policy, 45(1), 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whittington, K. B. (2018). A tie is a tie? Gender and network positioning in life science inventor collaboration. Research Policy, 47(2), 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management and Center for Service Science and EngineeringWuhan University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations