IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v104y2015i3d10.1007_s11192-015-1585-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system

Author

Listed:
  • Anuška Ferligoj

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Luka Kronegger

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Franc Mali

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Tom A. B. Snijders

    (University of Groningen
    University of Oxford)

  • Patrick Doreian

    (University of Ljubljana
    University of Pittsburgh)

Abstract

This paper examines the collaboration structures and dynamics of the co-authorship network of all Slovenian researchers. Its goal is to identify the key factors driving collaboration and the main differences in collaboration behavior across scientific fields and disciplines. Two approaches to modelling network dynamics are combined in this paper: the small-world model and the mechanism of preferential attachment, also known as the process of cumulative advantage. Stochastic-actor-based modelling of co-authorship network dynamics uses data for the complete longitudinal co-authorship networks for the entire Slovenian scientific community from 1996 to 2010. We confirmed the presence of clustering in all fields and disciplines. Preferential attachment is far more complex than a single global mechanism. There were two clear distinctions regarding collaboration within scientific fields and disciplines. One was that some fields had an internal national saturation inhibiting further collaboration. The second concerned the differential impact of collaboration with scientists from abroad on domestic collaboration. In the natural, technical, medical, and biotechnical sciences, this promotes collaboration within the Slovenian scientific community while in the social sciences and humanities this inhibits internal collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger & Franc Mali & Tom A. B. Snijders & Patrick Doreian, 2015. "Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 985-1012, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:104:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1585-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7?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. Abbasi, Alireza & Hossain, Liaquat & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2012. "Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 403-412.
    2. Said, Yasmin H. & Wegman, Edward J. & Sharabati, Walid K. & Rigsby, John T., 2008. "Social networks of author-coauthor relationships," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 2177-2184, January.
    3. Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2011. "On the dynamics of national scientific systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 989-1015, August.
    4. Perc, Matjaž, 2010. "Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 475-482.
    5. Thomas W. Pike, 2010. "Collaboration networks and scientific impact among behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(2), pages 431-435.
    6. Wagner, Caroline S. & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2005. "Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1608-1618, December.
    7. Indlekofer, Natalie & Brandes, Ulrik, 2013. "Relative importance of effects in stochastic actor-oriented models," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 278-304, December.
    8. Luka Kronegger & Franc Mali & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2012. "Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 631-647, February.
    9. Domenico De Stefano & Giuseppe Giordano & Maria Vitale, 2011. "Issues in the analysis of co-authorship networks," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1091-1107, August.
    10. Patrick Doreian & Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger, 2011. "On the dynamics of national scientific systems: a reply," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1025-1029, August.
    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. Susan Biancani & Daniel McFarland, 2013. "Social Networks Research in Higher Education," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 85-126.
    2. Lepori, Benedetto & Barberio, Vitaliano & Seeber, Marco & Aguillo, Isidro, 2013. "Core–periphery structures in national higher education systems. A cross-country analysis using interlinking data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 622-634.
    3. Letina, Srebrenka, 2016. "Network and actor attribute effects on the performance of researchers in two fields of social science in a small peripheral community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 571-595.
    4. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Anuska Ferligoj & Sandra Miguel & Luka Kronegger & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2012. "Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 699-717, December.
    5. Luka Kronegger & Franc Mali & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2012. "Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 631-647, February.
    6. Marjan Cugmas & Franc Mali & Aleš Žiberna, 2020. "Scientific collaboration of researchers and organizations: a two-level blockmodeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2471-2489, December.
    7. Romina Rodela, 2016. "On the use of databases about research performance: comments on Karlovčec and Mladenić (2015) and others using the SICRIS database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2151-2157, December.
    8. Tomaz Bartol & Gordana Budimir & Doris Dekleva-Smrekar & Miro Pusnik & Primoz Juznic, 2014. "Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1491-1504, February.
    9. Liliana Arroyo Moliner & Eva Gallardo-Gallardo & Pedro Gallo de Puelles, 2017. "Understanding scientific communities: a social network approach to collaborations in Talent Management research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1439-1462, December.
    10. Chin-Chang Tsai & Elizabeth A. Corley & Barry Bozeman, 2016. "Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 505-529, August.
    11. Maria D’Esposito & Susanna Zaccarin, 2011. "Editorial: Applied and methodological issues in the analysis of network data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 985-987, August.
    12. Pinto, Pablo E. & Vallone, Andres & Honores, Guillermo, 2019. "The structure of collaboration networks: Findings from three decades of co-invention patents in Chile," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    13. Maxim Kotsemir, 2019. "Unmanned aerial vehicles research in Scopus: an analysis and visualization of publication activity and research collaboration at the country level," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2143-2173, July.
    14. Hajdeja Iglič & Patrick Doreian & Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj, 2017. "With whom do researchers collaborate and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 153-174, July.
    15. Marjan Cugmas & Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger, 2016. "The stability of co-authorship structures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 163-186, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Kim, Jinseok & Diesner, Jana, 2015. "The effect of data pre-processing on understanding the evolution of collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 226-236.
    18. Yunwei Chen & Katy Börner & Shu Fang, 2013. "Evolving collaboration networks in Scientometrics in 1978–2010: a micro–macro analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1051-1070, June.
    19. Rodica Ioana Lung & Noémi Gaskó & Mihai Alexandru Suciu, 2018. "A hypergraph model for representing scientific output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1361-1379, December.
    20. Zheng Xie, 2021. "A distributed hypergraph model for simulating the evolution of large coauthorship networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4609-4638, June.

    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:spr:scient:v:104:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1585-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.