Abstract
Using data from computer databases of scientific papers in physics, biomedical research, and computer science, we have constructed networks of collaboration between scientists in each of these disciplines. In these networks two scientists are considered connected if they have coauthored one or more papers together. We have studied many statistical properties of our networks, including numbers of papers written by authors, numbers of authors per paper, numbers of collaborators that scientists have, typical distance through the network from one scientist to another, and a variety of measures of connectedness within a network, such as closeness and betweenness. We further argue that simple networks such as these cannot capture the variation in the strength of collaborative ties and propose a measure of this strength based on the number of papers coauthored by pairs of scientists, and the number of other scientists with whom they worked on those papers. Using a selection of our results, we suggest a variety of possible ways to answer the question “Who is the best connected scientist?”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
1. S. Wasserman and K. Faust, Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994).
2. J. Scott, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Sage, London, 2nd edition (2000).
3. S. H. Strogatz, Exploring complex networks. Nature 410, 268–276 (2001).
4. A.-L. Barabási, Linked: The New Science of Networks. Perseus, Cambridge, MA (2002).
5. D. J. Watts, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. Norton, New York (2003).
6. M. E. J. Newman, The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45, 167–256 (2003).
7. P. Mariolis, Interlocking directorates and control of corporations: The theory of bank control. Social Science Quarterly 56, 425–439 (1975).
8. J. Galaskiewicz and P. V. Marsden, Interorganizational resource networks: Formal patterns of overlap. Social Science Research 7, 89–107 (1978).
9. J. F. Padgett and C. K. Ansell, Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. Am. J. Sociol. 98, 1259–1319 (1993).
10. A. Rapoport and W. J. Horvath, A study of a large sociogram. Behavioral Science 6, 279–291 (1961).
11. T. J. Fararo and M. Sunshine, A Study of a Biased Friendship Network. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse (1964).
12. H. R. Bernard, P. D. Killworth, M. J. Evans, C. McCarty, and G. A. Shelley, Studying social relations cross-culturally. Ethnology 2, 155–179 (1988).
13. J. Moody, Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. Am. J. Sociol. 107, 679–716 (2001).
14. M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos, On power-law relationships of the internet topology. Computer Communications Review 29, 251–262 (1999).
15. Q. Chen, H. Chang, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. J. Shenker, and W. Willinger, The origin of power laws in Internet topologies revisited. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, IEEE Computer Society (2002).
16. R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabási, Diameter of the world-wide web. Nature 401, 130–131 (1999).
17. A. Broder, R. Kumar, F. Maghoul, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, R. Stata, A. Tomkins, and J. Wiener, Graph structure in the web. Computer Networks 33, 309–320 (2000).
18. H. Ebel, L.-I. Mielsch, and S. Bornholdt, Scale-free topology of e-mail networks. Phys. Rev. E 66, 035103 (2002).
19. M. E. J. Newman, S. Forrest, and J. Balthrop, Email networks and the spread of computer viruses. Phys. Rev. E 66, 035101 (2002).
20. L. A. Adamic, R. M. Lukose, A. R. Puniyani, and B. A. Huberman, Search in power-law networks. Phys. Rev. E 64, 046135 (2001).
21. M. Ripeanu, I. Foster, and A. Iamnitchi, Mapping the Gnutella network: Properties of large-scale peer-to-peer systems and implications for system design. IEEE Internet Computing 6, 50–57 (2002).
22. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998).
23. J. Abello, A. Buchsbaum, and J. Westbrook, A functional approach to external graph algorithms. In Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Algorithms, Springer, Berlin (1998).
24. P. Sen, S. Dasgupta, A. Chatterjee, P. A. Sreeram, G. Mukherjee, and S. S. Manna, Small-world properties of the Indian railway network. Phys. Rev. E 67, 036106 (2003).
25. A. Davis, B. B. Gardner, and M. R. Gardner, Deep South. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1941).
26. G. F. Davis and H. R. Greve, Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. Am. J. Sociol. 103, 1–37 (1997).
27. L. A. N. Amaral, A. Scala, M. Barthélémy, and H. E. Stanley, Classes of small-world networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 11149–11152 (2000).
28. B. Wellman, J. Salaff, D. Dimitrova, L. Garton, M. Gulia, and C. Haythornthwaite, Computer networks as social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 213–238 (1996).
29. P. Hoffman, The Man Who Loved Only Numbers. Hyperion, New York (1998).
30. P. Erdős and M. Kac, The Gaussian law of errors in the theory of additive number theoretic functions. Am. J. Math. 26, 738–742 (1940).
31. R. M. Ziff, G. E. Uhlenbeck, and M. Kac, The ideal Bose-Einstein gas, revisited. Phys. Rep. 32, 169–248 (1977).
32. M. E. J. Newman and R. M. Ziff, Efficient Monte Carlo algorithm and high-precision results for percolation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4104–4107 (2000).
33. V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar, Some analyses of Erdős collaboration graph. Social Networks 22, 173–186 (2000).
34. J. W. Grossman, The evolution of the mathematical research collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium 158, 202–212 (2002).
35. J. W. Grossman and P. D. F. Ion, On a portion of the well-known collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium 108, 129–131 (1995).
36. L. Egghe and R. Rousseau, Introduction to Informetrics. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990).
37. H. Kretschmer, Coauthorship networks of invisible college and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics 30, 363–369 (1994).
38. O. Persson and M. Beckmann, Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialties. Scientometrics 33, 351–366 (1995).
39. G. Melin and O. Persson, Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 36, 363–377 (1996).
40. Y. Ding, S. Foo, and G. Chowdhury, A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of information retrieval. Intl. Inform. and Libr. Rev. 30, 367–376 (1999).
41. M. Bordens and I. Gómez, Collaboration networks in science. In H. B. Atkins and B. Cronin (eds.), The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield, Information Today, Medford, NJ (2000).
42. D. J. de S. Price, Networks of scientific papers. Science 149, 510–515 (1965).
43. P. O. Seglen, The skewness of science. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. 43, 628–638 (1992).
44. S. Redner, How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. Eur. Phys. J. B 4, 131–134 (1998).
45. M. E. J. Newman, Scientific collaboration networks: I. Network construction and fundamental results. Phys. Rev. E 64, 016131 (2001).
46. M. E. J. Newman, Scientific collaboration networks: II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys. Rev. E 64, 016132 (2001).
47. M. E. J. Newman, Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys. Rev. E 64, 025102 (2001).
48. A.-L. Barabási, H. Jeong, E. Ravasz, Z. Néda, A. Schuberts, and T. Vicsek, Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A 311, 590–614 (2002).
49. H. B. O’Connell, Physicists thriving with paperless publishing. Preprint physics/0007040 (2000).
50. A. J. Lotka, The frequency distribution of scientific production. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 16, 317–323 (1926).
51. H. Voos, Lotka and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (July-August 1974), 270–272 (1974).
52. M. L. Pao, An empirical examination of Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (January 1986), 26–33 (1986).
53. M. E. J. Newman, The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 404–409 (2001).
54. P. Erdős and A. Rényi, On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 5, 17–61 (1960).
55. B. Bollobás, Random Graphs. Academic Press, New York, 2nd edition (2001).
56. M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts, Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Phys. Rev. E 64, 026118 (2001).
57. A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509–512 (1999).
58. J. M. Kleinberg, Navigation in a small world. Nature 406, 845 (2000).
59. P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner, Organization of growing random networks. Phys. Rev. E 63, 066123 (2001).
60. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2nd edition (2001).
61. H. Kautz, B. Selman, and M. Shah, ReferralWeb: Combining social networks and collaborative filtering. Comm. ACM 40, 63–65 (1997).
62. L. C. Freeman, A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41 (1977).
63. U. Brandes, A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 25, 163–177 (2001).
64. K.-I. Goh, B. Kahng, and D. Kim, Universal behavior of load distribution in scale-free networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 278701 (2001).
65. S. Milgram, The small world problem. Psychology Today 2, 60–67 (1967).
66. I. de S. Pool and M. Kochen, Contacts and influence. Social Networks 1, 1–48 (1978).
67. B. Bollobás, A probabilistic proof of an asymptotic formula for the number of labelled regular graphs. European Journal of Combinatorics 1, 311–316 (1980).
68. T. Łuczak, Sparse random graphs with a given degree sequence. In A. M. Frieze and T. Łuczak (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Random Graphs, Poznań 1989, pp. 165–182, John Wiley, New York (1992).
69. M. Molloy and B. Reed, A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random Structures and Algorithms 6, 161–179 (1995).
70. M. Molloy and B. Reed, The size of the giant component of a random graph with a given degree sequence. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 7, 295–305 (1998).
71. M. E. J. Newman, D. J. Watts, and S. H. Strogatz, Random graph models of social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 2566–2572 (2002).
72. R. K. Ahuja, T. L. Magnanti, and J. B. Orlin, Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1993).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Newman, M.E. Who Is the Best Connected Scientist?A Study of Scientific Coauthorship Networks. In: Ben-Naim, E., Frauenfelder, H., Toroczkai, Z. (eds) Complex Networks. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 650. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44485-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44485-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22354-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44485-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive