Measuring the stability of scientific collaboration
Stability has long been regarded as an important characteristic of many natural and social processes. In regards to scientific collaborations, we define stability to reflect the consistent investment of a certain amount of effort into a relationship. In this paper, we provide an explicit definition of a new indicator of stability, based on the year-to-year publication output of collaborations. We conduct a large-scale analysis of stability among collaborations between authors publishing in the field of computer science. Collaborations with medium–high degree of stability tend to occur most frequently, and on average, have the highest average scientific impact. We explore other “circumstances”, reflecting the composition of collaborators, that may interact with the relationship between stability and impact, and show that (1) Transdisciplinary collaborations with low stability leads to high impact publications; (2) Stable collaboration with the collaborative author pairs showing greater difference in scientific age or career impact can produce high impact publications; and (3) Highly-cited collaborators whose publications have a large number of co-authors do not keep stable collaborations. We also demonstrate how our indicator for stability can be used alongside other similar indicators, such as persistence, to better understand the nature of scientific collaboration, and outline a new taxonomy of collaborations.
KeywordsScientific collaboration Stability Persistence Scientometrics
Mathematics Subject Classification62P25
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers: 71420107026 and 71403190).
- Bogomol’Nyi, E.B. (1976). The stability of classical solutions. Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics (English Translation), 24(4).Google Scholar
- Cannon, W. B. (1932). Homeostasis. The wisdom of the body. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Finholt, T. (1999). Collaboratory life: Challenges of Internet-mediated science for chemists. In National Research Council (Ed.), Impact of advances in computing and communications technologies on chemical science and technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Comins, J., & Milojević, S. (2016). Citations: Indicators of quality? The impact fallacy. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08452.
- Smith, E. D., & Nyman, R. C. (1939). Technology and labor: A study of the human problems of labor saving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Tang, J., Jin, R., & Zhang, J. (2008b). A topic modeling approach and its integration into the random walk framework for academic search. In Proceeding of the eighth IEEE international conference on data mining (pp. 1055–1060). Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
- Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008a). ArnetMiner: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 990–998). Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
- Wu, S., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2017). Discover citation topic distribution patterns of highly cited papers. In iConference 2017 global collaboration across the information community (pp. 739–743). Wuhan, Hubei, China.Google Scholar