COCOON CORE: CO-author REcommendations Based on Betweenness Centrality and Interest Similarity

  • Rory L. L. SieEmail author
  • Bart Jan van Engelen
  • Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema
  • Peter B. Sloep


When researchers are to write a new article, they often seek co-authors who are knowledgeable on the article’s subject. However, they also strive for acceptance of their article. Based on this otherwise intuitive process, the current article presents the COCOON CORE tool that recommends candidate co-authors based on like-mindedness and power. Like-mindedness ensures that co-authors share a common ground, which is necessary for seamless cooperation. Powerful co-authors foster adoption of an article’s research idea by the community. Two experiments were conducted, one focusing on the perceived quality of the recommendations that COCOON CORE generates and one focusing on the usability of COCOON CORE. Results indicate that participants perceive the recommendations moderately positively. Particularly, they value the recommendations that focus fully on finding influential peers and the recommendation in which they themselves can adjust the balance between finding influential peers and like-minded peers. Also, the usability of COCOON CORE is perceived to be moderately good.


Social network analysis Science 2.0 Co-authorship Research network Informetrics Recommender systems Scientometrics 



The authors thank Dr. Lora Aroyo from the VU University Amsterdam for her insightful comments during the design and implementation phases of COCOON CORE.


  1. 1.
    Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(46):16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 1(2006):1–31MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linton JD, Tierney R, Walsh ST (2011) Publish or perish: how are research and reputation related? Ser Rev 37(4):244–257. doi: 10.1016/j.serrev.2011.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gardner WL, Lowe KB, Moss TW, Mahoney KT, Cogliser CC (2011) Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: a review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009. Leadersh Q 21(6):922–958. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feuer MJ, Towne L, Shavelson RJ (2002) Scientific culture and educational research. Educ Res 31(8):4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X031008004 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lambiotte R, Panzarasa P (2009) Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. J Informetr 3(3):180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leydesdorff L, Wagner CS (2008) International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. J Informetr 2(4):317–325. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotter JP (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business, p 208Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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. J Informetr 5(4):594–607. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franceschini F, Maisano D (2010) The Hirsch spectrum: a novel tool for analyzing scientific journals. J Informetr 4(1):64–73. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim H, Yoon JW, Crowcroft J (2012) Network analysis of temporal trends in scholarly research productivity. J Informetr 6(1):97–110. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 22(8):2623–2628. doi: 10.1096/fj.08-107938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harzing A, van der Wal R (2008) Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:61–73. doi: 10.3354/esep00076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sie RLL, Drachsler H, Bitter-Rijpkema M, Sloep PB (2012) To whom and why should i connect? Co-author recommendation based on powerful and similar peers. IJTEL 1(2):121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and FrancisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brandes U (1994) A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J Math Sociol 25:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Science 37(3):422–447Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page CH (eds) Freedom and control in modern society, Van Nostrand, New York, NY, 18:18–66, Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stahl G (2005) Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. J Comput Assist Learn 21(2):79–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00115.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rory L. L. Sie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bart Jan van Engelen
    • 3
  • Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema
    • 2
  • Peter B. Sloep
    • 2
  1. 1.AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Open Universiteit NederlandHeerlenNetherlands
  3. 3.Dandelion Group BVRotterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations