Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 1, pp 533–550 | Cite as

Bonded-communities in HantaVirus research: a research collaboration network (RCN) analysis

  • Sameer Kumar
  • Bernd Markscheffel
Article

Abstract

Hantavirus, one of the deadliest viruses known to humans, hospitalizes tens of thousands of people each year in Asia, Europe and the Americas. Transmitted by infected rodents and their excreta, Hantavirus are identified as etiologic agents of two main types of diseases—Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, the latter having a fatality rate of above 40 %. Although considerable research for over two decades has been going on in this area, bibliometric studies to gauge the state of research of this field have been rare. An analysis of 2631 articles, extracted from WoS databases on Hantavirus between 1980 and 2014, indicated a progressive increase (R 2 = 0.93) in the number of papers over the years, with the majority of papers being published in the USA and Europe. About 95 % papers were co-authored and the most common arrangement was 4–6 authors per paper. Co-authorship has seen a steady increase (R 2 = 0.57) over the years. We apply research collaboration network analysis to investigate the best-connected authors in the field. The author-based networks have 49 components (connected clump of nodes) with 7373 vertices (authors) and 49,747 edges (co-author associations) between them. The giant component (the largest component) is healthy, occupying 84.19 % or 6208 vertices with 47,117 edges between them. By using edge-weight threshold, we drill down into the network to reveal bonded communities. We find three communities’ hotspots—one, led by researchers at University of Helsinki, Finland; a second, led by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, USA; and a third, led by Hokkaido University, Japan. Significant correlation was found between author’s structural position in the network and research performance, thus further supporting a well-studied phenomenon that centrality effects research productivity. However, it was the PageRank centrality that out-performed degree and betweenness centrality in its strength of correlation with research performance.

Keywords

Research collaboration networks Co-authorship networks HantaVirus Research communities Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of the analysis of this study was completed during S.K’s research visit to TU-Ilmenau, Germany. The study is supported by High Impact Research, University of Malaya, Grant number UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/SC/13/3.

References

  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabasi, A. L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406(6794), 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabasi, A. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 311(3–4), 590–614.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver, D. B. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration, (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver, D. B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bi, Z. Q., Formenty, P. B. H., & Roth, C. E. (2008). Hantavirus infection: A review and global update. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 2(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brummerkorvenkontio, M., Vaheri, A., Hovi, T., Vonbonsdorff, C. H., Vuorimies, J., Manni, T., et al. (1980). Nephropathia epidemica—Detection of antigen in bank voles and serologic diagnosis of human infection. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 141(2), 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. doi: 10.1086/228943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duchin, J. S., Koster, F. T., Peters, C. J., Simpson, G. L., Tempest, B., Zaki, S. R., et al. (1994). Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome—A clinical description of 17 patients with a newly recognized disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 330(14), 949–955. doi: 10.1056/nejm199404073301401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fatt, C. K., Abu Ujum, E., & Ratnavelu, K. (2010). The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance. Scientometrics, 85(3), 849–860. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0254-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888–899. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonsson, C. B., Figueiredo, L. T. M., & Vapalahti, O. (2010). A global perspective on hantavirus ecology, epidemiology, and disease. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 23(2), 412–441. doi: 10.1128/cmr.00062-09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2013a). 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
  17. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2013b). On giant components in research collaboration networks: Case of engineering disciplines in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 18(2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  18. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2014). Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: Comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of ‘Energy Fuels’, 2009–2011. Scientometrics, 98(1), 387–414. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1059-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar, S., & Jan, J. M. (2015). The assortativity of scholars at a research-intensive university in Malaysia. The Electronic Library, 33(2), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lednicky, J. A. (2003). Hantaviruses—A short review. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 127(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  21. Linton, C. F. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, P., & Xia, H. X. (2015). Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field. Scientometrics, 103(1), 101–134. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1525-y.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5200–5205. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307545100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nichol, S. T., Spiropoulou, C. F., Morzunov, S., Rollin, P. E., Ksiazek, T. G., Feldmann, H., et al. (1993). Genetic identification of a hantavirus associated with an outbreak of acute respiratory Illness. Science, 262(5135), 914–917. doi: 10.1126/science.8235615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report SIDL-WP-1999-0120.Google Scholar
  30. Peters, C. J., & Olshaker, M. (1997). Virus hunter: thirty years of battling hot viruses around the world. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  31. Price, D. S. (1963). Big science, little science. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  32. Schmaljohn, C. S., Hasty, S. E., Dalrymple, J. M., Leduc, J. W., Lee, H. W., Vonbonsdorff, C. H., et al. (1985). Antigenic and genetic properties of viruses linked to hemorrhagic-fever with renal syndrome. Science, 227(4690), 1041-1044. doi: 10.1126/science.2858126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmaljohn, C., & Hjelle, B. (1997). Hantaviruses: A global disease problem. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 3(2), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, M. A., Shneiderman, B., Milic-Frayling, N., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Barash, V., Dunne, C., et al. (2009). Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies (pp. 255–264): ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2008). Scientific collaboration. Annual review of information science and technology, 41(1), 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taba, S. T., Hossain, L., Atkinson, S. R., & Lewis, S. (2015). Towards understanding longitudinal collaboration networks: A case of mammography performance research. Scientometrics, 103(2), 531–544. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1560-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A., & Rasmussen, K. (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2), 687–699. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0511-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis, methods and applications (1st edition, structural analysis in the social sciences). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal,. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6128.Google Scholar
  42. Zaki, S. R., Greer, P. W., Coffield, L. M., Goldsmith, C. S., Nolte, K. B., Foucar, K., et al. (1995). Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome: Pathogenesis of an emerging infectious-disease. American Journal of Pathology, 146(3), 552–579.Google Scholar
  43. Zhang, Y., Xiao, D., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Sun, L., Tao, X., et al. (2004). The epidemic characteristics and preventive measures of hemorrhagic fever with syndromes in China. Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi = Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi, 25(6), 466–469.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asia-Europe InstituteUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsTechnische Universität IlmenauIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations