, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 333–355 | Cite as

How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field

  • Jiancheng Guan
  • Yan Yan
  • Jingjing Zhang


The aim of this study is to examine how scientific collaborative features influence scientific collaboration networks and then affect scientific output. In order to explore the influence of scientific collaboration, we define three collaborative features: inertia, diversity and strength. The data are collected from Scopus and the Web of Science databases. Using technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution method, we firstly combine h-index, impact factor and SCImago journal rank to rank journals in the field of wind power. Then we construct the collaboration network of institutions and use structural equation model-partial least square to examine the relationship among collaborative features, network structure, and scientific output. The results show that collaborative diversity and strength have positive effects on scientific output, while collaborative inertia has a negative effect. Both of centrality and structural holes fully account for (mediate) the relationships between collaborative features and outputs. The findings have some important policy implications to scientific collaboration: (1) research institutions should actively participate in diverse collaborations; (2) rather than only collaborating with previous partners, they should seek more new partners; and (3) collaborative features are important antecedents of scientific networks.


Scientific collaborative features Collaboration network TOPSIS Two-mode network Small world SEM-PLS Wind power field 



This study is supported by a grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71373254). The authors are very grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions from the anonymous reviewers and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, which significantly improved the quality and readability of the paper.


  1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.Google Scholar
  2. Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2012a). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing and Management, 48(4), 671–679.Google Scholar
  3. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012b). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412.Google Scholar
  4. Abbasi, A., & Jaafari, A. (2013). Research impact and scholars’ geographical diversity. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 683–692.Google Scholar
  5. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, 23(2), 434–448.Google Scholar
  7. Andersen, K. V. (2013). The problem of embeddedness revisited: Collaboration and market types. Research Policy, 42(1), 139–148.Google Scholar
  8. Badar, K., Hite, J. M., & Badir, Y. F. (2013). Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 94(2), 755–775.Google Scholar
  9. Beauchamp, M. A. (1965). An improved index of centrality. Behavioral Science, 10(2), 161–163.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, S. J., Tracey, P., & Heide, J. B. (2009). The organization of regional clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 623–642.Google Scholar
  11. Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206.Google Scholar
  12. Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Burt, R. S. (2005). The social capitals of structure holes. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (2007). Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers, and analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 119–148.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler, D. (2008). Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market. Nature, 451(7174), 6.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, K. H., & Guan, J. C. (2011). Mapping the innovation production process from accumulative advantage to economic outcomes: A path modeling approach. Technovation, 31(7), 336–346.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, S. H., Huang, M. H., & Chen, D. Z. (2013). Driving factors of external funding and funding effects on academic innovation performance in university–industry–government linkages. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1077–1098.Google Scholar
  18. Eagle, N., Macy, M., & Claxton, R. (2010). Network diversity and economic development. Science, 328(5981), 1029–1031.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Egghe, L. (2006). How to improve the h-index? The Scientist, 20(3), 14.Google Scholar
  20. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2006). An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 121–129.Google Scholar
  21. Eisingerich, A. B., Bell, S. J., & Tracey, P. (2010). How can clusters sustain performance? The role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Research Policy, 39(2), 239–253.Google Scholar
  22. Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2012). Categorical attribute based centrality: E–I and G–F centrality. Social Networks, 34(4), 562–569.Google Scholar
  23. Flap, H., & Völker, B. (2001). Goal specific social capital and job satisfaction: Effects of different types of networks on instrumental and social aspects of work. Social networks, 23(4), 297–320.Google Scholar
  24. Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. I. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6), 938–954.Google Scholar
  25. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215–239.Google Scholar
  28. Garfield, E. (1964). Science citation index: A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649–654.Google Scholar
  29. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.Google Scholar
  30. Goerzen, A., & Beamish, P. W. (2005). The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 333–354.Google Scholar
  31. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  32. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.Google Scholar
  33. Grice, E. A., Kong, H. H., Conlan, S., Deming, C. B., Davis, J., Young, A. C., et al. (2009). Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome. Science, 324(5931), 1190–1192.Google Scholar
  34. Gu, Z., & Wu, J. S. (2011). Earnings skewness and analyst forecast bias. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35(1), 5–29.Google Scholar
  35. Guan, J. C., & Ma, N. (2009). Structural equation model with PLS path modeling for an integrated system of publicly funded basic research. Scientometrics, 81(3), 683–698.Google Scholar
  36. Guan, J. C., & Zhao, Q. J. (2013). The impact of university-industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1271–1286.Google Scholar
  37. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.Google Scholar
  39. Gulati, R., Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. (2012). The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organization Science, 23(2), 449–471.Google Scholar
  40. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.Google Scholar
  42. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 149–164.Google Scholar
  43. He, Z.-L., Geng, X.-S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.Google Scholar
  44. Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2006). Psychopathy and negative emotionality: analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 276.Google Scholar
  45. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569.Google Scholar
  46. Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741–754.Google Scholar
  47. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Wright, G. (2002). Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: Learning from failure. Organization Studies, 23(6), 949–977.Google Scholar
  48. Hopkins, W. E., Mallette, P., & Hopkins, S. A. (2013). Proposed factors influencing strategic inertia/strategic renewal in organizations. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 77–94.Google Scholar
  49. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A., & Grossman, W. (2002). Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 697–716.Google Scholar
  50. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the advantage or succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 190–201.Google Scholar
  51. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 57(2), 239–251.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.Google Scholar
  54. Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 591–612.Google Scholar
  55. Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275–293.Google Scholar
  56. Kim, S. K., Arthurs, J. D., Sahaym, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2013). Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 999–1009.Google Scholar
  57. Kim, T. Y., Oh, H., & Swaminathan, A. (2006). Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 704–720.Google Scholar
  58. Klein, K. J., Lim, B. C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.Google Scholar
  59. Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 342–369.Google Scholar
  60. Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lee, J. (2010). Heterogeneity, brokerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of collaborative inventor networks. Organization Science, 21(4), 804.Google Scholar
  62. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global Maps of Science based on the new web-of-science categories. Scientometrics, 94(2), 589–593.Google Scholar
  63. Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.Google Scholar
  64. Li, S. X., & Rowley, T. J. (2002). Inertia and evaluation mechanisms in interorganizational partner selection: Syndicate formation among US investment banks. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1104–1119.Google Scholar
  65. Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., & Liu, C. T. (2008). Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation, 28(4), 183–195.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Lohmann, G., Margulies, D. S., Horstmann, A., Pleger, B., Lepsien, J., Goldhahn, D., et al. (2010). Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in fMRI data of the human brain. PLoS One, 5(4), e10232.Google Scholar
  67. Mallik, A., & Mandal, N. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of global publication output and collaboration structure study in microRNA research. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2011–2037.Google Scholar
  68. Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Alcayde, A., Montoya, F., Zapata-Sierra, A., & Gil, C. (2013). Scientific production of renewable energies worldwide: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 134–143.Google Scholar
  69. McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91–103.Google Scholar
  70. Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 307–325.Google Scholar
  71. Newman, M. E. (2002). Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 89(20), 208701.Google Scholar
  72. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab: Technical Report.Google Scholar
  73. Pandza, K., Wilkins, T. A., & Alfoldi, E. A. (2011). Collaborative diversity in a nanotechnology innovation system: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme. Technovation, 31(9), 476–489.Google Scholar
  74. Phelps, C. C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 890–913.Google Scholar
  75. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.Google Scholar
  76. Prathap, G. (2011). The energy–exergy–entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 87(3), 515–524.Google Scholar
  77. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.Google Scholar
  78. Ramasco, J. J. (2007). Social inertia and diversity in collaboration networks. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 143(1), 47–50.Google Scholar
  79. Ramasco, J. J., & Morris, S. A. (2006). Social inertia in collaboration networks. Physical Review E, 73(1), 016122.Google Scholar
  80. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.Google Scholar
  81. Sabidussi, G. (1966). The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika, 31(4), 581–603.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. Sandström, A., & Carlsson, L. (2008). The performance of policy networks: The relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 497–524.Google Scholar
  83. Sanz-Casado, E., Garcia-Zorita, J. C., Serrano-López, A. E., Larsen, B., & Ingwersen, P. (2013). Renewable energy research 1995–2009: A case study of wind power research in EU, Spain, Germany and Denmark. Scientometrics, 95(1), 197–224.Google Scholar
  84. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113–1126.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  85. Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.Google Scholar
  86. Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. (2008). Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes’ influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1), 73–108.Google Scholar
  87. Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118–134.Google Scholar
  88. Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2011). When do relational resources matter? Leveraging portfolio technological resources for breakthrough innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 797–810.Google Scholar
  89. Stefan, G., & Jean-Daniel, P. (2013). Top wind markets 2012: Diversity in big five markets. World wind power energy report, 2012, 7–8.Google Scholar
  90. Suresh, S. (2012). Research funding: Global challenges need global solutions. Nature, 490(7420), 337–338.Google Scholar
  91. Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. (2013). Friends and foes: The dynamics of dual social structures. Academy of Management Journal. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0979.
  92. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: Patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 88(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  93. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.Google Scholar
  95. Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. (2013a). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1511–1515.Google Scholar
  96. Wang, D. Q., Tang, L. H., Li, H. H., Gu, Z. C., & Zheng, X. (2013b). Application of structural equation models for elucidating the ecological drivers of Anopheles Sinensis in the three Gorges Reservoir. PLoS One, 8(7), e68766.Google Scholar
  97. Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness. New Jersey: Princeton university press.Google Scholar
  98. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.Google Scholar
  99. Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009). Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 90–122.Google Scholar
  100. Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. Evaluation of econometric models. Salt Lake City: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  101. Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  102. Wu, S., Huang, Z., & Zhong, W. (2013). Does inertia matter for parts manufacturers’ innovation? Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1191-5.Google Scholar
  103. Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 62–77.Google Scholar
  104. Zaheer, A., & Soda, G. (2009). Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
  105. Zhu, D., Wang, D., Hassan, S.-U., & Haddawy, P. (2013). Small-world phenomenon of keywords network based on complex network. Scientometrics, 97(2), 435–442.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations