共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Book editors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of publication and collaboration patterns of established researchers in Flanders 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Book editors in the social sciences and humanities play an important role in their fields but little is known about their typical publication and collaboration patterns. To partially fill this gap, we compare Flemish editors and other researchers, in terms of career stage, productivity, publication types, publications with domestic and international collaboration as well as the number of (international or all) unique co‐authors, co‐editors and associated book chapter authors. The results show that editors are mostly established researchers, especially in the social sciences, produce more book chapters and monographs than do other researchers, and are more productive. Nevertheless, editors collaborate less than do other researchers, both in terms of publications and in number of co‐authors. Including book chapter authors in the editors' collaboration networks makes those networks substantially larger, demonstrating that editors do not mainly call upon authors from their existing collaboration network when choosing book chapter authors in the edited books. Finally, editors seem to co‐author with their book chapter authors slightly more often after the publication of the edited book than before. 相似文献
2.
The purpose of this research is to study co-authorship and scientific publications of faculty members at Shahed University, located in Iran, during the period of 2000 to 2008. Scientometrics methods were used to evaluate scientific publications. The rate of co-authorship is high (91.27%) in comparison with single authorship (8.73%). Moreover, there is a great number of scientific collaborations among Shahed University faculty members but international collaboration is low. The article provides insight into co-authorship at Shahed University and provides useful information for researchers who are seeking to learn about the collaboration in scientific works by Iranian researchers at the national and international levels. 相似文献
3.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):593-604
In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in public-private collaboration, which has motivated lengthy discussion of the implications of collaboration in general, and co-authorship in particular, for the scientific impact of research. However, despite this strong interest in the topic, there is little systematic knowledge on the relation between public-private collaboration and citation impact. This paper examines the citation impact of papers involving public-private collaboration in comparison with academic research papers. We examine the role of a variety of factors, such as international collaboration, the number of co-authors, academic disciplines, and whether the research is mainly basic or applied. We first examine citation impact for a comprehensive dataset covering all Web of Science journal articles with at least one Danish author in the period 1995–2013. Thereafter, we examine whether citation impact for individual researchers differs when collaborating with industry compared to work only involving academic researchers, by looking at a fixed group of researchers that have both engaged in public-private collaborations and university-only publications. For national collaboration papers, we find no significant difference in citation impact for public-only and public-private collaborations. For international collaboration, we observe much higher citation impact for papers involving public-private collaboration. 相似文献
4.
We analyze the advent and development of eight scientific fields from their inception to maturity and map the evolution of their networks of collaboration over time, measured in terms of co-authorship of scientific papers. We show that as a field develops it undergoes a topological transition in its collaboration structure between a small disconnected graph to a much larger network where a giant connected component of collaboration appears. As a result, the number of edges and nodes in the largest component undergoes a transition between a small fraction of the total to a majority of all occurrences. These results relate to many qualitative observations of the evolution of technology and discussions of the “structure of scientific revolutions”. We analyze this qualitative change in network topology in terms of several quantitative graph theoretical measures, such as density, diameter, and relative size of the network's largest component.To analyze examples of scientific discovery we built databases of scientific publications based on keyword and citation searches, for eight fields, spanning experimental and theoretical science, across areas as diverse as physics, biomedical sciences, and materials science. Each of the databases was vetted by field experts and is the result of a bibliometric search constructed to maximize coverage, while minimizing the occurrence of spurious records. In this way we built databases of publications and authors for superstring theory, cosmic strings and other topological defects, cosmological inflation, carbon nanotubes, quantum computing and computation, prions and scrapie, and H5N1 influenza. We also built a database for a classical example of “pathological” science, namely cold fusion. All these fields also vary in size and in their temporal patterns of development, with some showing explosive growth from an original identifiable discovery (e.g. carbon nanotubes) while others are characterized by a slow process of development (e.g. quantum computers and computation).We show that regardless of the detailed nature of their developmental paths, the process of scientific discovery and the rearrangement of the collaboration structure of emergent fields is characterized by a number of universal features, suggesting that the process of discovery and initial formation of a scientific field, characterized by the moments of discovery, invention and subsequent transition into “normal science” may be understood in general terms, as a process of cognitive and social unification out of many initially separate efforts. Pathological fields, seemingly, never undergo this transition, despite hundreds of publications and the involvement of many authors. 相似文献
5.
管理信息系统领域的合著网络中作者的广度中心度分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
基于2009年最新提出的广度中心度的概念及计算方法,对世界顶级的三种管理信息系统期刊中的数据构建合著网络,进行成分分析,在此基础上计算出5个成分中的作者的广度中心度,并对广度中心度分值较高的一些作者的背景及其合作者的研究领域进行详细的调查和分析。结果表明,管理信息系统作为一门综合性较强的学科,其研究者整体的合作行为是较活跃的;而且在广度中心度分值较高的作者中,有很多都是管理信息系统领域的知名专家学者,他们与很多领域的学者有过合作。因此,广度中心度确实可以用来评价专家学者的重要程度。 相似文献
6.
How does the collaboration network of researchers coalesce around a scientific topic? What sort of social restructuring occurs as a new field develops? Previous empirical explorations of these questions have examined the evolution of co-authorship networks associated with several fields of science, each noting a characteristic shift in network structure as fields develop. Historically, however, such studies have tended to rely on manually annotated datasets and therefore only consider a handful of disciplines, calling into question the universality of the observed structural signature. To overcome this limitation and test the robustness of this phenomenon, we use a comprehensive dataset of over 189,000 scientific articles and develop a framework for partitioning articles and their authors into coherent, semantically related groups representing scientific fields of varying size and specificity. We then use the resulting population of fields to study the structure of evolving co-authorship networks. Consistent with earlier findings, we observe a global topological transition as the co-authorship networks coalesce from a disjointed aggregate into a dense giant connected component that dominates the network. We validate these results using a separate, complimentary corpus of scientific articles, and, overall, we find that the previously reported characteristic structural evolution of a scientific field's associated co-authorship network is robust across a large number of scientific fields of varying size, scope, and specificity. Additionally, the framework developed in this study may be used in other scientometric contexts in order to extend studies to compare across a larger range of scientific disciplines. 相似文献
7.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):667-682
Previous research shows that researchers’ social network metrics obtained from a collaborative output network (e.g., joint publications or co-authorship network) impact their performance determined by g-index. We use a richer dataset to show that a scholar's performance should be considered with respect to position in multiple networks. Previous research using only the network of researchers’ joint publications shows that a researcher's distinct connections to other researchers, a researcher's number of repeated collaborative outputs, and a researchers’ redundant connections to a group of researchers who are themselves well-connected has a positive impact on the researchers’ performance, while a researcher's tendency to connect with other researchers who are themselves well-connected (i.e., eigenvector centrality) had a negative impact on the researchers’ performance. Our findings are similar except that we find that eigenvector centrality has a positive impact on the performance of scholars. Moreover, our results demonstrate that a researcher's tendency toward dense local neighborhoods and the researchers’ demographic attributes such as gender should also be considered when investigating the impact of the social network metrics on the performance of researchers. 相似文献
8.
Convexity in a network (graph) has been recently defined as a property of each of its subgraphs to include all shortest paths between the nodes of that subgraph. It can be measured on the scale [0, 1] with 1 being assigned to fully convex networks. The largest convex component of a graph that emerges after the removal of the least number of edges is called a convex skeleton. It is basically a tree of cliques, which has been shown to have many interesting features. In this article the notions of convexity and convex skeletons in the context of scientific collaboration networks are discussed. More specifically, we analyze the co-authorship networks of Slovenian researchers in computer science, physics, sociology, mathematics, and economics and extract convex skeletons from them. We then compare these convex skeletons with the residual graphs (remainders) in terms of collaboration frequency distributions by various parameters such as the publication year and type, co-authors’ birth year, status, gender, discipline, etc. We also show the top-ranked scientists by four basic centrality measures as calculated on the original networks and their skeletons and conclude that convex skeletons may help detect influential scholars that are hardly identifiable in the original collaboration network. As their inherent feature, convex skeletons retain the properties of collaboration networks. These include high-level structural properties but also the fact that the same authors are highlighted by centrality measures. Moreover, the most important ties and thus the most important collaborations are retained in the skeletons. 相似文献
9.
