IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v9y2015i2p373-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who is collaborating with whom? Part II. Application of the methods to male and to female networks

Author

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

Abstract

The theoretical approach of 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. The application of these new methods to male and female networks is shown in Part II. After regression analysis the visualized Social Gestalts are rather identically with the corresponding empirical distributions (R2>0.99). The structures of female co-authorship networks differ markedly from the structures of the male co-authorship networks. For female co-author pairs’ networks, accentuation of productivity dissimilarities of the pairs is becoming visible but on the contrary, for male co-author pairs’ networks, accentuation of productivity similarities of the pairs is expressed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:373-384
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157715000188
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.009?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. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2014. "Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 273-290, 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Hao Wang & Sanhong Deng & Xinning Su, 2016. "A study on construction and analysis of discipline knowledge structure of Chinese LIS based on CSSCI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1725-1759, December.
    6. Jiancheng Guan & Lanxin Pang, 2018. "Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 201-222, April.
    7. Aliakbar Pourhatami & Mohammad Kaviyani-Charati & Bahareh Kargar & Hamed Baziyad & Maryam Kargar & Carlos Olmeda-Gómez, 2021. "Mapping the intellectual structure of the coronavirus field (2000–2020): a co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6625-6657, August.
    8. Shen, Hongquan & Xie, Juan & Ao, Weiyi & Cheng, Ying, 2022. "The continuity and citation impact of scientific collaboration with different gender composition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    9. Donald deB. Beaver, 2012. "Quantity is only one of the qualities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 33-39, October.
    10. King, Molly M. & Frederickson, Megan, 2020. "The Pandemic Penalty: The gendered effects of COVID-19 on scientific productivity," SocArXiv 8hp7m, Center for Open Science.
    11. James Hartley & Guillaume Cabanac, 2014. "Do men and women differ in their use of tables and graphs in academic publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1161-1172, February.
    12. Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2013. "Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 25-36, October.
    13. Xiuwen Chen & Jianping Li & Xiaolei Sun & Dengsheng Wu, 2019. "Early identification of intellectual structure based on co-word analysis from research grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 349-369, October.
    14. Yang Bai & Hongxiu Li & Yong Liu, 2021. "Visualizing research trends and research theme evolution in E-learning field: 1999–2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1389-1414, February.
    15. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    16. Aleksandra Cislak & Magdalena Formanowicz & Tamar Saguy, 2018. "Bias against research on gender bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 189-200, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Manuel Castriotta & Michela Loi & Elona Marku & Ludovica Moi, 2021. "Disentangling the corporate entrepreneurship construct: conceptualizing through co-words," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2821-2863, April.
    19. Federica Consentino & Gabriella Vindigni & Daniela Spina & Clara Monaco & Iuri Peri, 2023. "An Agricultural Career through the Lens of Young People," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.
    20. González-Álvarez, Julio & Cervera-Crespo, Teresa, 2017. "Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 232-243.

    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:373-384. 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.