Abstract
Applying the concept of triadic closure to coauthorship networks means that scholars are likely to publish a joint paper if they have previously coauthored with the same people. Prior research has identified moderate to high (20 to 40%) closure rates; suggesting this mechanism is a reasonable explanation for tie formation between future coauthors. We show how calculating triadic closure based on prior operationalizations of closure, namely Newman’s measure for one-mode networks (NCC) and Opsahl’s measure for two-mode networks (OCC) may lead to higher amounts of closure compared to measuring closure over time via a metric that we introduce and test in this paper. Based on empirical experiments using four large-scale, longitudinal datasets, we find a lower bound of 1–3% closure rates and an upper bound of 4–7%. These results motivate research on new explanatory factors for the formation of coauthorship links.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The triadic closure contains three cases of 2-path closure: (1) Y–X–Z closed by Y–Z, (2) X–Z–Y closed by Y–X, and (3) Z–Y–X closed by X–Z. This also applies to Case 2 in Table 2.
The triadic closure contains three cases of 4-path closure: (1) Y–A–X–B–Z closed by Y–C–Z, (2) X–B–Z–C–Y closed by Y–A–X, and (3) Z–C–Y–A–X closed by X–B–Z.
Opsahl (2013) never uses the clustering coefficient defined for two-mode networks as an indicator of the probability of two scientists collaborating when they have a third coauthor in common.
The list of 392 journals was obtained from Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report 2012 for the Computer Science category. Then, those journals’ names and papers published in these journals were searched for in DBLP.
The 4-path in Case 1 is Y–A–X–B–Z. The 4-paths in Case 2 are: (1) Y–A–X–B–Z, (2) Y–A–W–B–Z, and (3) Y–C–X–B–Z.
In 2010, OCC (0.34) surpasses NCC (0.33).
4-paths by OCC: (1) Y–B–X–C–Z (closed by Z–D–Y), (2) Y–A–X–C–Z (closed by Z–D–Y), (3) X–C–Z–D–Y (closed by Y–A–X or Y–B–X), (4) Z–D–Y–A–X (closed by X–C–Z), (5) Z–D–Y–B–X (closed by X–C–Z), (6) X–C–Z–E–W, and (7) W–E–Z–D–Y.
2-paths by NCC: (1) Y–X–Z (Y–Z), (2) X–Z–Y (Y–Z), (3) Z–Y–X (X–Z), (4) W–Z–X, and (5) W–Z–Y.
4-paths by TCC: (1) Y–A and B–X–C–Z (closed by Z–D–Y) and (2) X–C–Z–E–W.
References
Barabási AL, Jeong H, Neda Z, Ravasz E, Schubert A, Vicsek T (2002) Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 311(3–4):590–614. doi:10.1016/s0378-4371(02)00736-7
Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Çavuşoğlu A, Türker İ (2013) Scientific collaboration network of Turkey. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 57:9–18
Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. Inter J Complex Syst 1695. http://igraph.org
Fegley BD, Torvik VI (2013) Has large-scale named-entity network analysis been resting on a flawed assumption? PLoS ONE 8(7):1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070299
Franceschet M (2011) Collaboration in computer science: a network science approach. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 62(10):1992–2012. doi:10.1002/asi.21614
Grossman JW (2002) Patterns of collaboration in mathematical research. SIAM News 35(9):8–9
Hâncean M-G, Perc M (2016) Homophily in coauthorship networks of East European sociologists. Sci Rep. doi:10.1038/srep36152
Hâncean M-G, Perc M, Vlăsceanu L (2014) Fragmented romanian sociology: growth and structure of the collaboration network. PLoS ONE 9(11):e113271
Holland PW, Leinhardt S (1970) Method for detecting structure in sociometric data. Am J Sociol 76(3):492. doi:10.1086/224954
Kim J, Diesner J (2015) The effect of data pre-processing on understanding the evolution of collaboration networks. J Informetr 9(1):226–236. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.002
Kim J, Diesner J (2016) Distortive effects of initial-based name disambiguation on measurements of large-scale coauthorship networks. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(6):1446–1461. doi:10.1002/asi.23489
Kim J, Tao L, Lee S-H, Diesner J (2016) Evolution and structure of scientific co-publishing network in Korea between 1948–2011. Scientometrics 107(1):27–41. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1878-5
Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2006) Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311(5757):88–90. doi:10.1126/science.1116869
Liben-Nowell D, Kleinberg J (2007) The link-prediction problem for social networks. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 58(7):1019–1031. doi:10.1002/asi.20591
Lind PG, Gonzalez MC, Herrmann HJ (2005) Cycles and clustering in bipartite networks. Phys Rev E 72(5):056127. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.72.056127
Martin T, Ball B, Karrer B, Newman MEJ (2013) Coauthorship and citation patterns in the Physical Review. Phys Rev E 88(1):012814-1–012814-9. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.88.012814
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann Rev Sociol 27:415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Moody J (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 69(2):213–238
Newman MEJ (2001a) Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys Rev E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.025102
Newman MEJ (2001b) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):404–409. doi:10.1073/pnas.021544898
Newman MEJ, Strogatz SH, Watts DJ (2001) Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Phys Rev E 64(2):026118
Opsahl T (2009) Structure and evolution of weighted networks. University of London (Queen Mary College), London
Opsahl T (2013) Triadic closure in two-mode networks: redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Soc Netw 35(2):159–167
Perc M (2010) Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. J Informetr 4(4):475–482
Rapoport A (1953) Spread of information through a population with socio-structural bias: I. Assumption of transitivity. Bull Math Biophys 15(4):523–533
Reitz F, Hoffmann O (2011) Did they notice? A case-study on the community contribution to data quality in DBLP. In: Gradmann S, Borri F, Meghini C, Schuldt H (eds) Research and advanced technology for digital libraries, TPDL 2011, vol 6966. Springer, Berlin, pp 204–215
Robins G, Alexander M (2004) Small worlds among interlocking directors: network structure and distance in bipartite graphs. Comput Math Organ Theory 10(1):69–94. doi:10.1023/B:CMOT.0000032580.12184.c0
Torvik VI, Smalheiser NR (2009) Author name disambiguation in MEDLINE. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data 3(3):1–29. doi:10.1145/1552303.1552304
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
Türker İ, Durgut R, Çavuşoğlu A (2016) Co-authorship network comparison of four Turkish universities. In: Paper presented at the international conference on research in education & science, Bodrum, Turkey
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI). We would like to thank Mark E. J. Newman and Tore Opsahl for providing codes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, J., Diesner, J. Over-time measurement of triadic closure in coauthorship networks. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 7, 9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-017-0428-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-017-0428-3