IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v90y2012i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0511-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network

Author

Listed:
  • Shahadat Uddin

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Liaquat Hossain

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Alireza Abbasi

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Kim Rasmussen

    (The University of Sydney)

Abstract

Although co-authorship in scientific research has a long history the analysis of co-authorship network to explore scientific collaboration among authors is a relatively new research area. Studies of current literature about co-authorship networks mostly give emphasis to understand patterns of scientific collaborations, to capture collaborative statistics, and to propose valid and reliable measures for identifying prominent author(s). However, there is no such study in the literature which conducts a longitudinal analysis of co-authorship networks. Using a dataset that spans over 20 years, this paper attempts to explore efficiency and trend of co-authorship networks. Two scientists are considered connected if they have co-authored a paper, and these types of connections between two scientists eventually constitute co-authorship networks. Co-authorship networks evolve among researchers over time in specific research domains as well as in interdisciplinary research areas. Scientists from diverse research areas and different geographical locations may participate in one specific co-authorship network whereas an individual scientist may belong to different co-authorship networks. In this paper, we study a longitudinal co-authorship network of a specific scientific research area. By applying approaches to analyze longitudinal network data, in addition to known methods and measures of current co-authorship literature, we explore a co-authorship network of a relatively young and emerging research discipline to understand its trend of evolution pattern and proximity of efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Shahadat Uddin & Liaquat Hossain & Alireza Abbasi & Kim Rasmussen, 2012. "Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 687-699, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0511-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0511-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0511-x
    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/s11192-011-0511-x?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. Marshall H. Medoff, 2006. "The efficiency of self-citations in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 69-84, October.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "The citation speed index: A useful bibliometric indicator to add to the h index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 444-446.
    3. Cheng-Chung Cho & Ming-Wen Hu & Meng-Chun Liu, 2010. "Improvements in productivity based on co-authorship: a case study of published articles in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 463-470, November.
    4. András Schubert, 2009. "Using the h-index for assessing single publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(3), pages 559-565, March.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Hug, Sven E. & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2011. "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 346-359.
    6. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    7. Annamária Inzelt & András Schubert & Mihály Schubert, 2009. "Incremental citation impact due to international co-authorship in Hungarian higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 37-43, January.
    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. Shahadat Uddin & Liaquat Hossain & Kim Rasmussen, 2013. "Network Effects on Scientific Collaborations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Zhenbin Yan & Qiang Wu & Xingchen Li, 2016. "Do Hirsch-type indices behave the same in assessing single publications? An empirical study of 29 bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1815-1833, December.
    3. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    4. Jerome K. Vanclay & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: a critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 751-771, June.
    5. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2018. "The early adulthood of the Asia Pacific Journal of Management: A literature review 2005–2014," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 313-345, June.
    6. García-Pérez, Miguel A., 2012. "An extension of the h index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar h," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 689-699.
    7. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    8. Muhammad Raheel & Samreen Ayaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2018. "Evaluation of h-index, its variants and extensions based on publication age & citation intensity in civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1107-1127, March.
    9. Zhang, Lin & Thijs, Bart & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2011. "The diffusion of H-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 583-593.
    10. Muhammad Salman & Mohammad Masroor Ahmed & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2021. "Assessment of author ranking indices based on multi-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4153-4172, May.
    11. Cristina López-Duarte & Jane F. Maley & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez, 2021. "Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8957-8980, November.
    12. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    13. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    14. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    15. Borrett, Stuart R. & Sheble, Laura & Moody, James & Anway, Evan C., 2018. "Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 382(C), pages 63-82.
    16. Nianhang Xu & Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2014. "Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 735-755, October.
    17. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2012. "Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 343-351, May.
    18. Dejian Yu & Sun Meng, 2018. "An overview of biomass energy research with bibliometric indicators," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(4), pages 576-590, June.
    19. Elena Rivo-López & Mónica Villanueva-Villar & Alberto Vaquero-García, 2016. "Family office: a new category in family business research?," Working Papers. Collection C: Family business 1601, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    20. 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.

    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:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0511-x. 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.