Using co-authorship and citation analysis to identify research groups: a new way to assess performance

Scientometrics

Volumn 108, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 1171-1191

  Reyes Gonzalez, Leonardo ^a   Gonzalez Brambila, Claudia N ^b   Veloso, Francisco ^c  

^a Medallia   (Mexico)

^b INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO AUTÓNOMO DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^c CATÓLICA LISBON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Citations; Knowledge footprints; Mexico; Network analysis; Physics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976497236     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2029-8     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adams, J. (1998). Benchmarking international research. Nature, 396, 615–618.
2. Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Shirey, P. (1990). LS Sets, lambda sets and other cohesive subsets. Social Networks, 12, 337–357.
3. Braun, T., Gómez, I., Méndez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 24, 181–200.
4. Calero, C., Buter, R., Cabello-Valdés, C., & Noyons, E. (2006). How to identify research groups using publication analysis: an example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 66(2), 365–376.
5. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22, 191–235.
6. CINVESTAV. (2008). Jerzy Plebanski’s Biography. Downloaded on 12 January 2009 from http://www.fis.cinvestav.mx/~grupogr/gr_mphysics/plebanski/Plebanski.html.
7. Cohen, J. E. (1991). Size, age and productivity of scientific and technical research groups. Scientometrics, 20(3), 395–416.
8. Collazo-Reyes, F., & Luna-Morales, M. E. (2002). Física mexicana de partículas elementales. INCI, 27, 347–353.
9. Collazo-Reyes, F., Luna-Morales, M. E., & Russell, J. M. (2004). Publication and citation patterns of the Mexican contribution to a “Big Science” discipline: Elementary particle physics. Scientometrics, 60, 131–143.
10. COSEPUP. (1999). Evaluating federal research programs: Research and the government performance and results act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1206–1223.
12. Du, N., Wu, B., Pei, X., Wang, B., & Xu, L. (2007). Community detection in large-scale social networks (pp. 16–25). New York, IN: Proceedings of WebKDD and SNA-KDD, ACM.
13. Ford, J. R., & Fulkerson, D. R. (1962). Flows in networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Frederiksen, L. F., Hansson, F., & Wenneberg, S. B. (2003). The agora and the role of research. Evaluation, 9, 149–172.
15. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359–375.
16. Georghiou, L., & Roessner, D. (2000). Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, 29, 657–678.
17. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Springer.
18. Gläser, J., Spurling, T. H., & Butler, L. (2004). Intraorganisational evaluation: Are there ‘least evaluable units’? Research Evaluation, 13, 19–32.
19. Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57, 27–57.
20. Gomez, I., Fernandez, M. T., & Sebastian, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44, 441–457.
21. Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035–1051.
22. Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., Veloso, F. M., & Krackhardt, D. (2013). The impact of network embeddedness on research output. Research Policy, 42(9), 1555–1567.
23. Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308, 697–702.
24. Guston, D. H. (2003). The expanding role of peer review process in the United States. In P. Shapira & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation (pp. 81–97). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
25. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16568–16572.
26. Kane, A. (2001). Indicators and evaluation for science, technology and innovation. ICSTI Task Force on Metrics and Impact. Downloaded on 15 August 2005 from http://www.economics.nuigalway.ie/people/kane/2002_2003ec378.html.
27. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.
28. King, A. D. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316.
29. Krackhardt, D. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 183–210.
30. Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the Mapping of Science. Scientometrics, 11, 291–320.
31. Lu, H., & Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics, 81(2), 499–511.
32. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61–90.
33. Marx, W., & Hoffmann, T. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of fifty years of physica status solidi. Physica Status Solidi, 248(12), 2762–2771.
34. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793–796.
35. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36, 363–377.
36. Miquel, J. F., Ojasoo, T., Okubo, Y., Paul, A., & Doré, J. (1995). World science in 18 disciplinary areas: comparative evaluation of the publication patterns of 48 countries over the period 1981–1992. Scientometrics, 33, 149–167.
37. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
38. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.
39. Nagpaul, P. S., & Sharma, L. (1994). Research output and transnational cooperation in physics subfields: A multidimensional analysis. Scientometrics, 31, 97–122.
40. Narin, F. (1976). Evaluative bibliometrics: The use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.
41. Narin, F. (1978). Objectivity versus relevance in studies of scientific advance. Scientometrics, 1, 35–41.
42. Narvaez-Berthelemot, N., Frigoletto, L. P., & Miquel, J. F. (1992). International scientific collaboration in Latin America. Scientometrics, 24, 373–392.
43. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 404–409.
44. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, 101, 5200–5205.
45. Noyons, E. C. M. (2004). Science maps within a science policy context. 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. 237–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
46. Noyons, E. C. M., Moed, H. F., & Luwel, M. (1999a). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 115–131.
47. Noyons, E. C. M., Moed, H. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1999b). Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics, 46(3), 591–604.
48. Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Olmeda-Gomez, C., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2010). Detecting, identifying and visualizing research groups in co-authorship networks. Scientometrics, 82, 307–319.
49. Rip, A. (2000). Societal challenges for R&D evaluation. In P. Shapira & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Learning from science and technology policy evaluation (pp. 18–41). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
50. Russell, J. M. (1995). The increasing role of international cooperation in science and technology research in Mexico. Scientometrics, 34, 45–61.
51. Russell, J. M., del Río, J. A., & Cortés, H. D. (2007). Highly visible science: A look at tree decades of research from Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Spain. INCI, 32, 629–634.
52. Scientific, Thomson. (2004). National Citation Report 1980–2003: Customized database for the Mexican Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT). Philadelphia, PA: Thomson Research.
53. Small, H. G. (1973). Co-citation in scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265–269.
54. Small, H. G. (1977). Co-citation model of a scientific specialty: a longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7, 139–166.
55. Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8, 327–340.
56. Thomson-ISI. (2003). National Science Indicators database—Deluxe version. Philadelphia, PA: Thomson Research.
57. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
58. van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). R&D evaluation at the beginning of the new century. Research Evaluation, 9, 81–86.
59. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
60. van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal Attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133–143.
61. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.
62. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 327–355.
64. Yang, T., Jun, R., Chi, Y., & Zhu, S. (2009). Combining link and content for community detection: a discriminative approach. Proceedings of KDD (pp. 927–936). New York: ACM.
65. Zulueta, M. A., & Bordons, M. (1999). A global approach to the study of teams in multidisciplinary research áreas through bibliometric indicators. Research Evaluation, 8(2), 111–118.