Differences in Collaboration Patterns across Discipline, Career Stage, and Gender

PLoS Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 11, 2016, Pages

  Zeng, Xiao Han T ^a   Duch, Jordi ^a,b   Sales Pardo, Marta ^a,b   Moreira, João A G ^a   Radicchi, Filippo ^c   Ribeiro, Haroldo V ^a,d   Woodruff, Teresa K ^e,f   Amaral, Luís A Nunes ^a,f  

^a Northwestern University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d STATE UNIVERSITY OF MARINGÁ   (Brazil)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAREER; GENDER; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROBABILITY; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; UNIVERSITY; COOPERATION; FEMALE; MALE; OCCUPATION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SEX DIFFERENCE;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; FACULTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OCCUPATIONS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 85007354419     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002573     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Levine JM, Moreland RL, Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2004; doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_1015223516
2. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP, The Science of Team Science. Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2 SUPPL.):S77–89. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.00218619407
3. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Börner K, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, et al. Advancing the science of team science. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3(5):263–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00223.x20973925
4. Cummings JN, Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(5):703–722. doi: 10.1177/0306312705055535
5. Schubert A, Glänzel W, Cross-national preference in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics. 2006;69(2):409–428. doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0160-7
6. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B, Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322(5905):1259. doi: 10.1126/science.115835718845711
7. Milojević S, Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(11):3984–3989. doi: 10.1073/pnas.130972311124591626
8. Wood DJ, Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. J Appl Behav Sci. 1991;27(2):139–162. doi: 10.1177/0021886391272001
9. Ahuja G, Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Adm Sci Q. 2000;45(3):425–455. doi: 10.2307/2667105
10. Dyer JH, Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strateg Manag J. 2002;18(7):535–556. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C535::AID-SMJ885%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
11. Gajda R, Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances. Am J Eval. 2004;25(1):65–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ameval.2003.11.002
12. Uzzi B, Spiro J, Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Am J Sociol. 2005;111(2):447–504. doi: 10.1086/432782
13. Bordons M, Gomez II, Fernandez MT, Zulueta MA, Sndez AM, Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics. 1996;37(2):279–295. doi: 10.1007/BF02093625
14. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316(5827):1036–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.113609917431139
15. Guimerà R, Amaral LAN, Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks. Nature. 2005;433(7028):895. doi: 10.1038/nature0328815729348
16. Katzenback JR, Smith DK, The Wisdom of Teams. New York: Harper Business; 2008.
17. EditorialScience for all. Nature. 2013;495:5. doi: 10.1038/495005a23472264
18. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT, The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS One. 2013;8(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.006621223894278
19. Kyvik S, Teigen M, Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci Technol Human Values. 1996;21(1):54. doi: 10.1177/016224399602100103
20. Berdahl JL, Anderson C, Men, Women, and Leadership Centralization in Groups Over Time. Gr Dyn Theory, Res Pract. 2005;9(1):45–57. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.45
21. Bart C, McQueen G, Why women make better directors. Int J Bus Gov Ethics. 2013;8(1):93–99. doi: 10.1504/IJBGE.2013.052743
22. Kümmerli R, Colliard C, Fiechter N, Petitpierre B, Russier F, Keller L, Human cooperation in social dilemmas: comparing the Snowdrift game with the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci. 2007;274(1628):2965–2970. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.079317895227
23. Cole JR, Zuckerman H, Maehr ML, Steinkamp MW, The Productivity Puzzle. In: Adv. Motiv. Achiev. JAI Press; 1984. p.217–258.
24. Bozeman B, Corley E, Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy. 2004;33(4):599–616. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008
25. Lee S, Bozeman B, The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(5):673–702. doi: 10.1177/0306312705052359
26. Bozeman B, Gaughan M, How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Res Policy. 2011;40(10):1393–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002
27. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Murgia G, Gender differences in research collaboration. J Informetr. 2013;7(4):811–822. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002
28. Kegen NV, Science Networks in Cutting-edge Research Institutions: Gender Homophily and Embeddedness in Formal and Informal Networks. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci. 2013;79:62–81. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.05.057
29. McDowell JM, Smith JK, The effect of gender-sorting on propensity to coauthor: Implications for academic promotion. Econ Inq. 1992;30(1):68–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1992.tb01536.x
30. Duch J, Zeng XHT, Sales-Pardo M, Radicchi F, Otis S, Woodruff TK, et al. The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.005133223251502
31. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Murgia G, The collaboration behaviors of scientists in Italy: A field level analysis. J Informetr. 2013;7(2):442–454. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.009
32. Xie Y, Shauman KA, Sex Differences in Research Productivity: New Evidence about an Old Puzzle. Am Sociol Rev. 1998;63(6):847. doi: 10.2307/2657505
33. Ceriani L, Verme P, The origins of the Gini index: extracts from Variabilità e Mutabilità (1912) by Corrado Gini. J Econ Inequal. 2011;10(3):421–443. doi: 10.1007/s10888-011-9188-x
34. Scott DW, Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992. doi: 10.1002/9780470316849
35. Lancichinetti A, Sirer MI, Wang JX, Acuna D, Körding K, Amaral LAN, High-reproducibility and high-accuracy method for automated topic classification. Phys Rev X. 2015;5:11007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011007
36. Draper NR, Smith H, Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1998. doi: 10.1002/9781118625590
37. Sheltzer JM, Smith JC, Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(28):10107–10112. doi: 10.1073/pnas.140333411124982167
38. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW, Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010;330(2010):686–688. doi: 10.1126/science.119314720929725
39. Barthelemy RS, Mccormick M, Gender Discrimination in Physics and Astronomy: Graduate Student Experiences of Sexism and Gender Microaggressions. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2016;020119(12):1–28. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020119
40. Gonsalves AJ, Danielsson A, Pattersson H, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2016;12(2):020120. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020120
41. Raab GK, CEO at Genentech, 1990–1995: Oral History Transcript. Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; 2003. Available from: https://archive.org/details/ceogenentech00raabrich.
42. Newman MEJ, Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101Suppl:5200–5205. doi: 10.1073/pnas.030754510014745042
43. U.S. News & World Report: Best Colleges Rankings 2010 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20100512221918/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings.
44. U.S. News & World Report: Best Graduate Schools in Chemical Engineering 2011 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20100914231426/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/chemical-engineering.
45. U.S. News & World Report: Best Graduate Schools in Chemistry 2010 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20091001135906/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-chemistry-schools/rankings.
46. U.S. News & World Report: Best Graduate Schools in Ecology 2010 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090428035058/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-biological-sciences-programs/ecology.
47. U.S. News & World Report: Best Graduate Schools in Material Engineering 2011 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20100915141756/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/material-engineering.
48. U.S. News & World Report: Best Graduate Schools in Molecular Biology 2010 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090428035103/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-biological-sciences-programs/molecular-biology.
49. U.S. News & World Report: Best Graduate Schools in Psychology 2010 Edition;. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20100515154410/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-psychology-schools/rankings.