The evolutions of the rich get richer and the fit get richer phenomena in scholarly networks: the case of the strategic management journal

Abstract

Understanding how a scientist develops new scientific collaborations or how their papers receive new citations is a major challenge in scientometrics. The approach being proposed simultaneously examines the growth processes of the co-authorship and citation networks by analyzing the evolutions of the rich get richer and the fit get richer phenomena. In particular, the preferential attachment function and author fitnesses, which govern the two phenomena, are estimated non-parametrically in each network. The approach is applied to the co-authorship and citation networks of the flagship journal of the strategic management scientific community, namely the Strategic Management Journal. The results suggest that the abovementioned phenomena have been consistently governing both temporal networks. The average of the attachment exponents in the co-authorship network is 0.30 while it is 0.29 in the citation network. This suggests that the rich get richer phenomenon has been weak in both networks. The right tails of the distributions of author fitness in both networks are heavy, which imply that the intrinsic scientific quality of each author has been playing a crucial role in getting new citations and new co-authorships. Since the total competitiveness in each temporal network is founded to be rising with time, it is getting harder to receive a new citation or to develop a new collaboration. Analyzing the average competency, it was found that on average, while the veterans tend to be more competent at developing new collaborations, the newcomers are likely better at acquiring new citations. Furthermore, the author fitness in both networks has been consistent with the history of the strategic management scientific community. This suggests that coupling node fitnesses throughout different networks might be a promising new direction in analyzing simultaneously multiple networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Azar, O. H., & Brock, D. M. (2008). A citation-based ranking of strategic management journals. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17(3), 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2008.00195.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4371(02)00736-7.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Barney, J. B. (2016). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Batagelj, V., Ferligoj, A., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review. Scientometrics, 113(1), 503–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2522-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J. M., Helbing, D., Kuhnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(17), 7301–7306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610172104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bianconi, G., & Barabási, A. L. (2001). Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters (EPL), 54(4), 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i2001-00260-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Biscaro, C., & Giupponi, C. (2014). Co-authorship and bibliographic coupling network effects on citations. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows (Version 6.165): Analytic Technologies.

  11. Caldarelli, G. (2007). Scale-free networks. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Caldarelli, G., Capocci, A., De Los Rios, P., & Munoz, M. A. (2002). Scale-free networks from varying vertex intrinsic fitness. Physical Review Letters, 89(25), 258702. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.258702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Solla-Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 14(3683), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Solla-Price, D. J. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Egghe, L. (2005). The power of power laws and an interpretation of lotkaian informetric systems as self-similar fractals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Egghe, L. (2013). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1986). A characterization of distributions which satisfy Price’s law and consequences for the laws of Zipf and Mandelbrot. Journal of Information Science, 12(4), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158601200406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Frynas, J. G., Mellahi, K., & Pigman, G. A. (2006). First mover advantages in international business and firm-specific political resources. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gibrat, R. (1931). Les inégalités économiques. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Guerras-Martin, L. Á., & Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2013). Strategic management journal. In M. Augier & D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1–5). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0332-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hambrick, D. C. (1981). Strategic awareness within top management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250020305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Judge, W. Q., Weber, T., & Muller-Kahle, M. I. (2012). What are the correlates of interdisciplinary research impact? The case of corporate governance research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Katz, J. S. (1999). The self-similar science system. Research Policy, 28(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00010-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Katz, J. S. (2016a). Policies considerations for evidence-based measures of complex innovation systems. Paper presented at the SPRU 50th aniversary conference, University of Sussex, Brighton UK.

  32. Katz, J. S. (2016b). What is a complex innovation system? PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kong, J. S., Sarshar, N., & Roychowdhury, V. P. (2008). Experience versus talent shapes the structure of the Web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(37), 13724–13729. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805921105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Koseoglu, M. A. (2016). Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980–2014. Scientometrics, 109(1), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1894-5.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Krapivsky, P. L., & Redner, S. (2001). Organization of growing random networks. Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 63(6 Pt 2), 066123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.63.066123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Law, J., & Whittaker, J. (1992). Mapping acidification research: A test of the co-word method. Scientometrics, 23(3), 417–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frecuency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/i24527553.

  40. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moed, H. F. (2010). CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group’s publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 436–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Naranan, S. (1971). Power law relations in science bibliography—a self-consistent interpretation. Journal of Documentation, 27(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Neophytou, J. (2014). How to navigate the world of citation metrics. Retrieved from http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/05/15/how-to-navigate-the-world-of-citation-metrics/.

  46. Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 64(2 Pt 2), 025102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.025102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review. E, Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 64(1 Pt 2), 016132. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.64.016132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Newman, M. E. J. (2001c). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.021544898.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Newman, M. E. J. (2009). The first-mover advantage in scientific publication. EPL (Europhysics Letters). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/86/68001.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2016). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pan, R. K., & Fortunato, S. (2014). Author impact factor: Tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 4, 4880. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Persson, O. R., & Danell, J. W. S. (2009). How to use bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In R. F. Åström, B. Danell, & J. S. Larsen (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pham, T., Sheridan, P., & Shimodaira, H. (2015). PAFit: A statistical method for measuring preferential attachment in temporal complex networks. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0137796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pham, T., Sheridan, P., & Shimodaira, H. (2016). Joint estimation of preferential attachment and node fitness in growing complex networks. Scientific Reports, 6, 32558. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pham, T., Sheridan, P., & Shimodaira, H. (2018). PAFit: an R Package for the non-parametric estimation of preferential attachment and node fitness in temporal complex networks. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.06017.

  58. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2015). Knowledge map of Latin American research on management: Trends and future advancement. Social Science Information, 55(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018415610225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. Á. (2010). Dynamics of the scientific community network within the strategic management field through the Strategic Management Journal 1980–2009: the role of cooperation. Scientometrics, 85(3), 821–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0287-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L. Á. (2013). Red de cooperación institucional de investigación en dirección de empresas en España en torno a la revista CEDE: 1998–2010. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cede.2012.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Katz, J. S. (2017). The scaling relationship between citation-based performance and scientific collaboration in natural sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rupp, D. E., Thornton, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Olien, J. L., & Berka, G. (2014). The characteristics of quality scholarly submissions: Considerations of author team composition and decision making. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Simon, H. A. (1955). On a Class of Skew Distribution. Biometrika, 42(3–4), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333389.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Strategic Management Society. (2014). SMS awards and honors. Retrieved from https://www.strategicmanagement.net/awards/smj-best-paper.

  68. Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management’s journal direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199903)20:3<279::AID-SMJ33>3.0.CO;2-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Türker, İ., & Çavuşoğlu, A. (2016). Detailing the co-authorship networks in degree coupling, edge weight and academic age perspective. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 91, 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2016.06.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. van Raan, A. F. J. (2008). Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. van Raan, A. F. J. (2013). Universities scale like cities. Plos ONE, 8(3), e59384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0354-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabasi, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1999). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the two reviewers for interesting suggestions on a previous version of the manuscript. We also express our gratitude to Professors Luis Ángel Guerras-Martin and Anoop Madok for interesting comments on the links between fittest authors with their lines of research.

Funding

This study was financed by FONDECYT, Chile, grant number 1180200 to Professor Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ronda-Pupo, G.A., Pham, T. The evolutions of the rich get richer and the fit get richer phenomena in scholarly networks: the case of the strategic management journal. Scientometrics 116, 363–383 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2761-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Author fitness
  • Citation network
  • Co-authorship network
  • Preferential attachment
  • Power-law
  • Scale free network
  • First-mover advantage

JEL Classification

  • M1