IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v117y2018i1d10.1007_s11192-018-2837-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Important institutions of interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks in materials science

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Li

    (China University of Geosciences
    Ministry of Land and Resources
    Ministry of Land and Resources)

  • Huajiao Li

    (China University of Geosciences
    Ministry of Land and Resources
    Ministry of Land and Resources)

  • Nairong Liu

    (China University of Geosciences
    Ministry of Land and Resources
    Ministry of Land and Resources)

  • Xueyong Liu

    (China University of Geosciences
    Ministry of Land and Resources
    Ministry of Land and Resources)

Abstract

Interinstitutional scientific collaboration plays an important role in knowledge production and scientific development. Together with the increasing scale of scientific collaboration, a few institutions that positively participate in interinstitutional scientific collaboration are important in collaboration networks. However, whether becoming an important institution in collaboration networks could be a contributing factor to research success and how these important institutions collaborate are still indistinct. In this paper, we identified the scientific institutions that possess the highest degree centrality as important institutions of an interinstitutional scientific collaboration network in materials science and examined their collaboration preferences utilizing several network measures. We first visualized the appearance of these important institutions that had the most positive collaborations in the interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks during the period of 2005–2015 and found an obvious scale-free feature in interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks. Then, we measured the advantages of being important in collaboration networks to research performance and found that positive interinstitutional collaborations can always bring both publication advantages and citation advantages. Finally, we identified two collaboration preferences of these important institutions in collaboration networks—one type of important institution represented by the Chinese Academy of Science plays an intermediary role between domestic institutions and foreign institutions with high betweenness centrality and a low clustering coefficient. This type of important institution has better performance in the number of publications. The other type of important institution represented by MIT tends to collaborate with similar institutions that have positive collaborations and possess a larger citation growth rate. Our finding can provide a better understanding of important institutions’ collaboration preferences and have significant reference for government policy and institutional collaboration strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:117:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2837-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2837-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2837-0
    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/s11192-018-2837-0?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. Han-Wen Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2013. "Prominent institutions in international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 443-460, November.
    2. Jiang Li & Yueting Li, 2015. "Patterns and evolution of coauthorship in China’s humanities and social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 1997-2010, March.
    3. Caroline S. Wagner & Travis A. Whetsell & Loet Leydesdorff, 2017. "Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1633-1652, March.
    4. Luka Kronegger & Franc Mali & Anuška Ferligoj & Patrick Doreian, 2015. "Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia: A study of the evolution of collaboration structures," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(2), pages 321-339, February.
    5. Pauline Mattsson & Patrice Laget & Anna Nilsson & Carl-Johan Sundberg, 2008. "Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 555-574, June.
    6. Mario Karlovčec & Dunja Mladenić, 2015. "Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 433-454, January.
    7. Ebadi, Ashkan & Schiffauerova, Andrea, 2015. "How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 809-825.
    8. Abbasi, Alireza & Altmann, Jörn & Hossain, Liaquat, 2011. "Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 594-607.
    9. Marcel Fafchamps & Sanjeev Goyal & Marco J. van der Leij, 2010. "Matching and Network Effects," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(1), pages 203-231, March.
    10. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2012. "Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1313-1326, July.
    11. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2012. "Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1313-1326, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Jaideep Ghosh & Avinash Kshitij & Sandeep Kadyan, 2015. "Functional information characteristics of large-scale research collaboration: network measures and implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1207-1239, February.
    14. Ali Gazni & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "The citation impact of collaboration between top institutions: A temporal analysis," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 219-229.
    15. 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.
    16. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 491-502, June.
    17. Hoekman, Jarno & Frenken, Koen & Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2010. "Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 662-673, June.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Necmi K. Avkiran, 2013. "An empirical investigation of the influence of collaboration in Finance on article impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 911-925, June.
    21. Zehra Taşkın & Arsev U. Aydinoglu, 2015. "Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: a bibliometric study of the NASA Astrobiology Institute," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1003-1022, June.
    22. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    23. Jonathan Adams, 2012. "The rise of research networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7420), pages 335-336, October.
    24. Sujin Choi & Joshua SungWoo Yang & Han Woo Park, 2015. "The triple helix and international collaboration in science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(1), pages 201-212, January.
    25. Jianlin Zhou & An Zeng & Ying Fan & Zengru Di, 2018. "Identifying important scholars via directed scientific collaboration networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1327-1343, March.
    26. Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2010. "A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 55-65, March.
    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. 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).
    2. Yueran Duan & Qing Guan, 2021. "Predicting potential knowledge convergence of solar energy: bibliometric analysis based on link prediction model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3749-3773, May.
    3. Oliver Wieczorek & Markus Eckl & Madeleine Bausch & Erik Radisch & Christoph Barmeyer & Malte Rehbein, 2021. "Better, Faster, Stronger: The Evolution of Co-authorship in International Management Research Between 1990 and 2016," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    4. Qin Zhang & Juneman Abraham & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2020. "Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 213-232, October.
    5. Anna Małgorzata Kamińska & Łukasz Opaliński & Łukasz Wyciślik, 2022. "The Landscapes of Sustainability in the Library and Information Science: Collaboration Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Magdalena Bemke-Świtilnik & Aneta Drabek & Anna Małgorzata Kamińska & Adam Smoliński, 2020. "Research Collaboration Patterns in Sustainable Mining—A Co-Authorship Analysis of Publications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, June.

