, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 687–699 | Cite as

Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network

  • Shahadat UddinEmail author
  • Liaquat Hossain
  • Alireza Abbasi
  • Kim Rasmussen


Although co-authorship in scientific research has a long history the analysis of co-authorship network to explore scientific collaboration among authors is a relatively new research area. Studies of current literature about co-authorship networks mostly give emphasis to understand patterns of scientific collaborations, to capture collaborative statistics, and to propose valid and reliable measures for identifying prominent author(s). However, there is no such study in the literature which conducts a longitudinal analysis of co-authorship networks. Using a dataset that spans over 20 years, this paper attempts to explore efficiency and trend of co-authorship networks. Two scientists are considered connected if they have co-authored a paper, and these types of connections between two scientists eventually constitute co-authorship networks. Co-authorship networks evolve among researchers over time in specific research domains as well as in interdisciplinary research areas. Scientists from diverse research areas and different geographical locations may participate in one specific co-authorship network whereas an individual scientist may belong to different co-authorship networks. In this paper, we study a longitudinal co-authorship network of a specific scientific research area. By applying approaches to analyze longitudinal network data, in addition to known methods and measures of current co-authorship literature, we explore a co-authorship network of a relatively young and emerging research discipline to understand its trend of evolution pattern and proximity of efficiency.


Co-authorship network Trend analysis Efficiency analysis Inter-country collaboration 


  1. Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The citation speed index: A useful bibliometric indicator to add to the H index. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 444–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.Google Scholar
  5. Cho, C. C., Hu, M. W., & Liu, M. C. (2010). Improvements in productivity based on co-authorship: a case study of published articles in China. Scientometrics, 85(2), 463–470.Google Scholar
  6. Cunningham, S. J., & Dillon, S. M. (1997). Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics, 39(1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ding-quan, C., Wei-feng, Z., & Xiu-juan, M. (2009). Study of the periodical paper co-authorship of library and information science: 1999–2002. Information Science. doi: CNKI:SUN:QBKX.0.2009-01-015.
  8. Einstein, A., & Straus, E. G. (1945). The influence of the expansion of space on the gravitation fields surrounding the individual stars. Reviews of Modern Physics, 17(2–3), 120–124.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Folias, E. (1970). On the theory of fracture of curved sheets. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2(2), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grossman, J. W., & Ion, P. D. F. (1995). On a portion of the well-known collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium 108, 129–132.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffman, P. (1998). The man who loved only numbers: The story of Paul Erdos and the search for mathematical truth. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  12. Huang, M. H., & Chang, Y. W. (2011). A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: Using direct citation and co-authorship analysis. Journal of Information Science. doi: 10.1177/0165551511407141.
  13. Huang, T. H., & Huang, M. L. (2006). Analysis and visualization of co-authorship networks for understanding academic collaboration and knowledge domain of individual researchers. In Proceedings of CGIV'2006 (pp. 18–23).Google Scholar
  14. Inzelt, A., Schubert, A., & Schubert, M. (2009). Incremental citation impact due to international co-authorship in Hungarian higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 78(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  15. Kretschmer, H. (1994). Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics, 30(1), 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462–1480.Google Scholar
  17. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(1), 101.Google Scholar
  18. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., et al. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Medoff, M. H. (2006). The efficiency of self-citations in economics. Scientometrics, 69(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98(2), 404.Google Scholar
  23. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101(Suppl 1), 5200.Google Scholar
  24. Persson, O., & Beckmann, M. (1995). Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialties. Scientometrics, 33(3), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schubert, A. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Strauss, E., & Erdos, P. (1953). On linear independence of sequences in a Banach space. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 3, 689–694.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2003). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahadat Uddin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liaquat Hossain
    • 2
  • Alireza Abbasi
    • 3
  • Kim Rasmussen
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Complex Systems ResearchThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering and ITThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Engineering and ITThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ITThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations