Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper introduces the use of blockmodeling in the micro-level study of the internal structure of co-authorship networks over time. Variations in scientific productivity and researcher or research group visibility were determined by observing authors’ role in the core-periphery structure and crossing this information with bibliometric data. Three techniques were applied to represent the structure of collaborative science: (1) the blockmodeling; (2) the Kamada-Kawai algorithm based on the similarities in co-authorships present in the documents analysed; (3) bibliometrics to determine output volume, impact and degree of collaboration from the bibliographic data drawn from publications. The goal was to determine the extent to which the use of these two complementary approaches, in conjunction with bibliometric data, provides greater insight into the structure and characteristics of a given field of scientific endeavour. The paper describes certain features of Pajek software and how it can be used to study research group composition, structure and dynamics. The approach combines bibliometric and social network analysis to explore scientific collaboration networks and monitor individual and group careers from new perspectives. Its application on a small-scale case study is intended as an example and can be used in other disciplines. It may be very useful for the appraisal of scientific developments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311, 590–614.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2010). The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2003). Analysis and visualization of large networks. In M. Jünger & P. Mutzel (Eds.), Graph drawing software (pp. 77–103). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52, 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1999). Models of core/periphery structures. Soc Netw, 21, 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W., & Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10(4), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Lee, S. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braam, R., & van den Besselaar, P. (2010). Life cycles of research groups: the case of CWTS. Res Eval, 19(3), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Shubert, A. (2001). Publication and collaboration patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals. Scientometrics, 51, 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caníbano, C., & Bozeman, B. (2009). Curriculum vitae method in science policy and research evaluation: the state-of-the-art. Res Eval, 18(2), 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Benavent-Pérez, M., Miguel, S., Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). International collaboration in medical research in Latin America and the Caribbean (2003–2007). J Am Soc Inform Sci (in press).

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Hassan-Montero, Y., González-Molina, A., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). New approach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Inform Visualization, 9(4), 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doreian, P., Batagelj, V., & Ferligoj, A. (2005). Generalized blockmodeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferligoj, A., Doreian, P., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Positions and roles. In J. Scott & P. Carrington (Eds.), Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 434–446). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferligoj, A., & Kronegger, L. (2009). Clustering of attribute and/or relational data. Metodoloski zvezki (Adv Methodol Stat), 6(2), 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, J. M. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: a model for 2020. J Am Soc Inform Sci, 51(14), 1279–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Res Policy, 26, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Qual Quant, 45(5), 989–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90, 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol, 63(3), 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorship? Res Eval, 11(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: extending ACA to the web environment. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol, 57(12), 1616–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mali, F., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2010). Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian sociological community. Corvinus J Sociol Soc Policy, 1(2), 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration at the individual level. Res Policy, 29(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miguel, S. (2009). Oportunidades y desafíos actuales de la investigación en Bibliotecología y Ciencia de la Información. El caso del Departamento de Bibliotecología de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina. Información, Cultura y Sociedad, (21), 51–67. http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/ics/n21/n21a04.pdf.

  • Miguel, S., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., González, C., Moya-Anegón, F. Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups through a comparative input/output perspective. Information Research (in press).

  • Moed, H. F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev, 69(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Nat Acad Sci US, 98(2), 404–409.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 98 (Suppl. 2), 16, 404-409.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004b). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, & Z. Toroczkai (Eds.), Complex networks (pp. 337–370). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Onofrio, M. G. (2009). The public CV database of Argentine researchers and the ‘CV-minimum’ Latin–American model of standardization of CV information for R&D evaluation and policy-making. Res Eval, 18(2), 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perianes-Rodríguez, A., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Olmeda-Gómez, C., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2009). Synthetic hybrid indicators based on scientific collaboration to quantify and evaluate individual research results. J Informetr, 3(2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. Am Psychol, 21, 1011–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. S., Gürsey, S. (1976). Studies in scientometrics. Part 1. Transience and continuance in scientific authorship. International Forum on Information and Documentation No. 1, pp. 17–24.

  • Shaw, D., & Vaughan, L. (2008). Publication and citation patterns among LIS faculty: profiling a “typical professor”. Libr Inform Sci Res, 30(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific collaborations. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol, 41, 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res Policy, 34, 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (2003). Author cocitation analysis and pearson’s r. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol, 54(13), 1250–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Claudia González for compiling the data, Vladimir Batagelj for his technical support and suggestions, anonymous referees for comments that improved the present analysis and Margaret Clark for editing the English text. This research was partially funded by the Spanish National Research Council under the project entitled “Generación de herramientas cienciométricas para el análisis de la colaboración científica” (Proyecto Intramural CSIC 200810I210).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos, C/Albasanz, 26-28, 28037, Madrid, Spain

    Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Félix de Moya-Anegón

  2. SCImago Research Group, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Sandra Miguel & Félix de Moya-Anegón

  3. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploscad 5, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Anuska Ferligoj & Luka Kronegger

  4. Departamento de Bibliotecología, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, 48 e/6 y 7. 5to piso, La Plata, Argentina

    Sandra Miguel

Authors
  1. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anuska Ferligoj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandra Miguel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luka Kronegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Félix de Moya-Anegón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Ferligoj, A., Miguel, S. et al. Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: a case study. Scientometrics 93, 699–717 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0794-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0794-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation