Advertisement

A cooperative game model for the multimodality of coauthorship networks

  • Zheng XieEmail author
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

This study provided a game model to simulate the evolution of coauthorship networks, which is a geometric hypergraph built on a circle. A fraction of nodes are randomly selected to attach an arc to express their reputation. The cooperation condition of a new node and existing nodes depends on their distance and the existing nodes’ reputation. The condition gives an expression of kin selection and network reciprocity, two typical mechanisms of cooperation. The size of a node’s reputation is expressed by the length of its arc, which is defined by a function of time and hyperdegree. The function describes the heterogeneity in the size of reputation on nodes and that in the fading speed of reputation on hyperdegrees. The model reveals that the heterogeneities can reproduce the dichotomy of node clustering and degree assortativity, as well as the trichotomy of degree and hyperdegree distributions: generalized Poisson, power-law, and exponential cutoff.

Keywords

Coauthorship network Cooperative game Data modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thinks Professor Jinying Su in the National University of Defense Technology and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61773020).

References

  1. Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311(3–4), 590–614.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Börner, K., Maru, J. T., & Goldstone, R. L. (2004). The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(suppl 1), 5266–5273.Google Scholar
  4. Catanzaro, M., Caldarelli, G., & Pietronero, L. (2004). Assortative model for social networks. Physical Review E, 70, 037101.Google Scholar
  5. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in emprical data. SIAM Review, 51, 661–703.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Consul, P. C., & Jain, G. C. (1973). A generalization of the Poisson distribution. Technometrics, 15(4), 791–799.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407.Google Scholar
  8. Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Snijders, T. A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(3), 985–1012.Google Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W. (2014). Analysis of co-authorship patterns at the individual level. Transinformacao, 26, 229–238.Google Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, Vol. 11, pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
  11. Kim, J., & Diesner, J. (2016). Distortive effects of initial-based name disambiguation on measurements of large-scale coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1446–1461.Google Scholar
  12. Krioukov, D., Kitsak, M., Sinkovits, R. S., Rideout, D., Meyer, D., & Boguñá, M. (2012). Network cosmology. Scientific Reports, 2, 793.Google Scholar
  13. Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific coauthorship networks (2012) In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner & P. V. D. Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics. Springer, pp. 195–232.Google Scholar
  14. Milojević, S. (2010). Modes of collaboration in modern science-beyond power laws and preferential attachment. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1410–1423.Google Scholar
  15. Moody, J. (2004). The strucutre of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinery cohesion form 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.Google Scholar
  16. Newman, M. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131.Google Scholar
  17. Newman, M. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64, 016132.Google Scholar
  18. Newman, M. (2001c). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 404–409.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman, M. (2001d). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102.Google Scholar
  20. Newman, M. (2002). Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 89, 208701.Google Scholar
  21. Newman, M. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5200–5205.Google Scholar
  22. Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–3.Google Scholar
  23. Papadopoulos, F., Kitsak, M., Serrano, M. A., Boguñá, M., & Krioukov, D. (2012). Popularity versus similarity in growing networks. Nature, 489, 537–540.Google Scholar
  24. Penrose, M. (2003). Random geometric graphs, Oxford studies in probability.Google Scholar
  25. Perc, C. (2010). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 475–482.Google Scholar
  26. Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 11, 20140378.Google Scholar
  27. Perc, M., & Szolnoki, A. (2008). Social diversity and promotion of cooperation in the spatial prisoner’s dilemma game. Physical Review E, 77(1), 011904.Google Scholar
  28. Perc, M., & Szolnoki, A. (2010). Coevolutionary games-a mini review. BioSystems, 99(2), 109–125.Google Scholar
  29. Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. (2016). What is co-authorship? Scientometrics, 109(3), 1939–1963.Google Scholar
  30. Qi, M., Zeng, A., Li, M., Fan, Y., & Di, Z. (2017). Standing on the shoulders of giants: The effect of outstanding scientists on young collaborators’ careers. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1839–1850.Google Scholar
  31. Santos, F. C., & Pacheco, J. M. (2005). Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Physical Review Letters, 95(9), 098104.Google Scholar
  32. Sarigöl, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., & Schweitzer, F. (2014). Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  33. Tomassini, M., & Luthi, L. (2007). Empirical analysis of the evolution of a scientific collaboration network. Physica A, 385(2), 750–764.Google Scholar
  34. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.Google Scholar
  35. Xie, Z., Li, J. P., & Li, M. (2018). Exploring cooperative game mechanisms of scientific coauthorship networks. Complexity,.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9173186.Google Scholar
  36. Xie, Z., Li, M., Li, J. P., Duan, X. J., & Ouyang, Z. Z. (2018). Feature analysis of multidisciplinary scientific collaboration patterns based on pnas. EPJ Data Science, 7, 5.Google Scholar
  37. Xie, Z., Ouyang, Z. Z., & Li, J. P. (2016). A geometric graph model for coauthorship networks. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 299–311.Google Scholar
  38. Xie, Z., Ouyang, Z. Z., Li, J. P., Dong, E. M., & Yi, D. Y. (2018). Modelling transition phenomena of scientific coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(2), 305–317.Google Scholar
  39. Xie, Z., Xie, Z. L., Li, M., Li, J. P., & Yi, D. Y. (2017). Modeling the coevolution between citations and coauthorship of scientific papers. Scientometrics, 112, 483–507.Google Scholar
  40. Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Wu, J., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2017). The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 714, 1–73.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Liberal Arts and SciencesNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations