Key Leader Analysis in Scientific Collaboration Network Using H-Type Hybrid Measures

  • Anand Bihari
  • Sudhakar Tripathi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 705)


In research community, most of the research work is done by the group of researchers and the evaluation of scientific impact of individual is based on either citation-based metrics or centrality measures of social network. But both type of measures have its own impact in scientific evaluation, and the centrality measures are based on number of collaborators and their impact, whereas the citation-based metrics are based on the citation count of articles published by individual. For the evaluation of scientific impact of individual required a hybrid approach of citation-based index and centrality measure of social network analysis. In this article, we have discussed some of the h-type hybrid measures which is the combination of citation-based index and the centrality-based measures for scientific evaluation and find out the prominent leader in scientific collaboration network.


Social network Research collaboration Centrality h-type hybrid centrality 


  1. 1.
    Hirsch, J.E.: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(46), 16569–16572 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, vol. 8. Cambridge University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korn, A., Schubert, A., Telcs, A.: Lobby index in networks. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 388(11), 2221–2226 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abbasi, A.: h-type hybrid centrality measures for weighted networks. Scientometrics 96(2), 633–640 (2013). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhao, S.X., Rousseau, R., Fred, Y.Y.: h-degree as a basic measure in weighted networks. J. Inform. 5(4), 668–677 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newman, M.E.: Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Phys. Rev. E 64(1), 016131 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abbasi, A., Altmann, J.: On the correlation between research performance and social network analysis measures applied to research collaboration networks. In: 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2011, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., Rasmussen, K.J.: Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis. Scientometrics 89(2), 687–710 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bihari, A., Pandia, M.K.: Key author analysis in research professionals relationship network using citation indices and centrality. Proc. Comput. Sci. 57, 606–613 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arnaboldi, V., Dunbar, R.I., Passarella, A., Conti, M.: Analysis of co-authorship ego networks. In: Advances in Network Science, pp. 82–96. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bihari, A., Tripathi, S., Pandia, M.K.: Key author analysis in research professionals’ collaboration network based on MST using centrality measures. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies, p. 118. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Umadevi, V.: Automatic co-authorship network extraction and discovery of central authors. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 74(4), 1–6 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, J., Xu, K., Xiong, N., Liu, Y., Li, G.: Multi-index evaluation algorithm based on principal component analysis for node importance in complex networks. IET Netw. 1(3), 108–115 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, B.: Web Data Mining. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Said, Y.H., Wegman, E.J., Sharabati, W.K., Rigsby, J.T.: Retracted: social networks of author-coauthor relationships. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 52(4), 2177–2184 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, B., Yao, X.: To form a smaller world in the research realm of hierarchical decision models. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 1784–1788. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, B., Yang, J.: To form a smaller world in the research realm of hierarchical decision models. In: Proceedings of PICMET’11, PICMET (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swart, P.J., Schult, D.A., Hagberg, A.A.: Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In: Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNational Institute of Technology PatnaBiharIndia

Personalised recommendations