Identifying collaboration dynamics of bipartite author-topic networks with the influences of interest changes
Knowing driving factors and understanding researcher behaviors from the dynamics of collaborations over time offer some insights, i.e. help funding agencies in designing research grant policies. We present longitudinal network analysis on the observed collaborations through co-authorship over 15 years. Since co-authors possibly influence researchers to have interest changes, by focusing on researchers who could become the influencer, we propose a stochastic actor-oriented model of bipartite (two-mode) author-topic networks from article metadata. Information of scientific fields or topics of article contents, which could represent the interests of researchers, are often unavailable in the metadata. Topic absence issue differentiates this work with other studies on collaboration dynamics from article metadata of title-abstract and author properties. Therefore, our works also include procedures to extract and map clustered keywords as topic substitution of research interests. Then, the next step is to generate panel-waves of co-author networks and bipartite author-topic networks for the longitudinal analysis. The proposed model is used to find the driving factors of co-authoring collaboration with the focus on researcher behaviors in interest changes. This paper investigates the dynamics in an academic social network setting using selected metadata of publicly-available crawled articles in interrelated domains of “natural language processing” and “information extraction”. Based on the evidence of network evolution, researchers have a conformed tendency to co-author behaviors in publishing articles and exploring topics. Our results indicate the processes of selection and influence in forming co-author ties contribute some levels of social pressure to researchers. Our findings also discussed on how the co-author pressure accelerates the changes of interests and behaviors of the researchers.
KeywordsLongitudinal network analysis Scientific collaboration dynamics Research interest changes One mode co-author network Bipartite (two-mode) author-topic network Stochastic actor-oriented model
Mathematics Subject Classification68T30 68U15 90B15 91B16 91C20 91D30
JEL ClassificationC31 C38 C44 D80 D85
This work as parts of a dissertation about scholar profiles in expert recommendation system was funded by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP in Indonesian) with the grant number PRJ-4228/LPDP.3/2016 of the LPDP Doctoral Scholarship Programme fiscal year 2017–2020. Some sections of the manuscript was prepared during September-December 2018 in University of Groningen, the Netherlands under Enhancing International Publication (EIP or PKPI in Indonesian) Program by Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (RISTEKDIKTI in Indonesian). Furthermore, this research was also partially funded by RISTEKDIKTI under World Class Universities (WCU) Program managed by Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia in 2019.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
- Amjad, T., Daud, A., & Song, M. (2018). Measuring the impact of topic drift in scholarly networks. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018 (pp. 373–378). Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3186358.
- Deng, H., Han, J., Lyu, M. R., & King, I. (2012). Modeling and exploiting heterogeneous bibliographic networks for expertise ranking. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 71–80). https://doi.org/10.1145/2232817.2232833.
- Li, H., An, H., Wang, Y., Huang, J., & Gao, X. (2016). Evolutionary features of academic articles co-keyword network and keywords co-occurrence network: Based on two-mode affiliation network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications,450, 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.01.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on neural information processing systems—Volume 2 (pp. 3111–3119). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2999792.2999959.
- Purwitasari, D., Fatichah, C., Arieshanti, I., & Hayatin, N. (2016). K-medoids algorithm on Indonesian Twitter feeds for clustering trending issue as important terms in news summarization. In Proceedings of 2015 international conference on information and communication technology and systems, ICTS 2015 (pp. 95–98). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTS.2015.7379878.
- Purwitasari, D., Fatichah, C., Purnama, I. K. E., Sumpeno, S., & Purnomo, M. H. (2017). Inter-departmental research collaboration recommender system based on content filtering in a cold start problem. In 2017 IEEE 10th international workshop on computational intelligence and applications, IWCIA 2017—proceedings (Vol. 2017-Decem). https://doi.org/10.1109/IWCIA.2017.8203581.
- Purwitasari, D., Ilmi, A. B., Fatichah, C., Fauzi, W. A., Sumpeno, S., & Purnomo, M. H. (2018b). Conflict of interest based features for expert classification in bibliographic network. In 2018 IEEE international conference on computer engineering, network and intelligent multimedia, CENIM 2018—proceedings.Google Scholar
- Purwitasari, D., Priantara, I. W. S., Kusmawan, P. Y., Yuhana, U. L., & Siahaan, D. O. (2011). The use of Hartigan index for initializing K-means ++ in detecting similar texts of clustered documents as a plagiarism indicator. Asian Journal of Information Technology,10(8), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajit.2011.341.347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Renoust, B., Melançon, G., & Viaud, M.-L. (2014). Entanglement in multiplex networks: Understanding group cohesion in homophily networks. In R. Missaoui & I. Sarr (Eds.), Social network analysis—Community detection and evolution (pp. 89–117). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12188-8_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Röder, M., Both, A., & Hinneburg, A. (2015). Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 399–408). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684822.2685324.
- Tang, J. (2016). AMiner: Toward understanding big scholar data. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (p. 467). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2835776.2835849.
- Tang, J., Zhang, D., & Yao, L. (2007). Social network extraction of academic researchers. In Proceedings of the 2007 seventh IEEE international conference on data mining (pp. 292–301). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2007.30.
- Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). ArnetMiner: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 990–998). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1401890.1402008.