    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. Candelaria Barrios & Esther Flores & M. Ángeles Martínez & Marta Ruiz-Martínez, 2019. "Is there convergence in international research collaboration? An exploration at the country level in the basic and applied science fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 631-659, August.
    2. Vieira, Elizabeth S. & Cerdeira, Jorge & Teixeira, Aurora A.C., 2022. "Which distance dimensions matter in international research collaboration? A cross-country analysis by scientific domain," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Ali Gazni & Vincent Larivière & Fereshteh Didegah, 2016. "The effect of collaborators on institutions’ scientific impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1209-1230, November.
    4. Tu, Jing, 2024. "Openness to international collaboration and tie strength in enhancing knowledge creation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    5. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Fu, Xiaolan, 2019. "International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 149-168.
    6. Jing Tu, 2019. "What connections lead to good scientific performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 587-604, February.
    7. Caroline S. Wagner & Travis A. Whetsell & Loet Leydesdorff, 2017. "Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1633-1652, March.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    11. Chaocheng He & Jiang Wu & Qingpeng Zhang, 2021. "Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4005-4037, May.
    12. Chaoqun Ni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Visualizing and comparing four facets of scholarly communication: producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1161-1173, March.
    13. Graf, Holger & Kalthaus, Martin, 2018. "International research networks: Determinants of country embeddedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1198-1214.
    14. Jyoti Dua & Vivek Kumar Singh & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2023. "Measuring and characterizing international collaboration patterns in Indian scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5081-5116, September.
    15. Yang Liu & Jinyuan Ma & Huanyu Song & Ziniu Qian & Xiao Lin, 2021. "Chinese Universities’ Cross-Border Research Collaboration in the Social Sciences and Its Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Jyoti Dua & Hiran H. Lathabai & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2023. "Measuring and characterizing research collaboration in SAARC countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1265-1294, February.
    17. Yi Bu & Mengyang Li & Weiye Gu & Win‐bin Huang, 2021. "Topic diversity: A discipline scheme‐free diversity measurement for journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(5), pages 523-539, May.
    18. Li, Eldon Y. & Liao, Chien Hsiang & Yen, Hsiuju Rebecca, 2013. "Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1515-1530.
    19. Xuli Tang & Xin Li & Feicheng Ma, 2022. "Internationalizing AI: evolution and impact of distance factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 181-205, January.
    20. Stanislav Avdeev, 2021. "International collaboration in higher education research: A gravity model approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5569-5588, July.

    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:117:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2837-0. 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.