|
|
|
| Structural Characteristics of the Co-contributorship Network and Its Application in Collaborative Group Identification |
| Lu Chao1, Li Mengting1, Chen Xiujuan2, Dong Ke3,4, Wei Ruibin5 |
1.Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100
2.School of Journalism and Communication, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097
3.Research Institute for Data Management & Innovation, Nanjing University, Suzhou 215163
4.Laboratory of Data Intelligence and Interdisciplinary lnnovation, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
5.School of Management Science and Engineering, Anhui University of Finance and Economics, Bengbu 233030 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The construction of organized scientific research teams relies on a scientific understanding of the phenomena and patterns of research collaboration. The commonly used research model for scientific collaboration, the co-authorship network, assumes equal contributions among co-authors for the same research output, which often contradicts actual research collaboration practices. The emergence of author contribution statement data provides valuable material for revealing more detailed collaboration practices. This study proposes a novel collaboration network, which is called the “co-contributorship network” and constructed using contribution declaration data, to provide a new tool for investigating scientific collaboration issues in depth. Using article data in the field of medicine from PLoS as an example and the co-authorship network as a baseline, we explore the physical properties of this new collaboration network through its network structure characteristics. Furthermore, we focus on identifying collaboration groups, an essential research direction, to better understand the practical value of the co-contributorship network. The study finds the following: in terms of the network structure, the co-contributorship network is sparser than the co-authorship network. The results of both networks regarding the identification of collaboration groups partially coincide, with an overlap of approximately 57%. Approximately 32% of the collaboration groups experienced restructuring in the co-contributorship network. The evaluation results show that collaboration groups in the co-contributorship network tend to be more focused on research topics compared to those in the co-authorship network, but the difference is not statistically significant. Overall, based on our dataset, the co-contributorship network exhibits a more favorable community structure compared to the co-authorship network. It helps identify finer-grained collaboration groups with higher consistency in their research topics among the identified groups.
|
|
Received: 17 March 2023
|
|
|
|
1 Larivière V, Gingras Y, Sugimoto C R, et al. Team size matters: collaboration and scientific impact since 1900[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(7): 1323-1332.
2 Lu C, Zhang C W, Xiao C R, et al. Contributorship in scientific collaborations: The perspective of contribution-based byline orders[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2022, 59(3): 102944.
3 Birnholtz J P. What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(13): 1758-1770.
4 Leahey E, Reikowsky R C. Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology[J]. Social Studies of Science, 2008, 38(3): 425-440.
5 Amjad T, Ding Y, Xu J, et al. Standing on the shoulders of giants[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(1): 307-323.
6 Allen L, Scott J, Brand A, et al. Publishing: credit where credit is due[J]. Nature, 2014, 508(7496): 312-313.
7 Frische S. It is time for full disclosure of author contributions[J]. Nature, 2012, 489(7417): 475.
8 Lu C, Zhang Y Y, Ahn Y Y, et al. Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020, 71(10): 1162-1178.
9 Larivière V, Pontille D, Sugimoto C R. Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2021, 2(1): 111-128.
10 Yang S L, Xiao A X, Nie Y, et al. Measuring coauthors’ credit in medicine field-based on author contribution statement and citation context analysis[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2022, 59(3): 102924.
11 Corrêa E A, Silva F N, da F Costa L, et al. Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(2): 498-510.
12 Newman M E J. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004, 101(Suppl 1): 5200-5205.
13 Barabási A L, Jeong H, Néda Z, et al. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations[J]. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2002, 311(3/4): 590-614.
14 Zhang C W, Bu Y, Ding Y, et al. Understanding scientific collaboration: homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(1): 72-86.
15 Savi? M, Ivanovi? M, Jain L C. Analysis of enriched co-authorship networks: methodology and a case study[M]// Complex Networks in Software, Knowledge, and Social Systems. Cham: Springer, 2019: 277-317.
16 He C C, Wu J, Zhang Q P. Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(5): 4005-4037.
17 Zhai L, Yan X B. A directed collaboration network for exploring the order of scientific collaboration[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2022, 16(4): 101345.
18 Yu S, Alqahtani F, Tolba A, et al. Collaborative team recognition: a core plus extension structure[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2022, 16(4): 101346.
19 Li E Y, Liao C H, Yen H R. Co-authorship networks and research impact: a social capital perspective[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(9): 1515-1530.
20 Amjad T, Daud A, Aljohani N R. Ranking authors in academic social networks: a survey[J]. Library Hi Tech, 2018, 36(1): 97-128.
21 Ma G S, Qian Y H, Zhang Y Y, et al. The recognition of kernel research team[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2022, 16(4): 101339.
22 Chuan P M, Son L H, Ali M, et al. Link prediction in co-authorship networks based on hybrid content similarity metric[J]. Applied Intelligence, 2018, 48(8): 2470-2486.
23 Orzechowski K P, Mrowinski M J, Fronczak A, et al. Asymmetry of social interactions and its role in link predictability: the case of coauthorship networks[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2023, 17(2): 101405.
24 Katz J S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1): 1-18.
25 刘晓婷, 黄颖, 李瑞婻, 等. 内聚-耦合视角下科研团队合作模式识别与对比研究[J]. 情报科学, 2022, 40(12): 170-180.
26 Zou B T, Wang Y F, Kwoh C K, et al. Directed collaboration patterns in funded teams: a perspective of knowledge flow[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2023, 60(2): 103237.
27 吕千千, 谭宗颖. 虚拟科研团队识别方法研究——以重症医学领域为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(15): 97-106.
28 李纲, 柳明飞, 吴青, 等. 基于蝴蝶结模型的科研团队角色识别及其特征研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(5): 87-94.
29 丁敬达, 王新明. 基于作者贡献声明的合著者贡献率测度方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(16): 95-102.
30 张梦莹, 章成志, 王杰. 不同学科的作者贡献分布差异研究——以图情和医学领域的四种期刊为例[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2018, 38(12): 112-119.
31 Sinatra R, Deville P, Szell M, et al. A century of physics[J]. Nature Physics, 2015, 11(10): 791-796.
32 卢超, 章成志, 王玉琢, 等. 语义特征分析的深化——学术文献的全文计量分析研究综述[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2021, 47(2): 110-131.
33 卢超, 董克. 文献耦合网络的引文内容加权研究——基于提及次数的方法[J]. 情报杂志, 2022, 41(11): 171-178.
34 Lu C, Bu Y, Dong X L, et al. Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(3): 817-829.
35 Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S. Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis[J]. Physical Review E, 2009, 80(5): 056117.
36 Blondel V D, Guillaume J L, Lambiotte R, et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks[J]. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008, 2008(10): P10008.
37 Syakur M A, Khotimah B K, Rochman E S, et al. Integration k-means clustering method and elbow method for identification of the best customer profile cluster[J]. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 336: 012017.
38 Newman M E J. Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks[J]. Physical Review E, 2004, 69(6): 066133.
39 Wang Q. A bibliometric model for identifying emerging research topics[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(2): 290-304.
40 Grootendorst M. MaartenGr/KeyBERT: BibTeX[CP/OL]. (2021-01-25). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4461265.
41 Guo Z H, You Z H, Huang D S, et al. MeSHHeading2vec: a new method for representing MeSH headings as vectors based on graph embedding algorithm[J]. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 2021, 22(2): 2085-2095.
42 Grover A, Leskovec J. node2vec: scalable feature learning for networks[C]// Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM Press, 2016: 855-864.
43 Newman M E J. The structure of scientific collaboration networks[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2001, 98(2): 404-409.
44 Devine E B, Beney J, Bero L A. Equity, accountability, transparency: implementation of the contributorship concept in a multi-site study[J]. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 2005, 69(4): 61.
45 Jia T, Wang D S, Szymanski B K. Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2017, 1: Article No.0078.
46 Li B H, Zhou H, He J X, et al. On the sentence embeddings from pre-trained language models[C]// Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020: 9119-9130.
47 Robinson-Garcia N, Costas R, Sugimoto C R, et al. Task specialization across research careers[J]. eLife, 2020, 9: e60586.
48 Xu F L, Wu L F, Evans J. Flat teams drive scientific innovation[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022, 119(23): e2200927119. |
|
|
|
