, Volume 117, Issue 2, pp 1041–1051 | Cite as

Collaborations of Indian institutions which conduct mathematical research: A study from the perspective of social network analysis

  • K. Reji KumarEmail author
  • Shibu Manuel


Expansion of knowledge in the realm of higher mathematics is highly important when progress of human society is concerned. As a fast developing country, in India we need a monitoring system which would tell us the exact nature of changes taking place in the field of mathematics. This is the motivation behind this paper. In this paper we present an analysis of the network formed by institutions which conduct research and publish articles in the field of Mathematics. Collaboration between a member of one institute and a member of another institute make a connection between the institutions. We make a comparative study of the network formed in consecutive years over a period of time giving emphasis to importance of institutions in the research network.


Collaborations of institutions Research network Influential actors 



The first author like to acknowledge the financial support of UGC in the form of a major research project No. 40-243/2011(SR). He is also indebted to the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai for granting financial support and giving opportunity to be an associate visitor of the institute. A part of this research is completed during this visit. The second author would like to thank the financial support given to him by UGC in the form of FDP (FIP/12th Plan/KLMG018 TF06).


  1. Arunachalam, S. (2001). Mathematics research in India today: What does the literature reveal? Scientometrics, 52(2), 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bae, J., & Kim, S. (2014). Identifying and ranking influential spreaders in complex networks by neighborhood coreness. Physica A, 395, 549–559.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordons, M. (2015). The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks. Journal of Informatics, 9, 135–144.Google Scholar
  4. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks, conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garas, A., Shweitzer, F., & Havlin, S. (2012). A k-shell decomposition method for weighted networks. New Journal of Physics, 4, 083030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Reji Kumar, K., & Manuel, S. (2017). Personal influence on the spreading of information: A network based study. IJMTT, 52, 570–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jaber, L. B., & Tamine, L. (2012) Active micro bloggers: Identifying influencers, leaders in micro blogging networks. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Reji Kumar, K., & Manuel, S. (2016a). An improved k-shell decomposition for complex networks based on potential edge weights. International Journal of Applied Mathematical Sciences, 9, 163–168.Google Scholar
  9. Reji Kumar, K., Manuel, S., & Benson, D. (2017) The m-ranking of nodes in complex networks. In Proceedings of 9th International COMSNETS 2017.Google Scholar
  10. Reji Kumar, K., & Manuel, S. (2016b) Spreading information in complex networks: A modified method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends, IEEE Digital Explore Library.Google Scholar
  11. Wang, Z. (2016). Fast ranking influential nodes in complex networks using k-shell iteration factor. Physica A, 461, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Zeng, A., & Zhang, C.-J. (2013). Ranking spreaders by decomposing complex networks. Physics Letters A, 377, 1031–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsN. S. S. CollegeCherthalaIndia
  2. 2.St. Dominics CollegeKottayamIndia

Personalised recommendations