Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia: A study of the evolution of collaboration structures

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 321-329

  Kronegger, Luka ^a   Mali, Franc ^a   Ferligoj, Anuška ^a   Doreian, Patrick ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

cluster analysis; scholarly publishing; scientometrics

Indexed keywords

PUBLISHING;

COLLABORATIVE STRUCTURES; DYNAMIC CLASSIFICATION; HIER-ARCHICAL CLUSTERING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES; RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE; SCIENTOMETRICS;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS;

EID: 84938699472     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23171     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., &, Hossain, L., (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, 5 (4), 594-607.
2. ARRS. (2013). Raziskovalne vede, podroja in podpodroja (klasifikacija ARRS). Retrieved from http://www.arrs.gov.si/sl/gradivo/sifranti/sif-vpp.asp
3. Babchuk, N., Keith, B., &, Peters, G., (1999). Collaboration in sociology and other scientific disciplines. The American Sociologist 30, 5-21.
4. Batagelj, V., &, Kejžar, N., (2011). clamixClustering Symbolic Objects. Retrieved from https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/clamix
5. Beaver, D., &, Rosen, R., (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration-Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1 (3), 231-245.
6. Becher, T., &, Trowler, P., (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/SRHE.
7. Bergmann, M., &, Schramm, E., (Eds.) (2008). Transdisziplinaere Forschung. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
8. Billard, L., &, Diday, E., (2006). Symbolic Data Analysis. Conceptual Statistics and Data Mining. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
9. Bole-Kosmač, D., &, Kramberger, A., (2002). Informacijski sistem slovenske znanosti v 90. letih: Klasifikacija raziskovalnih področij. In, S. Sorčan, (Ed.), Raziskovalna dejavnost na Slovenskem v 90. letih dvajsetega stoletja (pp. 199-219). Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
10. Börner, K., Boyack, K. W., Milojevic, S., &, Morris, S., (2012). An introduction to modeling science: Basic model types, key definitions, and a general framework for the comparison of process models of science dynamics. In, A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, &, P. Besselaar, (Eds.), Models of Science Dynamics. Vol. 69 of Understanding Complex Systems (pp. 3-22). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
11. Börner, K., Dall'Asta, L., Ke, W., &, Vespignani, A., (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: Analysing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10 (4), 57-67.
12. Börner, K., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Zoss, A. M., Biberstine, J. R., Light, R. P., Larivière, V., &, Boyack, K. W., (2012). Design and update of a classification system: The UCSD map of science. PLoS ONE, 7 (7), e39464+.
13. CERIF. (1991). Commission Recommendation concerning the harmonisation within the community of research and technological development databases (6 may 1991). Official Journal L, 189, 1-34.
14. Chubin, D., (1976). The conceptualization of scientific specialities. Sociological Quarterly, 17, 448-476.
15. Creswell, J., (2003). Research sesign: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.
16. Cronin, B., (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (7), 558-569.
17. De Haan, J., (1997). Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology. Scientometrics, 39 (2), 197-208.
18. Fara, P., (2009). Science: A four thousand year history. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
19. Fuchs, S., (1992). The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
20. Fuller, S., (1997). Science. Concepts in the Social Sciences. Buckhingam, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
21. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., &, Hans-Jürgen, C., (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985-1995). Scientometrics, 45, 185-202.
22. Hagstrom, W., (1965). The Scientific Community. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
23. Hemlin, S., &, Rasmussen, S., (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31 (2), 173-198.
24. Hornbostel, S., (1997). Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft. Wissenschaftsindikatoren. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
25. Joerg, B., (2010). CERIF: The Common European Research Information Format Model. Data Science Journal, 9 (24), 24-31.
26. Katz, J. S., &, Hicks, D., (1997). How much is collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40 (3), 541-554.
27. Korenjak-Černe, S., Kejžar, N., &, Batagelj, V., (2010). Clustering of population pyramids presented as histogram symbolic data. In Joint Meeting GfKl-CLADAG 2010, Florence, 8-10 September 2010. Program and abstracts (pp. 161-162). Florence, Italy: Department of Statistics of the University of Florence.
28. Korenjak-Černe, S., Batagelj, V., &, Japelj Pavešic, B., (2011). Clustering large data sets described with discrete distributions and its application on TIMSS data set. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining, 4, 199-215.
29. Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A., &, Doreian, P., (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 45 (5), 989-1015.
30. Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., &, Doreian, P., (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90 (2), 631-647.
31. Kuhn, T.S., (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
32. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., &, Archambault, É., (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68, 519-533.
33. Laudel, G., (2002). What do we measure by co-authorship? Research Evaluation, 11 (1), 3-15.
34. Mali, F., (2006). Epistemologija družbenih ved. Razlaga in razumevanje [in Slovene]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
35. Mali, F., (2010). Turning science transdisciplinary: Is it possible for the new concept of cross-disciplinary cooperations to enter Slovenian science and policy? In, L. Kajfež-Bogataj, K.H. Müller, I. Svetlik, &, N. Toš, (Eds.), Modern RISC-Societies: Towards a New Paradigm for Societal Evolution (pp. 461-474). Vol. 14 of Complexity Design Society. Vienna, Austria: Echoraum.
36. Mali, F., (2011). Policy issues of the international productivity and visibility of the social sciences in Central and Eastern European countries. Sociologija i Prostor (Sociology and Space), 48 (3), 415-435.
37. Mali, F., Kronegger, L., &, Ferligoj, A., (2010). Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian sociological community. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy (CJSSP), 1 (2), 29-50.
38. Manzon, M., (2011). Comparative Education. Vol. 29 of CERC Studies in Comparative Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
39. Mulkay, M., (1975). Three models of scientific development. Sociological Review, 23 (3), 509-526.
40. Nederhof, A., (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66 (1), 81-100.
41. Newman, M.E.J., (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98 (2), 404-409.
42. Niiniluoto, I., (1995). The Emergence of Scientific Specialities: Six models. Poznan Studies in Philosophy of the Sciences and Humanities, 44, 211-223.
43. OECD. (2007). Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati Manual. Technical report. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf
44. Price, D.S., (1965). Networks of Scientific Papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
45. R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
46. Ravetz, J., (1971). Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.
47. Stichweh, R., (1994). Wissenschaft Universität, Professionen. Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.
48. Storer, N., &, Parsons, T., (1968). The discipline as a differentiating force. In, E. Montgomery, (Ed.), The Foundations of Access to Knowledge: A Symposium. Frontiers of Librarianship (pp. 101-121). Division of Summer Sessions. Syracuse, USA: Syracuse University Press.
49. Szostak, R., (2004). Preface. In Classifying Science: Phenomena, Data, Theory, Method, Practice. Netherlands: Springer.
50. Thorsteinsdõttir, H., (2000). Public-sector research in small countries: Does size matter? Science and Public Policy, 27 (6), 433-442.
51. Van Leeuwen, T., (2006). The application of bibilometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66 (1), 133-154.
52. Ward, J., (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize as objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-244.
53. Weber, M., (1988). Gesammelte Aufsèatze zurWissenschaftslehre. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Verlag.
54. Whitley, R., (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.
55. Whitley, R., &, Gläser, J., (Eds.) (2007). The Changing Governance of the Sciences (Vol. 26). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
56. Ziman, J., (1994). Prometheus Bound. Science in Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
57. Ziman, J., (2000). Real Science. What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.