, Volume 110, Issue 2, pp 791–813 | Cite as

Analysis of Slovenian research community through bibliographic networks

  • Andrej KastrinEmail author
  • Jelena Klisara
  • Borut Lužar
  • Janez Povh


Science is a societal process, designed on widely accepted general rules which facilitate its development. Productive researchers are viewed from the perspective of a social network of their interpersonal relations. In this paper we address performance of Slovenian research community using bibliographic networks between the years 1970 and 2015 from various aspects which determine prolific science. We focus on basic determinants of research performance including productivity, collaboration, internationality, and interdisciplinarity. For each of the determinants, we select a set of statistics and network measures to investigate the state of each in every year of the analyzed period. The analysis is based on high quality data from manually curated information systems. We interpret the results by relating them to important historical events impacting Slovenia and to domestic expenditure for research and development. Our results clearly demonstrate causal relations between the performance of research community and changes in wider society. Political and financial stability together with concise measuring of scientific productivity established soon after Slovenia won independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 had positive influence on all determinants. They were further leveraged by foundation of Slovenian research agency and joining EU and NATO. Publish and perish phenomenon, negative impacts of financial crisis in 2008–2014 and reshaping the domestic expenditure for research and development after 2008 have also clear response in scientific community. In the paper, we also study the researcher’s career productivity cycles and present the analysis of the career productivity for all registered researchers in Slovenia.


Research performance Network analysis Productivity Scientific collaboration Internationality Interdisciplinarity 



The authors thank two anonymous referees for their remarks which helped to improve the manuscript. This research was supported by Slovenian Research Agency Program P1–0383.


  1. Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2012). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, P. (2012). Why society is a complex matter: Meeting twenty-first century challenges with a new kind of science. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Çavuşoğlu, A., & Türker, I. (2013). Scientific collaboration network of Turkey. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 57, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferligoj, A., Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Snijders, T. A. B., & Doreian, P. (2015). Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, 104(3), 985–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Domesticity and internationality in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 65(3), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Han, P., Shi, J., Li, X., Wang, D., Shen, S., & Su, X. (2014). International collaboration in LIS: Global trends and networks at the country and institution level. Scientometrics, 98(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlovčec, M., & Mladenić, D. (2015). Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics, 102(1), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlovčec, M., Lužar, B., & Mladenić, D. (2016). Core-periphery dynamics in collaboration networks: The case study of Slovenia. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1561–1578. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2154-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, J. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, J., Tao, L., Lee, S. H., & Diesner, J. (2016). Evolution and structure of scientific co-publishing network in Korea between 1948–2011. Scientometrics, 107(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2011). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90(2), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leahey, E., Beckman, C., & Stanko, T. (2016). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Published Online in Administrative Science Quarterly,. doi: 10.1177/0001839216665364.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C., Park, H. W., & Adams, J. (2013). International collaboration in science: The global map and the network. El profesional de la información, 22(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, P., & Xia, H. (2015). Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field. Scientometrics, 103(1), 101–134.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy of Science, 16, 181–218.Google Scholar
  24. Lužar, B., Levnajić, Z., Povh, J., & Perc, M. (2014). Community structure and the evolution of interdisciplinarity in Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mena-Chalco, J. P., Digiampietri, L. A., Lopes, F. M., & Cesar, R. M. (2014). Brazilian bibliometric coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1424–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newman, M. E. (2004). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novak, P., & Demšar, F. (2012). The history of funding research & development in Slovenia. Quark, 18(1), 49–55.Google Scholar
  30. Perc, M. (2010a). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475–482.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perc, M. (2010b). Zipf’s law and log-normal distributions in measures of scientific output across fields and institutions: 40 years of Slovenia’s research as an example. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pravdić, N., & Oluić-Vuković, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10(5–6), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodela, R. (2016). On the use of databases about research performance: Comments on Karlovčec and Mladenić (2015) and others using the SICRIS database. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2151–2157. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2073-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shneiderman, B. (2008). Copernican challenges face those who suggest that collaboration, not computation are the driving energy for socio-technical systems that characterize web 2.0. Science, 319(5868), 1349–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagner, C. S. (2002). The elusive partnership: science and foreign policy. Science and Public Policy, 29(6), 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yarkoni, T. (2012). Psychoinformatics new horizons at the interface of the psychological and computing sciences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(6), 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yoshikane, F., & Kageura, K. (2004). Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks. Scientometrics, 60(3), 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information StudiesNovo mestoSlovenia

Personalised recommendations