Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 18. September 2018)
1Zhang, C. ; Bu, Y. ; Ding, Y. ; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.72-86.
Abstract: Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23916/full.
2Bu, Y. ; Ding, Y. ; Xu, J. ; Liang, X. ; Gao, G. ; Zhao, Y.: Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.87-97.
Abstract: Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23911/full.
3Bu, Y. ; Ding, Y. ; Liang, X. ; Murray, D.S.: Understanding persistent scientific collaboration.
In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.438-448.
Abstract: Common sense suggests that persistence is key to success. In academia, successful researchers have been found more likely to be persistent in publishing, but little attention has been given to how persistence in maintaining collaborative relationships affects career success. This paper proposes a new bibliometric understanding of persistence that considers the prominent role of collaboration in contemporary science. Using this perspective, we analyze the relationship between persistent collaboration and publication quality along several dimensions: degree of transdisciplinarity, difference in coauthor's scientific age and their scientific impact, and research-team size. Contrary to traditional wisdom, our results show that persistent scientific collaboration does not always result in high-quality papers. We find that the most persistent transdisciplinary collaboration tends to output high-impact publications, and that those coauthors with diverse scientific impact or scientific ages benefit from persistent collaboration more than homogeneous compositions. We also find that researchers persistently working in large groups tend to publish lower-impact papers. These results contradict the colloquial understanding of collaboration in academia and paint a more nuanced picture of how persistent scientific collaboration relates to success, a picture that can provide valuable insights to researchers, funding agencies, policy makers, and mentor-mentee program directors. Moreover, the methodology in this study showcases a feasible approach to measure persistent collaboration.
Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23966/full.