Detecting and analyzing research communities in longitudinal scientific networks

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2017, Pages

  Leone Sciabolazza, Valerio ^a   Vacca, Raffaele ^a   Kennelly Okraku, Therese ^a   McCarty, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXTRACT; FLORIDA; MODEL; PUBLICATION; UNIVERSITY; COMMUNITY CARE; COOPERATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PEER REVIEW; PERSONNEL; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY NETWORKS; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; FLORIDA; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 85027262086     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182516     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Sonnenwald DH, Scientific collaboration. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007; 41(1): 643–681.
2. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316(5827): 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 PMID: 17431139
3. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C, Keyton J, et al., Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res. Eval. 2011; 20(2): 145–158. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876580 PMID: 23223093
4. Stokols D., Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK, The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008; 35(2): S96–S115.
5. Börner K, Ding Y, Conlon M, Corson-Rikert J, VIVO: a semantic approach to scholarly networking and discovery. Morgan & C; 2012.
6. Fiore SM, Interdisciplinarity as teamwork how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Gr. Res., 2008; 39(3): 251–277.
7. Contractor N, Some assembly required: leveraging Web science to understand and enable team assembly. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2013; 371(1987): 20120385.
8. Contractor NS, Wasserman S, Faust K, Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006; 31(3): 681–703.
9. Zhu M, Huang Y, Contractor NS, Motivations for self-assembling into project teams. Soc. Networks. 2013; 35(2): 251–264.
10. Leshner AI, Terry SF, Schultz AM, Liverman CT, editors. The CTSI program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research. The national academies press; 2013.
11. Bian J, Xie M, Topaloglu U, Hudson T, Eswaran H, Hogan W, Social network analysis of biomedical research collaboration networks in a CTSA institution, J. Biomed. Inform. 2014; 52: 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.01.015 PMID: 24560679
12. Calhoun WJ, Wooten K, Bhavnani S, Anderson KE, Freeman J, Brasier AR, The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams, Clin. Transl. Sci; 2013; 6(1): 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12004 PMID: 23399092
13. Nagarajan R, Lowery CL, Hogan WR, Temporal evolution of biomedical research grant collaborations across multiple scales–a CTSA baseline study. AMIA annual symposium proceedings. 2011; 2011: 987–993. PMID: 22195158
14. Nagarajan R, Kalinka AT, Hogan WR, Evidence of community structure in biomedical research grant collaborations, J. Biomed. Inform. 2013; 46(1): 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2012.08.002 PMID: 22981843
15. Nagarajan R., Peterson CA, Lowe JS, Wyatt SW, Tracy TS, Kern PA, Social Network Analysis to Assess the Impact of the CTSA on Biomedical Research Grant Collaboration, Clin. Transl. Sci. 2015; 8 (2): 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12247 PMID: 25442221
16. De Stefano D, Fuccella V, Vitale MP, Zaccarin S, The use of different data sources in the analysis of coauthorship networks and scientific performance, Soc. Networks. 2013; 35(3): 370–381.
17. Newman MEJ, The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2001; 98(2): 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404 PMID: 11149952
18. White HD, Scientific and Scholarly Networks. In Scott J. and Carrington PJ, editors. The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Sage Publications Ltd; 2011. pp. 271–285.
19. Bidault F, Hildebrand T, The distribution of partnership returns: Evidence from co-authorships in economics journals. Res. Policy. 2014; 43(6): 1002–1013, 2014.
20. Ductor L, Does Co-authorship Lead to Higher Academic Productivity?, Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2015; 77 (3): 385–407.
21. Besancenot D, Huynh K, Serranito F, Co-autorship and Individual Research Productivity in Economics: Assessing The Assortative Matching Hypothesis, LEO Work. Pap. / DR LEO. 2015; 2236: 1–42.
22. Aboelela SW, Larson E, Bakken S, Carrasquillo O, Formicola A, Glied SA, et al, Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature, Health Serv. Res. 2007; 42(1): 329–346.
23. Bruns HC, Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise, Acad. Manag. J. 2013; 56(1): 62–83.
24. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B, Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science, Science. 2008; 322(5905): 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357 PMID: 18845711
25. Singh J., Fleming L, Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality?, Manage. Sci. 2010; 56(1): 41–56.
26. Leahey E., From Solo Investigator to Team Scientist: Trends in the Practice and Study of Research Collaboration. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2016; 42(1): 81–100.
