Evolutionary events in a mathematical sciences research collaboration network

Scientometrics

Volumn 99, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 973-998

  Brunson, Jason Cory ^a   Fassino, Steve ^b   McInnes, Antonio ^c   Narayan, Monisha ^d   Richardson, Brianna ^c   Franck, Christopher ^e   Ion, Patrick ^f   Laubenbacher, Reinhard ^g  

^a VIRGINIA BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^c OAKWOOD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e 406 A Hutcheson Hall   (United States)

^f Mathematical Reviews   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaboration networks; Evolving networks; Mathematics research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900469722     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1209-z     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J., & Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of literature. Health Services Research, 42, 329-346. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1475-6773. 2006. 00621. x.
2. Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311(3-4), 590-614. doi: 10. 1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7.
3. Barrat, A., & Weigt, M. (2000). On the properties of small-world network models. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 13(3), 547-560. doi: 10. 1007/s100510050067.
4. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Hendrickx, J. M., & Jungers, R. M. (2007). Distance distribution in random graphs and application to network exploration. Physical Review E, 76, 066, 101. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 76. 066101.
5. Borjas, G. J., & Doran, K. B. (2012). The collapse of the Soviet Union and the productivity of American mathematicians. Working Paper 17800, National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www. nber. org/papers/w17800.
6. Chung, F., & Lu, L. (2002). The average distances in random graphs with given expected degrees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99(25), 15, 879-15, 882 doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 252631999.
7. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4), 661-703. doi: 10. 1137/070710111.
8. Davis, J. A. (1979). The Davis/Holland/Leinhardt studies: An overview. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (eds.), Perspectives on Social Network Research (pp. 51-62). New York: Academic Press.
9. Erdos, P., & Rényi, A. (1959). On random graphs, I. Publicacions Matemàtiques, 6, 290-297. http://www. renyi. hu/~p_erdos/Erdos. html#1959-11.
10. Erdo{double acute}s, P., & Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 5, 17-61.
11. Fronczak, A., Fronczak, P., & Hołyst, J. A. (2004). Average path length in random networks. Physical Review E, 70, 056, 110 doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 70. 056110.
12. Ginsparg, P. (2009). The global village pioneers. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 95-100. doi: 10. 1087/2009203, http://physicsworld. com/cws/article/print/35983.
13. 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.
14. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 257-276). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/1-4020-2755-9_12.
15. Goyal, S., van der Leij, M. J., & Moraga-Gonzalez, J. L. (2006). Economics: An emerging small world. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 403-432. http://EconPapers. repec. org/RePEc: ucp: jpolec: v: 114: y: 2006: i: 2: p: 403-432.
16. Grindrod, P., & Higham, D. J. (2013). A matrix iteration for dynamic network summaries. SIAM Review, 55(1), 118-128. doi: 10. 1137/110855715.
17. Grossman, J. W. (2002). The evolution of the mathematical research collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium, 158, 201-212.
18. Grossman, J. W., & Ion, P. D. F. (1995). On a portion of the well-known collaboration graph. In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Southeastern International Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, Boca Raton, FL (Vol. 108, pp. 129-131).
19. Guillaume, J. L., & Latapy, M. (2004). Bipartite structure of all complex networks. Information Processing Letters, 90(5), 215-221. doi: 10. 1016/j. ipl. 2004. 03. 007.
20. Holme, P., & Saramäki, J. (2011). Temporal networks. Physics Reports, 519(3), 97-125. doi: 10. 1016/j. physrep. 2012. 03. 001.
21. Jackson, A. (1997). Chinese acrobatics, an old-time brewery, and the "much needed gap": The life of Mathematical reviews. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44(3), 330-337. http://www. ams. org/notices/199703/comm-mr. pdf.
22. Khodadadi, A., & Asgharian, M. (2008). Change-point problems and regression: an annotated bibliography. Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive. http://biostats. bepress. com/cobra/ps/art44.
23. Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index. Scientometrics, 84 (3), 575-603. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-010-0202-z, http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909426/.
24. Latora, V., & Marchiori, M. (2001). Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Physical Review Letters, 87, 198, 701. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett. 87. 198701.
25. Maslov, S., & Sneppen, K. (2002). Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science, 296(5569), 910-913. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1065103.
26. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. The Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. http://arjournals. annualreviews. org/doi/pdf/10. 1146/annurev. soc. 27. 1. 415.
27. Molloy, M., & Reed, B. (1995). A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on Random Graphs and Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics and Computer Science, "Random Graphs '93" (Poznań, 1993) (Vol. 6, pp. 161-179). doi: 10. 1002/rsa. 3240060204.
28. Molloy, M., & Reed, B. (1998). The size of the giant component of a random graph with a given degree sequence. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 7(3), 295-305. doi: 10. 1017/S0963548398003526.
29. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. doi: 10. 2307/3593085.
30. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 10326.
31. Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 64. 016131, http://pre. aps. org/abstract/PRE/v64/i1/e016131.
32. Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations: II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64, 016132. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 64. 016132, http://pre. aps. org/abstract/PRE/v64/i1/e016132.
33. Newman, M. E. J. (2001c). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(2), 404-409. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 021544898.
34. Newman, M. E. J. (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E, 67(2), 026, 126. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 67. 026126.
35. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 101(1), 5200-5205. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0307545100.
36. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In Complex networks, Lecture Notes in Physics (Vol. 650, pp. 337-370). Berlin: Springer.
37. Newman, M. E. J., Strogatz, S. H., & Watts, D. J. (2001). Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Physical Review E, 64, 026, 118. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 64. 026118.
38. Opsahl, T. (2011). Triadic closure in two-mode networks: redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Social Network. doi: 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2011. 07. 001.
39. Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Network, 32(3), 245-251. doi: 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2010. 03. 006.
40. Page, E. S. (1954). Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, 41(1/2), 100-115. http://www. jstor. org/stable/2333009.
41. Perc, M. (2010). Growth and structure of Slovenia's scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475-482. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2010. 04. 003.
42. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. http://ideas. repec. org/p/ner/leuven/urnhdl123456789-101421. html.
43. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Reservoir Evaluation, 15(3), 187-195. http://ideas. repec. org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i3p187-195. html.
44. Price, D. J. d. S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science... and Beyond. New York: Columbia University. http://www. amazon. com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0231049560.
45. Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the Sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893-916. http://www. eric. ed. gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ564231.
46. Soffer, S. N., & Vázquez, A. (2005). Network clustering coefficient without degree-correlation biases. Physical Review E, 71(5), 057, 101. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevE. 71. 057101.
47. Spencer, J. (2010). The giant component: the golden anniversary. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 57(6), 720-724.
48. Tomassini, M., & Luthi, L. (2007). Empirical analysis of the evolution of a scientific collaboration network. Physica A 385(2), 750-764. doi: 10. 1016/j. physa. 2007. 07. 028, http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/B6TVG-4P8GWXG-7/2/5836255114267d1a22b1d1fa47215fc9.
49. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (idr): a review of the literature. Journal of Informatrics 5(1), 14-26. doi: 10. 1016/j. joi. 2010. 06. 004, http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/B83WV-51834VM-1/2/f35bf17a30a67b6b63b76ad36631e721.
50. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://scholar. google. com/scholar. bib?q=info: gET6m8icitMJ: scholar. google. com/&output=citation&hl=en&as_sdt=0, 5&as_vis=1&ct=citation&cd=0.
51. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440-442. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/9623998.