Advertisement

Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
  • András Schubert
Chapter

Abstract

Co-authorship is one of the most tangible and well documented forms of scientific collaboration. Almost every aspect of scientific collaboration networks can be reliably tracked by analysing co-authorship networks by bibliometric methods. In the present study, scientific collaboration is considered both at individual and national levels, with special focus given to multinational collaborations. Both literature data and original results witnessed a dramatic quantitative and structural change in the last decades of the 20th century. The changes, to great extent, can be attributed to the universal tendencies of globalisation and the political restructuring of Europe. The standards and, particularly, the visibility of scientific research, as a rule, benefit from the ever increasing level of collaboration, but the profits do not come automatically. This fact underlines the necessity of a regular quantitative monitoring of inputs and outcomes, i.e., bibliometric surveys.

Keywords

International Collaboration Scientific Collaboration Citation Impact Coauthorship Network Country Pair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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, 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. deB., Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, D. deB., Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part II. Scientific coauthorship, research productivity and visibility in the French elite. Scientometrics, 1, 133–149.Google Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. deB. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaborations (and its study): Past, present and prospective. Scientometrics, 52, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, T., Glänzel, W. (1996). International collaboration: will it be keeping alive East European Research? Scientometrics, 36, 147–254.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, T., Schubert, A., Glänzel, W. (2001). Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals. Scientometrics, 51, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, B.L. (1964). Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science, 143, 822–824.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, B.L. (1967). Communication patterns of biomedical scientists, Federation Proceedings 26, 1288–1292.Google Scholar
  9. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Co-authorship and subauthorship collaboration in the twentieth century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 855–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Lange, C., Glänzel, W. (1997). Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part I. Development of a new model using a series expansion approach. Scientometrics, 40, 593–604.Google Scholar
  12. Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2, 143–148.Google Scholar
  13. Glänzel, W., Winterhager, M. (1992). International collaboration of Eastern Middle-European countries with Germany in the sciences, 1980–1989. Scientometrics, 25, 219–227.Google Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W. (1995). International scientific collaboration in a changing europe. A bibliometric analysis of co-authorship links and profiles of 5 East-European countries in the sciences and social sciences, 1984–1993. Science and Science of Science, 4, 24–31.Google Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W., De Lange, C. (1997). Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part II. A comparative study on the extent and change of international scientific collaboration links. Scientometrics, 40, 605–626.Google Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Czerwon, H.-J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific co-operation of the European Union (1985–1995). Scientometrics, 45, 185–202.Google Scholar
  17. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50, 199–214.Google Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51, 69–115.Google Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W. (2002). Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998). A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies, Library Trends, 50, 461–473.Google Scholar
  20. Glänzel, W., De Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gãmez, I., Fernández, M.T., Méndez, A. (1995). Collaboration patterns of Spanish scientific publications in different research areas and disciplines. In M.E.D. Koenig and A. Bookstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 187–196). Learned Inf., Medford, NJ, 187–196.Google Scholar
  22. Heffner, A.G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hicks, D., Katz, J.S. (1997). The changing shape of British industrial research, STEEP Special Report No6, SPRU.Google Scholar
  24. Katz, J.S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kretschmer, H. (1994). Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutional communities. Scientometrics, 30, 363–369.Google Scholar
  27. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.Google Scholar
  28. Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Science and Public Policy, 23, 279–286.Google Scholar
  29. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., Silvertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17, 101–126.Google Scholar
  30. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R.J.W., Persson, O., Silvertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moed, H.F., De Bruin, R.E., Nederhof, A.J., Tijssen, R.J.W. (1991). International scientific co-operation and awareness within the European Community: problems and perspectives. Scientometrics, 21, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagtegaal, L.W., De Bruin, R.E. (1994). The French connection and other neo-colonial patterns in the global network of science. Research Evaluation, 4, 119–127.Google Scholar
  33. Narin, F., Stevens, K., Whitlow, E.S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Narin, F., Whitlow, E.S. (1990). Measurement of scientific co-operation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science, Volumes 1–2, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels — Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  35. Newman, M.E.J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 404–409.Google Scholar
  36. Newman, M.E.J. (2003). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, in press.Google Scholar
  37. Newman, M.E.J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. To appear in E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex Networks. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies, Scientometrics, 60, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  39. De Solla Price, D.J. (1966). Little Science, Big Science. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. De Solla Price, D.J., Beaver, D. deB. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011–1018.Google Scholar
  41. De Solla Price, D.J., Gürsey, S. (1976). Studies in Scientometrics. Part 1. Transience and continuance in scientific authorship. Internation Forum on Information and Documentation, 1, 17–24.Google Scholar
  42. REIST-2 (1997). The European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 1997. EUR 17639. European Commission. Brussels.Google Scholar
  43. Schubert, A., Braun, T. (1990). World flash on basic research: international collaboration in the Sciences, 1981–1985, Scientometrics, 19, 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in Psychology, American Psychologist, 13, 596–599.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Glänzel
    • 1
    • 2
  • András Schubert
    • 2
  1. 1.Steunpunt O&O StatistiekenKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Institute for Research OrganizationHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations