European Journal of Population

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 543–562 | Cite as

Bowling Together: Scientific Collaboration Networks of Demographers at European Population Conferences

  • Guy J. Abel
  • Raya MuttarakEmail author
  • Valeria Bordone
  • Emilio Zagheni


Studies of collaborative networks of demographers are relatively scarce. Similar studies in other social sciences provide insight into scholarly trends of both the fields and characteristics of their successful scientists. Exploiting a unique database of metadata for papers presented at six European Population Conferences, this report explores factors explaining research collaboration among demographers. We find that (1) collaboration among demographers has increased over the past 10 years, however, among co-authored papers, collaboration across institutions remains relatively unchanged over the period, (2) papers based on core demographic subfields such as fertility, mortality, migration and data and methods are more likely to involve multiple authors and (3) multiple author teams that are all female are less likely to co-author with colleagues in different institutions. Potential explanations for these results are discussed alongside comparisons with similar studies of collaboration networks in other related social sciences.


Demography Population studies Scientific collaboration Collaboration networks 



We are grateful to the European Association for Population Studies (EAPS) and the PAMPA 5.1 supporting staff for supplying us the data in an electronic format. We are grateful for the suggestions provided by the Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822. Scholar
  2. Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–336. Scholar
  3. Adams, W. C., Infeld, D. L., Minnichelli, L. F., & Ruddell, M. W. (2014). Policy journal trends and tensions: JPAM and PSJ. Policy Studies Journal, 42, S118–S137. Scholar
  4. Bäker, A. (2015). Non-tenured post-doctoral researchers’ job mobility and research output: An analysis of the role of research discipline, department size, and coauthors. Research Policy, 44(3), 634–650. Scholar
  5. Barbieri, M. M., & Berger, J. O. (2004). Optimal predictive model selection. The Annals of Statistics, 32(3), 870–897. Scholar
  6. Bird, D. K. S. (2011). Do women publish fewer journal articles than men? Sex differences in publication productivity in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(6), 921–937. Scholar
  7. Burch, T. K. (2018). Data, models, theory and reality: The structure of demographic knowledge. In Model-based demography (pp. 21–42). Cham: Springer.
  8. Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407. Scholar
  9. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Ven, T. M. V., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31(4), 847–856. Scholar
  10. Gibson, J., & McKenzie, D. (2014). Scientific mobility and knowledge networks in high emigration countries: Evidence from the Pacific. Research Policy, 43(9), 1486–1495. Scholar
  11. Gingras, Y., Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J.-P. (2008). The effects of aging on researchers’ publication and citation patterns. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4048. Scholar
  12. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Netherlands: Springer. Scholar
  13. Goujon, A., Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A., & Eder, J. (2015). 40 years of the Vienna Institute of Demography 19752015. From an Austrian to a European to a Global Player. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  14. Gu, Z. (2016). Circular visualization. Accessed 23 Jan 2018.
  15. Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. Scholar
  16. Henriksen, D. (2018). What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science. Scientometrics. Scholar
  17. Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist, 39(4), 290–306. Scholar
  18. Kahle, D., & Wickham, H. (2013). ggmap: Spatial Visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal, 5(1), 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krapf, S., Kreyenfeld, M., & Wolf, K. (2016). Gendered authorship and demographic research: An analysis of 50 years of demography. Demography. Scholar
  20. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662. Scholar
  21. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2013). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533. Scholar
  22. Li, L., Catalá-López, F., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Tian, J., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Pieper, D., et al. (2016). The global research collaboration of network meta-analysis: A social network analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0163239. Scholar
  23. Merchant, E. K. (2015). Prediction and controlGlobal population, population science, and population politics in the twentieth century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved from
  24. Montgomery, J. M., & Nyhan, B. (2010). Bayesian model averaging: Theoretical developments and practical applications. Political Analysis, 18(2), 245–270. Scholar
  25. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238. Scholar
  26. Mullen, L., Blevins, C., & Schmidt, B. (2015). Predict gender from names using historical data. Accessed 15 Aug 2016.
  27. Pontille, D. (2003). Authorship practices and institutional contexts in sociology: Elements for a comparison of the United States and France. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(2), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raftery, A. E., Hoeting, J., Volinsky, C., Painter, I., & Yeung, K. Y. (2015). BMA: Bayesian model averaging. Accessed 01 Nov 2016.
  29. Rigg, L. S., McCarragher, S., & Krmenec, A. (2012). Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals. The Professional Geographer, 64(4), 491–502. Scholar
  30. Riley, N. E., & McCarthy, J. (2003). Demography in the age of the postmodern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shauman, K. A., & Xie, Y. (1996). Geographic mobility of scientists: Sex differences and family constraints. Demography, 33(4), 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. (2004). Patterns of co-authorship among economics departments in the USA. Applied Economics, 36(4), 327–333. Scholar
  33. Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. P. (1993). Thirty years of demography. Demography, 30(4), 523–532. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asian Demographic Research Institute (ADRI)Shanghai UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital (IIASA, VID/ÖAW, WU)International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  3. 3.School of International DevelopmentUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  4. 4.Department of SociologyUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  5. 5.Department of SociologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  6. 6.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations