, Volume 94, Issue 2, pp 755–775 | Cite as

Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan



This research examines the association of co-authorship network centrality (degree, closeness and betweeness) and the academic research performance of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Higher centrality in the co-authorship network is hypothesized to be positively related to performance, in terms of academic publication, with gender having a positive moderating effect for female researchers. Using social network analysis, this study examines the bibliometric data (2002–2009) from ISI Web of Science for the co-authorship network of 2,027 Pakistani authors publishing in the field of Chemistry. A non-temporal analysis using node-level regression reports positive impact of degree and closeness and negative impact of betweeness centrality on research performance. Temporal analysis using node-level regression (time 1: 2002–2005; time 2: 2006–2009) confirms the direction of causality and demonstrates the positive association of degree and closeness centrality on research performance. Findings indicate a moderating role of gender on the relationship of both degree and closeness centrality with research performance for Pakistani female authors.


Co-authorship network Research performance Network centrality Gender Social network analysis Non-temporal and temporal analysis Node-level regression 


  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. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9), 887–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albrecht, S. L. (1983). Informal interaction patterns of professional women. In J. R. Gordon (Ed.), A diagnostic approach to organizational behavior (pp. 287–290). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Arora, A., & Gambardella, Ae. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 34(4), 361–379.Google Scholar
  6. Avital, M., & Collopy, F. (2001). Assessing research performance: Implications for selection and motivation. Sprouts: working papers on information environments, systems and organizations. Accessed 10 March 2010.
  7. Berg, S., Duncan, J., & Friedman, P. (1982). Joint venture strategies and corporate innovation. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschiager, Gunn & Hain.Google Scholar
  8. Bhardwaj, A., Qureshi, I., & Lee, S. H. (2008). A study of race/ethnicity as a moderator of the relationship between social capital and satisfaction. Academy of management annual meeting. Anaheim, California.Google Scholar
  9. Bolland, J. M. (1998). Sorting out centrality: An analysis of the performance of four centrality models in real and simulated networks. Social Networks, 10, 233–253.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgatti, S. P. (1995). Centrality and AIDS. Connections, 18(1), 112–114.Google Scholar
  11. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  12. Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327–343.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes—The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Burt, R. S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10, 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: The social capital of structural holes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cartwright, V. A., & McGhee, C. N. (2005). Ophthalmology and vision science research part 1: Understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indices. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 31, 1999–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheek, J., Garnham, B., & Quan, J. (2006). What’s in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qualitative Health Research, 16, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. C-Zurián, J., Alcaide, G. G., J-Zurián, F. J., Benavent, & Miguel-Dasit, A. (2007). Coauthorship Networks and Institutional Collaboration in Revista Española de CardiologÍa Publications. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia, 60(2), 117–130.Google Scholar
  21. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). The World’s Women. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  22. Eaton, J. P., Ward, J. C., Kumar, A., & Peter, H. R. (1999). Structural analysis of co-author relationships and author productivity in selected outlets for consumer behavior research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fairhurst, G. T., & Snavely, B. K. (1983). A test of the social isolation of male tokens. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks, 19, 157–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30, 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilsing, V., Nooteboomb, B., Vanhaverbekec, W., Duystersd, G., & Oorda, Av. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gossart, C., & Özman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gulati, R., & Martin, G. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 473–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guns, R., Liu, Y. X., & Mahbuba, D. (2011). Q-measures and betweenness centrality in a collaboration network: A case study of the field of informetrics. Scientometrics, 87(1), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside CA: Scholar
  34. Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Why women don’t succeed. National Business Employment Weekly, 40, 9–11.Google Scholar
  35. Higher Education Commission, Pakistan. Accessed 17 March 2012.
  36. Higher Education Commission, Pakistan. Accessed 17 March 2012.
  37. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route, gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jansen, D., Gortz, R., & Heidler, R. (2010). Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields. Scientometrics, 83(1), 219–241.Google Scholar
  40. Kang, H., Getoor, L., Shneiderman, B., Bilgic, M., & Licamele, L. (2008). Interactive entity resolution in relational data: A visual analytic tool and its evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(5), 999–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Kay, F., & Hagan, J. (1999). Cultivating clients in the competition for partnership: Gender and the organizational restructuring of law firms in the 1990s. Law and Society Review, 33, 517–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  44. Kretschmer, H., & Aguillo, I. F. (2005). New indicators for gender studies in web networks. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1481–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kwon, K. S., Park, H. W., So, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the triple helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics, 90(1), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 778–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3), 741–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marsden, P. V. (2002). Egocentric and sociometric measures of network centrality. Social Networks, 24, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mcfadyen, A. M., & Cannella, J. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McFadyen, A. M., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A, Jr. (2009). The value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meho, L. I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20, 32–36.Google Scholar
  52. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. (2001). The social networks of high and low-self monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nagpaul, P. S. (2002). Visualizing cooperation networks of elite institutions in India. Scientometrics, 54(2), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.Google Scholar
  55. Newman, M. E. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016132.Google Scholar
  56. Newman, M. E. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98, 404–409.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Newman, M. E. (2004). Co authorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS, 101, 5200–5205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Newman, M. E. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Oh, W., Choi, Jn, & Kim, K. (2005). Co-authorship dynamics and knowledge capital: The patterns of cross-disciplinary collaboration in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 265–292.Google Scholar
  60. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.Google Scholar
  61. Pike, T. W. (2010). Collaboration networks and scientific impact among behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology, 21(2), 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richardson, G. B. (1972). The Organisation of Industry. The Economic Journal, 82(327), 883–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies. Accessed 5 May 2011.
  65. Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Seron, C., & Ferris, K. (1995). Negotiating professionalism: The gendered social capital of flexible time. Work and Occupations, 22, 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2009). Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sparrowe, T., Liden, R., Robert, G., Wayne, J. S., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Strotmann, A., Zhao, D., & Bubela, T. (2009). Author name disambiguation for collaboration network analysis and visualization. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  70. Tharenou, P. (1999). Gender differences in advancing to the top. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Valente, T. W., & Foreman, R. (1998). Integration and radiality: Measuring the extent of an individual’s connectedness and reachability in a network. Social Networks, 20, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Valente, T. W., Loronges, K., Lakon, C., & Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections, 28(1), 16–26.Google Scholar
  75. Wagner, C. S. (2006). International collaboration in science and technology: Promises and pitfalls. In L. Box & R. Engelhard (Eds.), Science and technology policy for development: Dialogues at the interface. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social networks analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107–2118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yang, K.-s. (2007). Firms’ network position, industry hierarchy position and innovation and an additional examination on structural equivalent block models and between-sector position. Academy of management annual meeting. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  79. Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Akbari-Kamrani, M., Hanneman, R. A., & Etemadi, A. (2008). Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: A case study in Iran. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6(9). doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-9.
  80. Zheng, W. (2008). A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: Where is empirical literature directing us? Volume 10 Issue 4. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 1–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kamal Badar
    • 1
    • 3
  • Julie M. Hite
    • 2
  • Yuosre F. Badir
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Management Sciences (IMS)University of BalochistanQuettaPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Educational Leadership & FoundationsBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  3. 3.School of ManagementAsian Institute of TechnologyKlong LuangThailand

Personalised recommendations