Collaboration in computer science: A network science approach

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 62, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1992-2012

  Franceschet, Massimo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC PAPER; COAUTHORSHIP; COLLABORATION NETWORK; GLOBAL NETWORKS; NETWORK CLUSTERING; NETWORK RESILIENCE; NETWORK SCIENCE; REACHABILITY; SEPARATION DISTANCES; SUBNETWORKS; CO-AUTHORSHIPS;

COMPUTER NETWORKS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 80052751495     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21614     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Asknes, D.W., (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12 (3), 159-170.
2. Barabási, A.-L., &, Albert, R., (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509-512.
3. Barabási, A.L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., &, Vicsek, T., (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311 (3-4), 590-614. (Pubitemid 34782622)
4. Bird, C., Barr, E.T., Nash, A., Devanbu, P.T., Filkov, V., &, Su, Z., (2009). Structure and dynamics of research collaboration in computer science. SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (pp. 826-837).
5. Birman, K., &, Schneider, F.B., (2009). Program committee overload in systems. Communications of the ACM, 52 (5), 34-37.
6. Choppy, C., van Leeuwen, J., Meyer, B., &, Staunstrup, J., (2009). Research evaluation for computer science. Communications of the ACM, 52 (4), 31-34.
7. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R., &, Newman, M.E.J., (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51, 661-703.
8. Crowcroft, J., Keshav, S., &, McKeown, N., (2009). Scaling the academic publication process to Internet scale. Communications of the ACM, 52 (1), 27-30.
9. Davis, A., Gardner, B.B., &, Gardner, M.R., (1941). Deep South. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. DBIS Research Group (2011). Basex-Processing and Visualizing XML with a Native XML Database, 2011 from
11. de Solla Price, D., (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27 (5), 292-306.
12. Elmacioglu, E., &, Lee, D., (2005). On six degrees of separation in DBLP-DB and more. SIGMOD Record, 34 (2), 33-40. (Pubitemid 41260008)
13. Erdos, P., (1972). On the fundamental problem of mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 79 (2), 149-150.
14. Fortnow, L., (2009). Time for computer science to grow up. Communications of the ACM, 52 (8), 33-35.
15. Franceschet, M., (2010). The role of conference publications in CS. Communications of the ACM, 53 (2), 129-132.
16. Franceschet, M., &, Costantini, A., (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (4), 540-553.
17. Goffman, C., (1969). And what is your Erdos number ? The American Mathematical Monthly, 76 (7), 791.
18. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., &, Rouen, K.D., (2003). Science from the periphery: Publication, collaboration and "periphery effects" in article citation rates of the New Zealand Crown Research Institutes 1995-2000. Scientometrics, 57 (3), 321-337. (Pubitemid 39109274)
19. Grossman, J.W., (1997). Paul Erdos: The master of collaboration. The Mathematics of Paul Erdos (pp. 467-476). Berlin: Springer.
20. Grossman, J.W., (2002). The evolution of the mathematical research collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium, 158, 201-212. (Pubitemid 36530334)
21. Harary, F., (1971). The collaboration graph of mathematicians and a conjecture of Erdos. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 4, 212-213.
22. Huang, J., Zhuang, Z., Li, J., &, Giles, C.L., (2008). Collaboration over time: Characterizing and modeling network evolution. International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining (pp. 107-116). (Pubitemid 351588784)
23. Katz, J.S., &, Hicks, D., (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40 (3), 541-554. (Pubitemid 127457627)
24. Kautz, H.A., Selman, B., &, Shah, M.A., (1997). Referral Web: Combining social networks and collaborative filtering. Communications of the ACM, 40 (3), 63-65. (Pubitemid 127441132)
25. Lariviè re, V., Gingras, Y., &, Archambault, E., (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68 (3), 519-533. (Pubitemid 44127038)
26. Lawani, S.M., (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics, 9 (1-2), 13-25.
27. Ley, M., (2009). DBLP: Some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2 (2), 1493-1500.
28. Ley, M., (2010). The DBLP Computer Science Bibliography, 2010. Retrieved from
29. Lotka, A.J., (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16 (12), 317-323.
30. Menezes, G.V., Ziviani, N., Laender, A.H.F., &, Almeida, V.A.F., (2009). A geographical analysis of knowledge production in computer science. International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1041-1050). New York: ACM Press.
31. Milgram, S., (1967). The small world problem. Physiology Today, 1 (1), 61-67.
32. Millo, R.A.D., Lipton, R.J., &, Perlis, A.J., (1979). Social processes and proofs of theorems and programs. Communications of the ACM, 22 (5), 271-280.
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. (Pubitemid 38727984)
34. Moreno, J., (1934). Who shall survive ? New York: Beacon House.
35. Newman, M.E.J., (2001a). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64 (2), 025102.
36. Newman, M.E.J., (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks: I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64 (1), 016131.
37. Newman, M.E.J., (2001c). Scientific collaboration networks: II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64 (1), 016132.
38. Newman, M.E.J., (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5200-5205. (Pubitemid 38469127)
39. Newman, M.E.J., (2010). Networks: An Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
40. Newman, M.E.J., &, Ghoshal, G., (2008). Bicomponents and the robustness of networks to failure. Physical Review Letters, 100 (13), 138701.
41. Newman, M.E.J., &, Park, J., (2003). Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Physical Review E, 68 (3), 036122.
42. Odda, T., (1979). On properties of a well-known graph or what is your Ramsey number ? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 328, 166-172.
43. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., &, Danell, R., (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60 (3), 421-432. (Pubitemid 38926350)
44. Presser, S., (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science, 10 (1), 95-101.
45. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from:.
46. Reuther, P., Walter, B., Ley, M., Weber, A., &, Klink, S., (2006). Managing the quality of person names in DBLP. European Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 508-511). (Pubitemid 44608744)
47. Scott, J., (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Beverly Hills: Sage.
48. Vardi, M., (2009). Conferences vs. journals in computing research. Communications of the ACM, 52 (5), 5.
49. Wasserman, S., &, Faust, K., (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
50. Watts, D.J., &, Strogatz, S.H., (1998). Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.