Modes of collaboration in modem science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 61, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1410-1423

  Milojević, Staša ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COAUTHORSHIP NETWORKS; COLLABORATION MODES; INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELDS; LOG-NORMAL; POWER LAW; POWER-LAW TAIL; PREFERENTIAL ATTACHMENTS; SCIENTIFIC FIELDS; SUBFIELDS;

EID: 77954042320     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21331     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allison, P.D., Krauze, T.K., & Long, J.S. (1982). Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review, 47(5), 615-625.
2. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509-512.
3. Barabási, A.-L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311, 590-614. (Pubitemid 34782622)
4. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D.H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In EJ. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 979-1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Beaver, D.d. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377.
6. Beaver, D.d., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84.
7. Beaver, D.d., & Rosen, R. (1979a). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799-1830. Scientometrics, 1(2), 133-149.
8. Beaver, D.d., & Rosen, R. (1979b). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern, scientific coauthorship. Scientometrics, 1(3), 231-245.
9. Berube, D.M. (2006). Nano-hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
10. Birnholtz, J.P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758-1770.
11. Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H.B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 197-213). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
12. Borner, K., Sanyal, S., & Vespignani, A. (2007). Network science. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (vol. 41, pp. 537-607). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
13. Cole, J.R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion of evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569.
16. Dorogovtsev, S.N., & Mendes, J.F.F. (2000). Scaling behaviour of developing and decaying networks. Europhysics Letters, 52, 33-39.
17. Dorogovtsev, S.N., & Mendes, J.F.F. (2002). Evolution of networks. Advances in Physics, 51(4), 1079-1187.
18. Parkas, I., Derenyi, I., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Oltvai, Z.N., Ravasz, E., et al. (2002). Networks in life: Scaling properties and eigenvalue spectra. PhysicaA, 314(1-4), 25-34.
19. Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461-473.
20. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S & T systems (pp. 257-276). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Grodal, S. (2007). The emergence of a new organizational field-labels, meaning and emotions in nanotechnology. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
22. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D.H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
23. Hayles, N.K. (2004). Connecting the quantum dots: Nanotechscience and culture. In N.K. Hayles (Ed.), Nanoculture: Implications of the new technoscience (pp. 11-26). Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.
24. Katz, J.S., & Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
25. Kretschmer, H. (1997). Patterns of behaviour in coauthorship networks of invisible colleges. Scientometrics, 40(3), 579-591.
26. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702. (Pubitemid 41495323)
27. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(1), 101-126.
28. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorship. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377. (Pubitemid 126449889)
29. Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
30. Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism, of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606-623.
31. Milburn, C. (2004). Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: Science fiction as science. In N.K. Hayles (Ed.), Nanoculture: Implications of the new technoscience (pp. 109-129). Portland, OR: Intellect Books.
32. Milojević, S. (2009). Big science, nano science?: Mapping the evolution and socio-cognitive structure of nanoscience/nanotechnology using mixed methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
33. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238.
34. Newman, M.E.J. (2001a). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102-025104.
35. Newman, M.E.J. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404-409.
36. Newman, M.E.J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167-256.
37. Newman, M.E.J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. .Frauenfelder, & Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex networks (pp. 337-370). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
38. Price, D.J.d.S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292-306.
39. Shram, W., Genuth, J., & Chompalov, I. (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Smith, D., & Katz, J.S. (2000). Collaborative approaches to research: Final report. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ Users/sylvank/pubs/collc.pdf
41. Sonnenwald, D.H. (2007). Scientific collaboration: Challenges and solutions. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science & technology (vol. 41, pp. 643-681). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
42. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33-38. (Pubitemid 13574658)
43. Wagner, C.S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
44. Wagner, C.S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, selforganization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608-1618.
45. Wajcman, J. (2008). Emergent technosciences. In E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 813-816). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Watts, D.J. (2004). The "new" science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 243-270.
48. Zucker, L.G., & Darby, M.R. (2005). Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and NanoBank. NBER Working Paper 11181.
49. Zucker, L.G., & Darby, M.R. (2007). Nanobank data description release 2.0 (beta-test). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for International Science, Technology and Cultural Policy and Nanobank. January 17, 2007-February 2, 2009.
50. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Furner, J., Liu, R.C., & Ma, H. (2007). Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Research Policy, 36(6), 850-863. (Pubitemid 46898554)
51. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.