We analyze whether preferential attachment in scientific coauthorship networks is different for authors with different forms of centrality. Using a complete database for the scientific specialty of research about “steel structures,” we show that betweenness centrality of an existing node is a significantly better predictor of preferential attachment by new entrants than degree or closeness centrality. During the growth of a network, preferential attachment shifts from (local) degree centrality to betweenness centrality as a global measure. An interpretation is that supervisors of PhD projects and postdocs broker between new entrants and the already existing network, and thus become focal to preferential attachment. Because of this mediation, scholarly networks can be expected to develop differently from networks which are predicated on preferential attachment to nodes with high degree centrality. 相似文献
10.
作者共现网络的科学研究结构揭示能力比较研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
作者共现网络在科学研究领域结构分析中具有非常重要的作用,本文构建了作者合作、作者共被引、作者文献耦合、作者关键词耦合及作者期刊耦合五种网络,利用层次聚类和网络关联分析比较不同共现网络揭示科学研究结构的能力。通过层次聚类发现：作者文献耦合网络的准确性和精确性最高,作者共被引网络和作者合作网络其次,作者关键词耦合网络的结果容易受到干扰,作者期刊耦合网络的分析效果较差。通过网络关联分析发现：作者合作网络与其他网络的相关性都相对较低,与其他网络发现的角度不同;作者文献耦合网络与其他几种网络之间的相关性最高,对其他网络分析结果的替代性较强,多种方法结合运用更能反映科学研究的实际结构。本文还讨论了共现网络子结构研究中凝聚子群分析及中心性指标的适用性问题。图5。表4。参考文献16。 相似文献
11.
Accurate measurement of research productivity should take account of both the number of co-authors of every scientific work and of the different contributions of the individuals. For researchers in the life sciences, common practice is to indicate such contributions through position in the authors list. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to bibliometric ranking lists for scientific productivity when the number of co-authors or their position in the list is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian university professors working in the life sciences, with scientific production examined over the period 2004–2008. The outcomes of the study lead to a recommendation against using indicators or evaluation methods that ignore the different authors’ contributions to the research results. 相似文献
12.
Li Tang 《Journal of Informetrics》2013,7(2):330-344
China's status as a scientific power, particularly in the emerging area of nanotechnology, has become widely accepted in the global scientific community. The role of knowledge spillover in China's nanotechnology development is generally assumed, albeit without much convincing evidence. Very little has been investigated on the different mechanisms of knowledge spillover. Utilizing both cross-sectional data and longitudinal data of 77 Chinese nanoscientists’ publications, this study aims to differentiate individual effects from the effect of international collaboration on the research performance of Chinese researchers. The study finds evidence in support of the “birds of a feather flock together” argument – that China's best scientists collaborate at international level. It also finds that collaboration across national boundaries has a consistently positive effect on China's nano research quality with a time-decaying pattern. Language turns out to be the most influential factor impacting the quality or visibility of Chinese nano research. Policy implications on research evaluation, human capital management, and public research and development allocation are also discussed in the end. 相似文献
13.
[目的/意义]科研人员已成为知识经济时代重要的人才要素,其在全球范围内的流动关乎各国人才战略。分析科研人员流动的性别差异,有助于更好地了解流动模式,同时有利于国家人才引进机制的完善。[研究设计/方法]在分析流动频次、回流倾向、流动时期选择的性别差异基础上,提出三个研究假设,根据假设提取并分析了ORCID数据库中截止2017年底的有跨国流动经历的26,315位科研人员简历。[结论/发现]①科研人员在流动频次上具有显著的性别差异,女性科研人员的流动频次少于男性;当流动次数增加时,对应人员比例降低;②在回流倾向上,女性与男性并无显著差异,英国的男性和西班牙的女性最倾向于回流;③科研人员在流动时期的选择上无显著的性别差异,男女均在职业生涯早期流动更多。[创新/价值]揭示了男女科研人员在流动中的不同倾向,为进一步探讨不同背景和条件下的差异现象及本质并寻求解决方法奠定了基础。 相似文献
14.