27. Scott J. and Carrington PJ, editors. The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Sage Publications Ltd; 2011.
28. Newman MEJ, Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2001; 101(1): 5200–5205.
29. Goyal S, Van Der Leij MJ, Moraga-González JL, Economics: An Emerging Small World. J. Polit. Econ. 2006; 114(2): 403–412.
30. Yan E, Ding Y, Zhu Q, Mapping library and information science in China: A coauthorship network analysis, Scientometrics. 2010; 83(1): 115–131.
31. Hughes ME, Peeler J, Hogenesch JB, Network dynamics to evaluate performance of an academic institution. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010; 2(53): 53ps49.
32. Valente TW, Network interventions. Sciemce. 2012; 337(6090): 49–53.
33. Vacca R, McCarty C, Conlon M, Nelson DR, Designing a CTSA-Based Social Network Intervention to Foster Cross Disciplinary Team Science. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2015; 8(4): 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12267 PMID: 25788258
34. Moody J, The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2004; 69: 213–238.
35. Fortunato S, Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep. 2010; 486(3–5): 75–174.
36. Olson GM, Olson JS, Distance matters. 2000; 15(2): 139–178.
37. Katz JS, Martin BR, What is research collaboration?. Res. Policy, 1997; 26: 1–18.
38. Knoben J, Oerlemans LAG, Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2006; 8(2): 71–89.
39. Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J, Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am. J. Sociol. 2005; 110(4): 1132–1205.
40. Dhand A, Luke DA, Carothers BJ, Evanoff BA, Academic Cross-Pollination: The Role of Disciplinary Affiliation in Research Collaboration. PLoS One. 2016; 11(1): 1–13.
41. Palla G, Barabási AL, Vicsek T, Quantifying social group evolution. Nature. 2007; 446(7136): 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05670 PMID: 17410175
42. Chandrasekhar AG, Econometrics of Network Formation. In Bramoullé Y, Galeotti A, Rogers BW, editors. Oxford Handbook on the Econometrics of Networks. Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 303–357.
43. Fafchamps M, Leij MJ, Goyal S, Matching and network effects. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2010; 8(1): 203–231.
44. Besancenot D, Huynh K, Serranito F, Co-Authorship and Individual Research Productivity in Economics: Assessing the Assortative Matching Hypothesis. Econ. Model. Forthcoming 2017.
45. Gondal N, The local and global structure of knowledge production in an emergent research field: An exponential random graph analysis. Soc. Networks. 2011; 33(1): 20–30.
46. Girvan M, Newman MEJ, Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2002; 99(2): 7821–7826.
47. Barabási AL, Linked: the new science of networks. Perseus; 2002.
48. Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E, Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. theory Exp. 2008; P10008: 1–12.
49. Newman MEJ, Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2006; 103(23): 8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103 PMID: 16723398
50. Brandes U, Lerner J, Lubbers MJ, McCarty C, Molina JL, Nagel U, Recognizing modes of acculturation in personal networks of migrants, Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010; 4: 4–13.
51. Budescu DV, Budescu M, How to measure diversity when you must, Psychol. Methods, 2012; 17(2): 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027129 PMID: 22309955
52. Valente TW, Fujimoto K, Bridging: locating critical connectors in a network, Soc. Networks. 2010; 32(3): 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.003 PMID: 20582157
53. Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D, An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks, Soc. Networks. 2007; 29(2): 173–191.
54. Harris JK, An introduction to exponential random graph modeling. SAGE Publications; 2013.
55. Hunter DR, Goodreau SM, Handcock MS, Goodness of fit of social network models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2012; 103(481): 248–258.
56. Kaplan N, The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. Am. Doc. 1965; 16(3): 179–184.
57. Small HG, Griffith BC, The structure of scientific literature: Identifying and graphing specialties. Sci. Stud. (St. Bonaventure). 1974; 4(1): 17–40.
58. Hill V, Carley KM, An approach to identifying consensus in a subfield: The case of organizational culture. Poetics. 1999; 27(1): 1–30.