IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v113y2017i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2515-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community evolution analysis based on co-author network: a case study of academic communities of the journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Zheng

    (Wuhan University
    Wuhan University)

  • Jianya Gong

    (Wuhan University
    Wuhan University)

  • Rui Li

    (Wuhan University
    Wuhan University)

  • Kai Hu

    (Wuhan University
    Wuhan University)

  • Huayi Wu

    (Wuhan University
    Wuhan University)

  • Siluo Yang

    (Wuhan University)

Abstract

Academic community evolution reveals the development of scientific collaboration among scientists. These social interactions of researchers can be well reflected by co-author network, making it feasible to investigate academic community through looking into co-author network, and to study community evolution through dynamic co-author network analysis. Existing metrics measure an author’s impact or centrality in co-author network individually, rather than considering the academic community as a whole. Besides, co-authors of a paper usually make different contributions reflected in the name order, which is often ignored in traditional co-author network analysis. Furthermore, attention has been paid mainly on those structure-level characteristics like the small-world coefficient and the clustering coefficient, the content-level characteristics like community, author, and topics, however, are crucial in the understanding of community evolution. To address those problems, we firstly propose a “comprehensive impact index” to evaluate the author in a co-author network by comprehensively considering the statistic-based impact and the network-based centrality. Then the comprehensive index value of all authors in a community is added up to evaluate the community as a whole. Further, a lifecycle strategy is proposed for the community evolution analysis. Taking geography academic community as a pilot study, we select 919 co-authored papers from the flagship journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”. The co-author groups are generated by community detection method. Top three co-author groups are identified through computing with the proposed index and analyzed through the proposed lifecycle strategy from perspective of community structures, member authors, and impacts respectively. The results demonstrate our proposed index and strategy are more efficient for analyzing academic community evolution than traditional methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Zheng & Jianya Gong & Rui Li & Kai Hu & Huayi Wu & Siluo Yang, 2017. "Community evolution analysis based on co-author network: a case study of academic communities of the journal of “Annals of the Association of American Geographers”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 845-865, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2515-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2515-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2515-7
    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/s11192-017-2515-7?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. Marjan Cugmas & Anuška Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger, 2016. "The stability of co-authorship structures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 163-186, January.
    2. Chengliang Liu & Qinchang Gui, 2016. "Mapping intellectual structures and dynamics of transport geography research: a scientometric overview from 1982 to 2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 159-184, October.
    3. Yuan Wang & Cuiyun Xiang & Peng Zhao & Guozhu Mao & Huibin Du, 2016. "A bibliometric analysis for the research on river water quality assessment and simulation during 2000–2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1333-1346, September.
    4. Miloš Savić & Mirjana Ivanović & Miloš Radovanović & Zoran Ognjanović & Aleksandar Pejović & Tatjana Jakšić Krüger, 2014. "The structure and evolution of scientific collaboration in Serbian mathematical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1805-1830, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Yuling Peng & Aiwen Lin & Ke Wang & Fenglian Liu & Fang Zeng & Li Yang, 2015. "Global trends in DEM-related research from 1994 to 2013: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 347-366, October.
    7. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 785-793, September.
    8. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2009. "Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(10), pages 2107-2118, October.
    9. Martin, Geoffrey J., 2005. "All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780195168709.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2005. "Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(3), pages 391-392, 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. Shiwei Lu & Yaping Huang & Zhiyuan Zhao & Xiping Yang, 2018. "Exploring the Hierarchical Structure of China’s Railway Network from 2008 to 2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Jinyang Dong & Jiamou Liu & Tiezhong Liu, 2021. "The impact of top scientists on the community development of basic research directed by government funding: evidence from program 973 in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8561-8579, October.
    3. Tian, Yunpei & Li, Gang & Mao, Jin, 2023. "Predicting the evolution of scientific communities by interpretable machine learning approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    4. Kai Hu & Kunlun Qi & Siluo Yang & Shengyu Shen & Xiaoqiang Cheng & Huayi Wu & Jie Zheng & Stephen McClure & Tianxing Yu, 2018. "Identifying the “Ghost City” of domain topics in a keyword semantic space combining citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1141-1157, March.

    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. Zhai, Li & Yan, Xiangbin, 2022. "A directed collaboration network for exploring the order of scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    2. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhou, Yuhao & Wang, Ruijie & Zeng, An & Zhang, Yi-Cheng, 2020. "Identifying prize-winning scientists by a competition-aware ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    5. Zewen Hu & Angela Lin & Peter Willett, 2019. "Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    7. Mohadab, Mohamed El & Bouikhalene, Belaid & Safi, Said, 2020. "Bibliometric method for mapping the state of the art of scientific production in Covid-19," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    9. Dejian Yu & Sun Meng, 2018. "An overview of biomass energy research with bibliometric indicators," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(4), pages 576-590, June.
    10. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    11. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2008. "An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 364-368.
    12. Amin Mazloumian, 2012. "Predicting Scholars' Scientific Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-5, November.
    13. Thomas R. Anderson & Robin K. S. Hankin & Peter D. Killworth, 2008. "Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 577-588, September.
    14. Sandra Cristina Oliveira & Juliana Cobre & Danilo Florentino Pereira, 2021. "A measure of reliability for scientific co-authorship networks using fuzzy logic," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4551-4563, June.
    15. Alireza Abbasi & Mahdi Jalili & Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki, 2018. "Influence of network-based structural and power diversity on research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 579-590, October.
    16. Montoya, Francisco G. & García-Cruz, Amós & Montoya, Maria G. & Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, 2016. "Power quality techniques research worldwide: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 846-856.
    17. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2012. "HistCite analysis of papers constituting the h index research front," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 285-288.
    19. Yichi Zhang & Zhiliang Dong & Sen Liu & Peixiang Jiang & Cuizhi Zhang & Chao Ding, 2021. "Forecast of International Trade of Lithium Carbonate Products in Importing Countries and Small-Scale Exporting Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, January.
    20. Reza Kiani Mavi & Denise Gengatharen & Neda Kiani Mavi & Richard Hughes & Alistair Campbell & Ross Yates, 2021. "Sustainability in Construction Projects: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.

    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:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2515-7. 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.