Nicolás Robinson-Garcia Cassidy R. Sugimoto Dakota Murray Alfredo Yegros-Yegros Vincent Larivière Rodrigo Costas 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(1):50-63
This paper presents a methodological framework for developing scientific mobility indicators based on bibliometric data. We identify nearly 16 million individual authors from publications covered in the Web of Science for the 2008–2015 period. Based on the information provided across individuals’ publication records, we propose a general classification for analyzing scientific mobility using institutional affiliation changes. We distinguish between migrants--authors who have ruptures with their country of origin--and travelers--authors who gain additional affiliations while maintaining affiliation with their country of origin. We find that 3.7% of researchers who have published at least one paper over the period are mobile. Travelers represent 72.7% of all mobile scholars, but migrants have higher scientific impact. We apply this classification at the country level, expanding the classification to incorporate the directionality of scientists’ mobility (i.e., incoming and outgoing). We provide a brief analysis to highlight the utility of the proposed taxonomy to study scholarly mobility and discuss the implications for science policy. 相似文献
15.
We develop and propose a new counting method at the aggregate level for contributions to scientific publications called modified fractional counting (MFC). We show that, compared to traditional complete-normalized fractional counting, it eliminates the extreme differences in contributions over time that otherwise occur between scientists that mainly publish alone or in small groups and those that publish with large groups of co-authors. As an extra benefit we find that scientists in different areas of research turn out to have comparable average contributions to scientific articles. We test the method on scientists at Norway’s largest universities and find that, at an aggregate level, it indeed supports comparability across different co-authorship practices as well as between areas of research. MFC is thereby useful whenever the research output from institutions with different research profiles are compared, as e.g., in the Leiden Ranking. Finally, as MFC is actually a family of indicators, depending on a sensitivity parameter, it can be adapted to the circumstances. 相似文献
16.
17.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(3):101311
With the rapid globalization of science, mobility is perceived as an important driver of scientific progress and innovation success. However, we have little knowledge about whether and how scientists’ mobility influences their career development, especially scientists’ productivity and collaboration. In this case study, using the data on 62,330 scientists, the Chinese computer scientists who published at least one computer science paper and published no fewer than 10 papers in total from 2000 to 2012, we apply difference in differences models in conjunction with PSM methods to show the effect of domestic mobility (i.e., moving inside China) on scientists’ research quantity and quality by distinguishing the direction of mobility. In contrast to the existing literature that documents a short-term negative effect due to adaption costs or disruption of routines and social capital, we do not observe an initial detrimental impact of following moves on productivity and collaboration, even for non-upward moves. We further find that mobility leads to increased collaboration with new partners without dampening scientists’ collaboration with previous collaborators. However, scientists have a higher probability of collaborating with new collaborators, as evidenced by the decreased share of previous collaborators to the total co-authors after they move. The findings of this case study imply that the benefits of mobility might outweigh its costs and that mobility improves scientists’ productivity and collaboration for prolific scientists in emerging countries. 相似文献
18.
19.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(2):101261
This paper presents an analysis of several dimensions of scientific performance across all research disciplines measured by seven essentially different indicators that quantify productivity (absolute and fractional), collaboration (general, per publication, and international), independence from (co)advisors, and citations. The study population consists of all researchers who have obtained a Ph.D. degree in Slovenia since the country's independence in 1991. We assign researchers to 234 disciplines based on their Ph.D. thesis’ UDC classification; for each researcher, only bibliographic data for the first 10 years of their careers were used in order to avoid inconsistencies due to different career stages.While our findings show that there are notable differences between disciplines for all indicators, we also find that the trends for individual indicators are similar for the vast majority of disciplines; specifically, we observe that the fractional productivity and independence from (co)advisors of researchers are decreasing in all disciplines throughout the observed period, whereas collaboration (general, per publication, and international), and the number of citations are increasing. Moreover, our research results expose two disciplines in terms of UDC classification (mathematics and natural sciences (UDC 5), and applied sciences, medicine, technology (UDC 6)), which stand out in terms of the analyzed indicators. 相似文献
20.
The growing complexity of scientific challenges demands increasingly intense research collaboration, both domestic and international. The resulting trend affects not only the modes of producing new knowledge, but also the way it is disseminated within scientific communities. This paper analyses the relationship between the “degree of internationalization” of a country’s scientific production and that of the relevant citing publications. The empirical analysis is based on 2010-2012 Italian publications. Findings show: i) the probability of being cited increases with the degree of internationalization of the research team; ii) totally domestic research teams tend to cite to a greater extent totally domestic publications; iii) vice versa, publications resulting from international collaborations tend to be more cited by totally foreign publications rather than by publications including domestic authors. These results emerge both at overall and at discipline level. Findings might inform research policies geared towards internationalization. 相似文献