IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v15y2021i4s175115772100078x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Lu, Wei
  • Ren, Yan
  • Huang, Yong
  • Bu, Yi
  • Zhang, Yuehan

Abstract

In scientific research collaboration, researchers collaborate with different scholars throughout their career stages. Researchers at different career stages may play various roles in science teams. This paper focuses only on the researchers’ roles in their respective science teams, defined as “relative roles” here, rather than comparing roles among researchers. As the academic age of researchers is increasing, researchers formulate the positive (e.g., junior-peer-senior) or negative growth trajectories (e.g., peer-peer-junior) of the relative roles throughout their career stages, which are defined as the “relative role growth patterns”. Further, these growth patterns can be divided into different “relative role growth types” according to their several common characteristics. By constructing ego-centric networks of researchers based on academic age, this paper investigates the changing relative roles of researchers at different career stages and relative role growth types summarized from multiple growth patterns, and then analyzes the collaborative ability (i.e., collaboration frequencies and number of collaborators) and research performance under different growth types. In addition, we also discuss the influence of collaborators on the formation of relative role growth types. We find 13 relative role growth patterns and summarize them into four growth types. The four growth types have diverse collaborative ability and research performance. Different collaborators have different effects on the formation of growth types of researchers. Collaborators who have high productivity and high citations per paper have a positive influence on researchers’ growth and vice versa. This study could be useful for researchers planning career development, also for policymakers and university administrators.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:4:s175115772100078x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115772100078X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101207?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. Zhifeng Yin & Qiang Zhi, 2017. "Dancing with the academic elite: a promotion or hindrance of research production?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 17-41, January.
    2. Wei Wang & Shuo Yu & Teshome Megersa Bekele & Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia, 2017. "Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars’ academic ages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 329-343, July.
    3. Bordons, María & Aparicio, Javier & González-Albo, Borja & Díaz-Faes, Adrián A., 2015. "The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 135-144.
    4. Andrej Kastrin & Jelena Klisara & Borut Lužar & Janez Povh, 2018. "Is science driven by principal investigators?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1157-1182, November.
    5. Kong, Xiangjie & Mao, Mengyi & Jiang, Huizhen & Yu, Shuo & Wan, Liangtian, 2019. "How does collaboration affect researchers’ positions in co-authorship networks?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 887-900.
    6. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "The Matthew effect for cohorts of economists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 522-527.
    7. Stanislaw Drozdz & Andrzej Kulig & Jaroslaw Kwapien & Artur Niewiarowski & Marek Stanuszek, 2017. "Hierarchical organization of H. Eugene Stanley scientific collaboration community in weighted network representation," Papers 1705.06208, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2017.
    8. R. Dean Malmgren & Julio M. Ottino & Luís A. Nunes Amaral, 2010. "The role of mentorship in protégé performance," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7298), pages 622-626, June.
    9. Blaise Cronin & Lokman Meho, 2006. "Using the h‐index to rank influential information scientistss," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(9), pages 1275-1278, July.
    10. Fuyuki Yoshikane & Takayuki Nozawa & Susumu Shibui & Takafumi Suzuki, 2009. "An analysis of the connection between researchers’ productivity and their co-authors’ past attributions, including the importance in collaboration networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 435-449, May.
    11. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Thomas J. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou & Staša Milojević & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Age stratification and cohort effects in scholarly communication: a study of social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 997-1016, November.
    12. Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao, 2012. "Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 251-270, June.
    13. Weihua Li & Tomaso Aste & Fabio Caccioli & Giacomo Livan, 2019. "Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    14. Ortega, José Luis, 2014. "Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 728-737.
    15. Bai, Xiaomei & Zhang, Fuli & Lee, Ivan, 2019. "Predicting the citations of scholarly paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 407-418.
    16. Fuyuki Yoshikane & Takayuki Nozawa & Keita Tsuji, 2006. "Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors' roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 643-655, September.
    17. Mary Feeney & Eric Welch, 2014. "Academic outcomes among principal investigators, co-principal investigators, and non-PI researchers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 111-133, February.
    18. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:4887-4890 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Yang Li & Huajiao Li & Nairong Liu & Xueyong Liu, 2018. "Important institutions of interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks in materials science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 85-103, October.
    20. Drożdż, Stanisław & Kulig, Andrzej & Kwapień, Jarosław & Niewiarowski, Artur & Stanuszek, Marek, 2017. "Hierarchical organization of H. Eugene Stanley scientific collaboration community in weighted network representation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 1114-1127.
    21. He, Zi-Lin & Geng, Xue-Song & Campbell-Hunt, Colin, 2009. "Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 306-317, March.
    22. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12616-12623 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    24. Jean F. Liénard & Titipat Achakulvisut & Daniel E. Acuna & Stephen V. David, 2018. "Intellectual synthesis in mentorship determines success in academic careers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in scientific research careers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    2. Liu, Junwan & Guo, Xiaofei & Xu, Shuo & Song, Yinglu & Ding, Kaiyue, 2023. "A new interpretation of scientific collaboration patterns from the perspective of symbiosis: An investigation for long-term collaboration in publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    3. Yu, Shuo & Alqahtani, Fayez & Tolba, Amr & Lee, Ivan & Jia, Tao & Xia, Feng, 2022. "Collaborative Team Recognition: A Core Plus Extension Structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    4. Zhang, Ming-Ze & Wang, Tang-Rong & Lyu, Peng-Hui & Chen, Qi-Mei & Li, Ze-Xia & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2024. "Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    5. Xie, Qing & Zhang, Xinyuan & Kim, Giyeong & Song, Min, 2022. "Exploring the influence of coauthorship with top scientists on researchers’ affiliation, research topic, productivity, and impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    6. Liang, Zhentao & Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2023. "Research complexity increases with scientists’ academic age: Evidence from library and information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    7. Ma, Yaxue & Ba, Zhichao & Zhao, Haiping & Sun, Jianjun, 2023. "How to configure intellectual capital of research teams for triggering scientific breakthroughs: Exploratory study in the field of gene editing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).

    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. Weihua Li & Sam Zhang & Zhiming Zheng & Skyler J. Cranmer & Aaron Clauset, 2022. "Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Liang, Zhentao & Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2023. "Research complexity increases with scientists’ academic age: Evidence from library and information science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    3. Yun Liu & Mengya Zhang & Gupeng Zhang & Xiongxiong You, 2022. "Scientific elites versus other scientists: who are better at taking advantage of the research collaboration network?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3145-3166, June.
    4. Xie, Qing & Zhang, Xinyuan & Kim, Giyeong & Song, Min, 2022. "Exploring the influence of coauthorship with top scientists on researchers’ affiliation, research topic, productivity, and impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    5. Zhigang Hu & Chaomei Chen & Zeyuan Liu, 2014. "How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1553-1564, November.
    6. Wu, Leyan & Yi, Fan & Bu, Yi & Lu, Wei & Huang, Yong, 2024. "Toward scientific collaboration: A cost-benefit perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    7. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    8. Duk Hee Lee & Il Won Seo & Ho Chull Choe & Hee Dae Kim, 2012. "Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 925-942, June.
    9. Wu, Jiang & Ou, Guiyan & Liu, Xiaohui & Dong, Ke, 2022. "How does academic education background affect top researchers’ performance? Evidence from the field of artificial intelligence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    10. Andrej Kastrin & Jelena Klisara & Borut Lužar & Janez Povh, 2017. "Analysis of Slovenian research community through bibliographic networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 791-813, February.
    11. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    12. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2022. "Drivers of academic engagement in public–private research collaboration: an empirical study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1861-1884, December.
    14. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2023. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2317-2336, April.
    15. Diego Ubfal & Alessandro Maffioli, 2010. "The Impact of Funding on Research Collaboration: Evidence from Argentina," SPD Working Papers 1006, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness (SPD).
    16. Waleed M. Sweileh & Sa’ed H. Zyoud & Suleiman Al-Khalil & Samah W. Al-Jabi & Ansam F. Sawalha, 2014. "Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of the Palestinian Higher Education Institutions," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(3), pages 21582440145, July.
    17. Meng, Yu, 2016. "Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 56-67.
    18. Donna Kidwell, 2014. "Navigating the role of the principal investigator: a comparison of four cases," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 33-51, February.
    19. Samitas, Aristeidis & Kampouris, Elias, 2018. "Empirical investigation of co-authorship in the field of finance: A network perspective," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 235-246.
    20. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.

    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:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:4:s175115772100078x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.