IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v9y2015i2p359-372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who is collaborating with whom? Part I. Mathematical model and methods for empirical testing

Author

Listed:
  • Kretschmer, Hildrun
  • Beaver, Donald deB.
  • Ozel, Bulent
  • Kretschmer, Theo

Abstract

There are two versions in the literature of counting co-author pairs. Whereas the first version leads to a two-dimensional (2-D) power function distribution; the other version shows three-dimensional (3-D) graphs, totally rotatable around and their shapes are visible in space from all possible points of view. As a result, these new 3-D computer graphs, called “Social Gestalts” deliver more comprehensive information about social network structures than simple 2-D power function distributions. The mathematical model of Social Gestalts and the corresponding methods for the 3-D visualization and animation of collaboration networks are presented in Part I of this paper. Fundamental findings in psychology/sociology and physics are used as a basis for the development of this model.

Suggested Citation

  • Kretschmer, Hildrun & Beaver, Donald deB. & Ozel, Bulent & Kretschmer, Theo, 2015. "Who is collaborating with whom? Part I. Mathematical model and methods for empirical testing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 359-372.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:359-372
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115771500005X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.004?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. Hildrun Kretschmer & Ramesh Kundra & Donald deB. Beaver & Theo Kretschmer, 2012. "Gender bias in journals of gender studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 135-150, October.
    2. Steven A. Morris & Michel L. Goldstein, 2007. "Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's law," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(12), pages 1764-1782, October.
    3. Bulent Ozel & Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2014. "Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 703-723, January.
    4. Kretschmer, Hildrun & Kretschmer, Theo, 2007. "Lotka's distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 308-337.
    5. Melin, Goran, 2000. "Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 31-40, January.
    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. Noémi Gaskó & Rodica Ioana Lung & Mihai Alexandru Suciu, 2016. "A new network model for the study of scientific collaborations: Romanian computer science and mathematics co-authorship networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 613-632, August.

    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. Bulent Ozel & Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2014. "Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 703-723, January.
    2. Hildrun Kretschmer & Donald Beaver & Theo Kretschmer, 2015. "Three-dimensional visualization and animation of emerging patterns by the process of self-organization in collaboration networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 87-120, July.
    3. Clemens B. Fell & Cornelius J. König, 2016. "Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 113-141, July.
    4. Kretschmer, Hildrun & Beaver, Donald deB. & Ozel, Bulent & Kretschmer, Theo, 2015. "Who is collaborating with whom? Part II. Application of the methods to male and to female networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 373-384.
    5. Donald deB. Beaver, 2012. "Quantity is only one of the qualities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 33-39, October.
    6. William Latham & Christian Le Bas, 2011. "Causes, Consequences and Dynamics of ‘Complex’ Distributions of Technological Activities: The Case of Prolific Inventors," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Loarne-Lemaire, Séverine Le & Bertrand, Gaël & Razgallah, Meriam & Maalaoui, Adnane & Kallmuenzer, Andreas, 2021. "Women in innovation processes as a solution to climate change: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    8. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2014. "Barycenter representation of book publishing internationalization in the Social Sciences and Humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 234-240.
    9. Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2006. "Implementing a 'bottom-up,' multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 51-69.
    10. Lemarchand, Guillermo A., 2012. "The long-term dynamics of co-authorship scientific networks: Iberoamerican countries (1973–2010)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 291-305.
    11. Saskia C. Hin, 2013. "Interdisciplinary research collaboration as the future of ancient history? Insights from spying on demographers," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2013-002, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    12. 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.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    14. Svein Kyvik & Ingvild Reymert, 2017. "Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 951-967, November.
    15. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    16. Lutomiah, Agnes & Blanckenberg, Jaco P. & Skupien, Stefan, 2022. "In Between Centre and Periphery: Kenya as a Key Scientific Nation in East Africa?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 388-403.
    17. John Rigby, 2009. "Comparing the scientific quality achieved by funding instruments for single grant holders and for collaborative networks within a research system: Some observations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 145-164, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & María Inés Moraes & Tatiana Pérez, 2021. "Women in Research in Economics in Uruguay," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 40(84), pages 763-790, October.
    20. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2021. "Will collaborators make scientists move? A Generalized Propensity Score analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).

    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:9:y:2015:i:2:p:359-372. 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.