The Structure of Organization: The Coauthorship Network Case

2017 ◽  
pp. 100-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fedor Krasnov ◽  
Sofia Dokuka ◽  
Rostislav Yavorskiy
Keyword(s):  
Coauthorship Network

scholarly journals Complete trails of coauthorship network evolution

2010 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deokjae Lee ◽  
K.-I. Goh ◽  
B. Kahng ◽  
D. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Network Evolution ◽  
Coauthorship Network

Coauthorship in Regional Science

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-409
Author(s):  
Jing Chen ◽  
Randall Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Regional Science ◽  
Collaboration Networks ◽  
Regional Research ◽  
Coauthorship Network ◽  
And Cluster Analysis ◽  
Over Time

The year 2015 marked the fiftieth anniversary of West Virginia University’s (WVU) Regional Research Institute (RRI), which has played an important role in many scientific collaboration networks. Through social network analysis (SNA) focusing on the RRI research community since its inception in 1965, this article illustrates the role that organizations and the networks they promote can play in scientific problem domains, promoting scholarly collaborations and coauthorship in the field of regional science. We analyzed an evolving WVU RRI coauthorship network that has grown and gained in complexity over time in terms of (1) global metrics, (2) components and cluster analysis, (3) centrality, and (4) PageRank and AuthorRank. The results of these analyses depict a well-developed and influential scientific collaboration structure within both WVU and the regional science research community.

Coauthorship Networks in Public Service Motivation Scholarship: Implications for the Evolution of a Field

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deneen M. Hatmaker ◽  
Amy E. Smith ◽  
Sanjay K. Pandey ◽  
Sushmita Subedi
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Social Network ◽  
Social Network Analysis ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Service Motivation ◽  
Coauthorship Network ◽  
Coauthorship Networks ◽  
The Social ◽  
Over Time

How does a body of scholarship emerge, develop, and evolve? Research is the product of a community of scholars and their collaboration over time builds and disseminates knowledge. One way to examine a scholarly community and scholarship evolution is to consider patterns of collaboration through coauthorship networks. This article conducts a social network analysis of coauthorship between public service motivation (PSM) scholars from 1990 to 2016. This analysis depicts the social structure of the field as it evolved and offers implications both for its theoretical progress and for individual scholars. In general, we find that the PSM coauthorship network has grown increasingly since 1990 but it is not a cohesive network of scholars. It consists of many disconnected subgroups that actually represent opportunities for individual scholars to build social capital and influence. We conclude with implications of our findings and we offer suggestions for further analysis.

scholarly journals A Coauthorship Network as an Indicator for Scientifi c Collaboration: A Case Study for the School of Biology and Biotechnology, National University of Mongolia

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 73-79
Author(s):  
Bazartseren Boldgiv ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Coauthorship Network ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Coauthorship Networks ◽  
National University ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Collaborative Efforts

This case study analyzes coauthorship collaboration, or lack thereof, among individual faculty members and departments in the School of Biology and Biotechnology of the National University of Mongolia. I found that publication rates and coauthorship networks in impact-factor journals between 2008 and 2012 (as of October 31, 2012) are highly variable among the eight biology departments we studied, both within and among departments. Even in the best cases, publication rates and coauthorship networks were not suffi cient. We call such insuffi cient coauthorship collaboration among different departments as (non)network of coauthorship. The size of departments and observed coauthorship networks (both connectance and linkage density) appear to positively, although insignifi cantly, affect not only the total number of publications, but also the publication rate per faculty per year. We suggest that this kind of analysis can be important for administration of academic institutions, for improving the scientifi c outputs of academic entities by facilitating collaborative efforts and for rationalizing organizational structures and merit-based promotion systems for more productive and effi cient academic operations.

scholarly journals Building visualization skills through investigating the Journal of the Medical Library Association coauthorship network from 2006–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Reznik-Zellen ◽  
Alexander J. Carroll ◽  
Eileen G. Harrington ◽  
Douglas James Joubert ◽  
Tyler Nix ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Data Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Network Analyses ◽  
Coauthorship Network ◽  
Collaborative Authorship ◽  
Medical Library

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to explore different dimensions of Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) authorship from 2006–2017. Dimensions that were evaluated using coauthorship networks and affiliation data included collaboration, geographical reach, and relationship between Medical Library Association (MLA) member and nonmember authors. A secondary objective was to analyze the practice and practical application of data science skills.Methods: A team of librarians who attended the 2017 Data Science and Visualization Institute used JMLA bibliographic metadata extracted from Scopus, together with select MLA membership data from 2006–2017. Data cleaning, anonymization, analysis, and visualization were done collaboratively by the team members to meet their learning objectives and to produce insights about the nature of collaborative authorship at JMLA.Results: Sixty-nine percent of the 1,351 JMLA authors from 2006–2017 were not MLA members. MLA members were more productive and collaborative, and tended to author articles together. The majority of the authoring institutions in JMLA are based in the United States. Global reach outside of the United States and Canada shows higher authorship in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom), as well as in Western Europe and Japan.Conclusions: MLA support of JMLA may benefit a wider network of health information specialists and medical professionals than is reflected in MLA membership. Conducting coauthorship network analyses can create opportunities for health sciences librarians to practice applying emerging data science and data visualization skills.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document