Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 849–860 | Cite as

The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance

  • Choong Kwai Fatt
  • Ephrance Abu Ujum
  • Kuru Ratnavelu
Article

Abstract

This paper studies the structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance for the period 1980–2009 using publication data from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). There are 3,840 publications within this period, out of which 58% are collaborations. These collaborations form 405 components, with the giant component capturing approximately 54% of total coauthors (it is estimated that the upper limit of distinct JF coauthors is 2,536, obtained from the total number of distinct author keywords found within the study period). In comparison, the second largest component has only 13 members. The giant component has mean degree 3 and average distance 8.2. It exhibits power-law scaling with exponent α = 3.5 for vertices with degree ≥5. Based on the giant component, the degree, closeness and betweenness centralization score, as well as the hubs/authorities score is determined. The findings indicate that the most important vertex on the giant component coincides with Sheridan Titman based on his top ten ranking on all four scores.

Keywords

Co-authorship Collaboration Network structure 

References

  1. Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabási, A.-L., Albert, R., & Jeong, H. (1999). Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks. Physica A, 272, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311, 590–614.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek—Program for large network analysis. Connections, 21, 47–57.Google Scholar
  5. Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borokhovich, K. A., Bricker, R. J., & Simkins, B. J. (1994). Journal communication and influence in financial research. The Journal of Finance, 49, 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Correa, C., Crnovrsanin, T., Kwan, L. M., Keeton, K. (2009). The derivatives of centrality and their applications in visualizing social networks. Technical Report, UC Davis Department of Computer Science. Available online: http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/research/tech-reports/2009/CSE-2009-5.pdf.
  9. Csardi, G., Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems 1695. http://igraph.sf.net.
  10. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2004). Exploratory network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ding, C., Xiaofeng, H., Husbands, P., Hongyuan, Z., & Simon, H. D. (2002). PageRank, HITS and a unified framework for link analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 11–15 Aug 2002, Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks I: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman, J. W. (1996). The Erdős Number Project. http://www.oakland.edu/enp/.
  14. Hoffman, P. (1998). The man who loved only numbers: The story of Paul Erdős and the search for mathematical truth. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  15. Kleinberg, J. (1998). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete Algorithms.Google Scholar
  16. Kretschmer, H. (2004). Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics, 60, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krichel, T., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2006), A social network analysis of research collaboration in the economics community. In International workshop on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & seventh COLLNET meeting, 10–12 May 2006, Nancy, France.Google Scholar
  18. Lu, H., & Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics, 81, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2, 60–67.Google Scholar
  20. Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 404–409.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks: I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newman, M. E. J. (2001c). Scientific collaboration networks: II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64, 016132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newman, M. E. J. (2004a). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 5200–5205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, M. E. J. (2004b). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, & Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex networks (pp. 337–370). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Pennock, D., Flake, G. W., Lawrence, S., Glover, E. J., & Giles, C. L. (2002). Winners don’t take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99, 5207–5211.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Price, D. J. D. (1976). General theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rousseau, R., & Zhang, L. (2008). Betweenness centrality and Q-measures in directed valued networks. Scientometrics, 75, 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shafer, P., Isganitis, T., & Yona, G. (2006). Hubs of knowledge: Using the functional link structure in Biozon to mine for biologically significant entities. BMC Bioinformatics, 7, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42, 425–440.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Choong Kwai Fatt
    • 1
  • Ephrance Abu Ujum
    • 2
  • Kuru Ratnavelu
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and AccountancyUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations