Independent simultaneous discoveries visualized through network analysis: the case of linear canonical transforms
We describe the structural dynamics of two groups of scientists in relation to the independent simultaneous discovery (i.e., definition and application) of linear canonical transforms. This mathematical construct was built as the transfer kernel of paraxial optical systems by Prof. Stuart A. Collins, working in the ElectroScience Laboratory in Ohio State University. At roughly the same time, it was established as the integral kernel that represents the preservation of uncertainty in quantum mechanics by Prof. Marcos Moshinsky and his postdoctoral associate, Dr. Christiane Quesne, at the Instituto de Física of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. We are interested in the birth and parallel development of the two follower groups that have formed around the two seminal articles, which for more than two decades did not know and acknowledge each other. Each group had different motivations, purposes and applications, and worked in distinct professional environments. As we will show, Moshinsky–Quesne had been highly cited by his associates and students in Mexico and Europe when the importance of his work started to permeate various other mostly theoretical fields; Collins’ paper took more time to be referenced, but later originated a vast following notably among Chinese applied optical scientists. Through social network analysis we visualize the structure and development of these two major coauthoring groups, whose community dynamics shows two distinct patterns of communication that illustrate the disparity in the diffusion of theoretical and technological research.
KeywordsPsychology of science Simultaneous discoveries Network analysis Scientific communication Linear canonical transforms
Mathematical Subject Classification91D30 01A65 65R10
The work of the first author has been supported by the project DGAPA-PAPIIT Nº IN305013_2014, of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; the work of the second author has been supported by DGAPA-PAPIIT Nº101115. The authors also acknowledge the very useful comments of two anonymous reviewers.
- Bargmann, V. (1970). Group representations in Hilbert spaces of analytic functions. In P. Gilbert & R. G. Newton (Eds.), Analytical methods in mathematical physics (pp. 27–63). New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
- Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Bavelas, A. (1968). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Blondel, V. D., Guillaume J., Lambiotte R., & Lefebvre E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Brouwer, W. (1964). Matrix methods in optical instrument design. New York: Benjamin.Google Scholar
- Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver, BC: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
- Gerrard, A., & Burch, B. (1975). Introduction to matrix methods in optics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
- Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
- Hu, Y. (2006). Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Mathematica Journal, 10(1), 37–71.Google Scholar
- Liberman, S., & Wolf, K. B. (2013). Scientific communication in the process to coauthorship. In G. J. Feist & M. Gorman (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1961). Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 105(5), 470–486.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Moreno, J. L. (1953). Who shall survive?. New York: Beacon House.Google Scholar
- Moshinsky, M. & Quesne, C. (1974) Oscillator systems. In Proceedings of the 15th solvay conference in physics. Gordon and Breach, New York.Google Scholar
- Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0601602103.
- Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool: Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, Inc. http://sci2.cns.iu.edu
- Simonton, D. K. (1986). Multiple discovery: Some Monte Carlo simulations and Gedanken experiments. Scientometrics, 9, 269–280.Google Scholar
- Stavroudis, O. (1972). The optics of rays, wavefronts, and caustics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Weingart, S., Hanning, G., Börner, K., Boyac, K. W., Linnemeier, M., Duhon, R. J., Phillips, P. A., et al. (2010) Science of Science (Sci2) Tool User Manual. http://sci.slis.indiana.edu/registration/docs/Sci2_Tutorial.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2013.
- Wolf, K. B. (1979). Integral transforms in science and engineering. New York: Plenum Publ. Corp. http://www.fis.unam.mx/~bwolf/
- Wolf, K. B. (2015). Developments of linear canonical transforms—a historical sketch. In M. Alper Kutay, J. J. Healy, H. M. Ozaktas, & J. T. Sheridan (Eds.), Linear canonical transforms: theory and applications. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar