Quality & Quantity

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 1091–1107 | Cite as

Issues in the analysis of co-authorship networks

  • Domenico De Stefano
  • Giuseppe Giordano
  • Maria Prosperina Vitale


Scientific collaboration is a complex phenomenon that improves the sharing of competences and the production of new scientific knowledge. Social Network Analysis is often used to describe the scientific collaboration patterns defined by co-authorship relationships. Different phases of the analysis of collaboration are related to: data collection, network boundary setting, relational data matrix definition, data analysis and interpretation of results. The aim of this paper is to point out some issues that arise in these different phases, highlighting: (i) the use of local archives versus international bibliographic databases; (ii) the use of different approaches for setting boundaries in a whole-network; (iii) the definition of a co-authorship data matrix (binary and weighted ties) and (iv) the analysis and the interpretation of network measures for co-authorship data. We discuss the different choices that can be made in these phases within an illustrative example on real data which is referred to scientific collaboration among researchers affiliated to an academic institution. In particular, we compare global and actor-level network measures computed from binary and weighted co-authorship networks in different disciplines.


Bibliographic data Scientific collaboration Social Network Analysis Weighted networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acedo F.J., Barroso C., Casanueva C., Galán J.L.: Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: an empirical and network analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 43, 957–983 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert R., Barabási A.-L.: Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47–97 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babchuk N., Keith B., Peters G.: Collaboration in sociology and other scientific disciplines: a comparative trend analysis of scholarship in the social. Phys. Math. Sci. Am. Sociol. 30, 5–21 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. Bakkalbasi N., Krichel T.: Patterns of research collaboration in a digital library for Economics (2006). Proc. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 43, 1–15 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabási A.-L., Albert R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabási A.-L., Jeong H., Neda Z., Ravasz E., Schubert A., Vicsek T.: Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys. A 311(3-4), 590–614 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonacich P.: Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92, 1170–1182 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandes U.: On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Soc. Netw. 30, 136–145 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butts, C.T.: sna: Tools for Social Network Analysis. R package version 2.1. (2010)Google Scholar
  10. Doreian P., Woodard K.L.: Fixed list versus snowball selection of social networks. Soc. Sci. Res. 21, 216–233 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endersby J.W.: Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and paper credit. Soc. Sci. Quart. 77, 375–392 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. Ferligoj A., Kronegger L.: Clustering of attribute and/or relational data. Metodoloski zvezki 6, 135–153 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Freeman L.C.: Centrality in social networks I: conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1, 215–239 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M.: The New Production of Knowledge. Sage, London (1994)Google Scholar
  15. Glanzel W., Schubert A.: Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In: Moed, H., Glanzel, W., Schmoch , U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, pp. 257–276. Springer, Netherlands (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gossart C., Ozman M.: Co-authorship networks in social sciences: the case of Turkey. Scientometrics 78, 323–345 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goyal S., Vander Leij M.J., Moraga-González J.L.: Economics: an emerging small world. J. Political Econ. 114, 403–412 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargens L.L.: Patterns of Scientific Research: A Comparative Analysis of Research in three Scientific Fields. American Sociological Association, Washington, DC (1975)Google Scholar
  19. Hicks D.: The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics 44, 193–215 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hudson J.: Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. J. Econ. Perspect. 10, 153–158 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. Kaiser M.: Mean clustering coefficients—the role of isolated nodes and leafs on clustering measures for small-world networks. New J. Phys. 10(8), 083042 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz J.S., Martin B.R.: What is research collaboration?.  Res. Policy 26, 1–18 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laband D.N., Tollison R.D.: Intellectual Collaboration. J. Political Econ. 108, 632–662 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laumann E.O., Marsden P., Prensky D.: The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In: Freeman, L.C., White, D.R., Kimball Romney, A. (eds) Research Methods in Social Network Analysis, George Mason University Press, Fairfax, VA (1989)Google Scholar
  25. Lotka A.J.: The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 16, 317–323 (1926)Google Scholar
  26. Marsden P.V.: Recent developments in network measurement. In: Carrington, P., Scott, J., Wasserman, S. (eds) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  27. Melin G., Persson O.: Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 36, 363–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moody J.: The structure of a social science: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69, 213–238 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newman M.E.J.: Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys. Rev. E 64, 0161321–0161327 (2001)Google Scholar
  30. Newman M.E.J.: Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 5200–5205 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicholls P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka’s law. Inf. Process. Manag. 22, 417–419 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Said Y., Wegman E., Sharabati : Author-coauthor social networks and emerging scientific subfield. In: Palumbo, F., Lauro, N.C., Greenacre, M.J. (eds) Data Analysis and Classification, Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  33. Wasserman S., Faust K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  34. Watts D., Strogatz S.: Collective dynamics of small world networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yoshikane F., Kageura K.: Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks. Scientometrics 60, 433–444 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Akbari-Kamrani, M., Hanneman, R., Etemadi, A.: Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: a case study in Iran. Health Res. Policy Syst. 6 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico De Stefano
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Giordano
    • 2
  • Maria Prosperina Vitale
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Business, Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations