, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 455–463 | Cite as

Topical connections between the institutions within an organisation (institutional co-authorships, direct citation links and co-citations)

  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Loet Leydesdorff


In recent years, numerous studies have been published which have used bibliometric data to look at collaborations in research. This study presents a proposal with which the topical connections of the institutions of an organization can be investigated through analysis of co-authorships, direct citation links, and co-citations. Based on various bibliometric data sets for an organization whose institutions are used as an example, this study illustrates the possibility of comparing the self-perception of institutions of this organization (co-authorships, direct citation links) with a view to (possible) mutual collaboration with the external perception (co-citations). This comparison is made firstly for the whole organization with the aid of network graphs; secondly, the comparison is presented in a table for a specific institution and its (possible) collaborations in the organization. Particularly the tabular breakdown of the links between the institutions can provide concrete indications of possible further collaboration between the institutions which have not yet manifested themselves in co-authorships.


Social network analysis Co-authorship network Direct citation network Co-citation network 



The data used in this paper are from a bibliometrics database developed and maintained by the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL, Munich) and derived from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) prepared by Thomson Reuters.


  1. Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. doi: 10.1038/497557a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börner, K., Sanyal, S., & Vespignani, A. (2007). Network science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 537–607. doi: 10.1002/aris.2007.1440410119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyack, K. W. (2009). Using detailed maps of science to identify potential collaborations. Scientometrics, 79(1), 27–44. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0402-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Solla Price, D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisend, M., & Schmidt, S. (2014). The influence of knowledge-based resources and business scholars’ internationalization strategies on research performance. Research Policy, 43(1), 48–59.Google Scholar
  10. Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7–15.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. (2013). Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics, 97(3), 491–517. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lancho-Barrantes, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Citation increments between collaborating countries. Scientometrics, 94(3), 817–831. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0797-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman, M. E. J. (2013). Coauthorship and citation patterns in the physical review. Physical Review E, 88(1), 012814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2006). Journal futures: Researcher behaviour at early internet maturity. Paper presented at the UK Serials Group (UKSG) Annual Conference, University of Warwick, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Simonton, D. K. (2013). After Einstein: Scientific genius is extinct. Nature, 493(7434), 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Small, H. G. (1977). A co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7(2), 139–166. doi: 10.1177/030631277700700202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, R. (1988). Problems with peer review and alternatives. British Medical Journal, 296(6624), 774–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38. doi: 10.1177/016555158300600105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science. Scientometrics, 47(2), 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division for Science and Innovation StudiesAdministrative Headquarters of the Max Planck SocietyMunichGermany
  2. 2.Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations