IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v155y2022ics0960077921011103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Network of R packages: A characterization of an empirical collaborative network

Author

Listed:
  • Salgado, Ariel
  • Caridi, Inés

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the main package library of the programming language R, a free and open-source software used in Statistics, Economics, Machine Learning, Geography, and many other fields. R-packages are self-contained pieces of the software that can relate to each other through dependency and suggestion relationships, giving rise to empirical collaborative networks that have grown significantly in the last twenty years. The dependency network connects two packages if one requires another, and the suggestion network connects packages if there are examples using them together. Each network’s structure is composed by two main groups: the biggest connected component (BCC) and the set of independent packages, isolated from the rest. We characterize how new packages enter the network in terms of the number of connections they incorporate, and the packages they connect to. The number of incorporated connections follows a log-normal distribution, whose scale is linear on the fraction of packages in the BCC. We characterize to which packages the incomers connect to in terms of preferential attachment, finding super-linear preferential attachment in both networks. We provide a detailed characterization of the network’s evolution, and point possible links to the history of the R community. The constructed dataset with the networks at different times is freely available through a public repository.

Suggested Citation

  • Salgado, Ariel & Caridi, Inés, 2022. "Network of R packages: A characterization of an empirical collaborative network," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:155:y:2022:i:c:s0960077921011103
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077921011103
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111756?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    2. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    3. Tomassini, Marco & Luthi, Leslie, 2007. "Empirical analysis of the evolution of a scientific collaboration network," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 385(2), pages 750-764.
    4. Caridi, Inés & Dorso, Claudio O. & Gallo, Pablo & Somigliana, Carlos, 2011. "A framework to approach problems of forensic anthropology using complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(9), pages 1662-1676.
    5. Lupu, Yonatan & Voeten, Erik, 2012. "Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 413-439, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    2. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    3. Kyebambe, Moses Ntanda & Cheng, Ge & Huang, Yunqing & He, Chunhui & Zhang, Zhenyu, 2017. "Forecasting emerging technologies: A supervised learning approach through patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 236-244.
    4. Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M. & Barberá-Tomás,David & Edwards-Schachter,Mónica, 2015. "The impact of one of the most highly cited university patents: formalisation and localization," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201502, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 03 Jan 2017.
    5. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.
    6. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    7. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    8. Petra Moser & Joerg Ohmstedt & Paul W. Rhode, 2015. "Patent Citations and the Size of the Inventive Step - Evidence from Hybrid Corn," NBER Working Papers 21443, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    10. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    11. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    12. Aditi Mehta & Marc Rysman & Tim Simcoe, 2006. "Identifying the Age Profile of Patent Citations," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-022, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    13. Cyril Verluise & Gabriele Cristelli & Kyle Higham & Gaetan de Rassenfosse, 2020. "The Missing 15 Percent of Patent Citations," Working Papers 13, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    14. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin & Schneider, Cédric, 2011. "“Wacky” patents meet economic indicators," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 131-134.
    15. Chen, Lixin, 2017. "Do patent citations indicate knowledge linkage? The evidence from text similarities between patents and their citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 63-79.
    16. Jee, Su Jung & Kwon, Minji & Ha, Jung Moon & Sohn, So Young, 2019. "Exploring the forward citation patterns of patents based on the evolution of technology fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    17. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    18. Anindya Ghosh & Xavier Martin & Johannes M. Pennings & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2014. "Ambition Is Nothing Without Focus: Compensating for Negative Transfer of Experience in R&D," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 572-590, April.
    19. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    20. Jordan A. Comins, 2015. "Data-mining the technological importance of government-funded patents in the private sector," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 425-435, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:155:y:2022:i:c:s0960077921011103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.