Knowledge network centrality, formal rank and research performance: evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects
- 573 Downloads
This study explores the curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) association of three classical dimension of co-authorship network centrality, degree, closeness and betweenness and the research performance in terms of g-index, of authors embedded in a co-authorship network, considering formal rank of the authors as a moderator between network centrality and research performance. We use publication data from ISI Web of Science (from years 2002–2009), citation data using Publish or Perish software for years 2010–2013 and CV’s of faculty members. Using social network analysis techniques and Poisson regression, we explore our research questions in a domestic co-authorship network of 203 faculty members publishing in Chemistry and it’s sub-fields within a developing country, Pakistan. Our results reveal the curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) association of direct and distant co-authorship ties (degree centrality) with research performance with formal rank having a positive moderating role for lower ranked faculty.
KeywordsCo-authorship network Research performance Network centrality Formal rank Social network analysis Curvilinear relationship
- Bhardwaj, A., Qureshi, I., & Lee S. H. (2008). A study of race/ethnicity as a moderator of the relationship between social capital and satisfaction. Paper presented at the academy of management annual meeting, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
- Boissevain, J. (1974). Friends of friends: Networks, manipulators and coalitions. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Borgatti, S. P. (1995). Centrality and AIDS. Connections, 18(1), 112–114.Google Scholar
- Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
- Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: The social capital of structural holes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.
- McCulloh, I., Armstrong, H., & Johnson, A. (2013). Social network analysis with applications. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Oh, W., Choi, J. N., & Kim, K. (2005). Co-authorship dynamics and knowledge capital: The patterns of cross-disciplinary collaboration in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 265–292.Google Scholar
- Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Boston: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of science (Sci2) tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies. http://sci2.cns.iu.edu. Accessed May 5, 2011.
- Tower, G., Plummer, J., & Ridgewell, B. (2007). A multidisciplinary study of gender-based research productivity in the world’s best journals. Journal of Diversity Management, 2(4), 23–32.Google Scholar
- Valente, T. W., Loronges, K., Lakon, C., & Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections, 28(1), 16–26.Google Scholar
- Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Akbari-Kamrani, M., Hanneman, R. A., & Etemadi, A. (2008). Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: A case study in Iran. Health Research Policy and Systems,. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-9.Google Scholar
- Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B., & Peng, Y. (1995). Collaboration structure and information dilemmas in biotechnology. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar