Bibliometric solutions for identifying potential collaborators

Bibliometric indicators and methodologies are commonly used for benchmarking institutions and individuals, and analyzing their research performance. Their potential for identifying partners and promoting collaboration is many times overseen by research institutions. In this presentation we will discuss different indicators and methodologies that can be used to spot institutions, research groups and individuals working on similar research fronts. By using different visualization techniques, we will provide examples on how to present these data in an appealing way which can inform university and research managers. These types of analyses are useful when searching for potential partners or designing strategies to establish scientific collaboration networks

Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers

Scientists are frequently faced with the important decision to start or terminate a creative partnership. This process can be influenced by strategic motivations, as early career researchers are pursuers, whereas senior researchers are typically attractors, of new collaborative opportunities. Focusing on the longitudinal aspects of scientific collaboration, we analyzed 473 collaboration profiles using an ego-centric perspective which accounts for researcher-specific characteristics and provides insight into a range of topics, from career achievement and sustainability to team dynamics and efficiency. From more than 166,000 collaboration records, we quantify the frequency distributions of collaboration duration and tie-strength, showing that collaboration networks are dominated by weak ties characterized by high turnover rates. We use analytic extreme-value thresholds to identify a new class of indispensable `super ties', the strongest of which commonly exhibit >50% publication overlap with the central scientist. The prevalence of super ties suggests that they arise from career strategies based upon cost, risk, and reward sharing and complementary skill matching. We then use a combination of descriptive and panel regression methods to compare the subset of publications coauthored with a super tie to the subset without one, controlling for pertinent features such as career age, prestige, team size, and prior group experience. We find that super ties contribute to above-average productivity and a 17% citation increase per publication, thus identifying these partnerships - the analog of life partners - as a major factor in science career development.Comment: 13 pages, 5 figures, 1 Tabl

AUGUR: Forecasting the Emergence of New Research Topics

Being able to rapidly recognise new research trends is strategic for many stakeholders, including universities, institutional funding bodies, academic publishers and companies. The literature presents several approaches to identifying the emergence of new research topics, which rely on the assumption that the topic is already exhibiting a certain degree of popularity and consistently referred to by a community of researchers. However, detecting the emergence of a new research area at an embryonic stage, i.e., before the topic has been consistently labelled by a community of researchers and associated with a number of publications, is still an open challenge. We address this issue by introducing Augur, a novel approach to the early detection of research topics. Augur analyses the diachronic relationships between research areas and is able to detect clusters of topics that exhibit dynamics correlated with the emergence of new research topics. Here we also present the Advanced Clique Percolation Method (ACPM), a new community detection algorithm developed specifically for supporting this task. Augur was evaluated on a gold standard of 1,408 debutant topics in the 2000-2011 interval and outperformed four alternative approaches in terms of both precision and recall

Defining and Evaluating Network Communities based on Ground-truth

Nodes in real-world networks organize into densely linked communities where edges appear with high concentration among the members of the community. Identifying such communities of nodes has proven to be a challenging task mainly due to a plethora of definitions of a community, intractability of algorithms, issues with evaluation and the lack of a reliable gold-standard ground-truth. In this paper we study a set of 230 large real-world social, collaboration and information networks where nodes explicitly state their group memberships. For example, in social networks nodes explicitly join various interest based social groups. We use such groups to define a reliable and robust notion of ground-truth communities. We then propose a methodology which allows us to compare and quantitatively evaluate how different structural definitions of network communities correspond to ground-truth communities. We choose 13 commonly used structural definitions of network communities and examine their sensitivity, robustness and performance in identifying the ground-truth. We show that the 13 structural definitions are heavily correlated and naturally group into four classes. We find that two of these definitions, Conductance and Triad-participation-ratio, consistently give the best performance in identifying ground-truth communities. We also investigate a task of detecting communities given a single seed node. We extend the local spectral clustering algorithm into a heuristic parameter-free community detection method that easily scales to networks with more than hundred million nodes. The proposed method achieves 30% relative improvement over current local clustering methods.Comment: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 201

Betweenness Centrality as a Driver of Preferential Attachment in the Evolution of Research Collaboration Networks

We analyze whether preferential attachment in scientific coauthorship networks is different for authors with different forms of centrality. Using a complete database for the scientific specialty of research about "steel structures," we show that betweenness centrality of an existing node is a significantly better predictor of preferential attachment by new entrants than degree or closeness centrality. During the growth of a network, preferential attachment shifts from (local) degree centrality to betweenness centrality as a global measure. An interpretation is that supervisors of PhD projects and postdocs broker between new entrants and the already existing network, and thus become focal to preferential attachment. Because of this mediation, scholarly networks can be expected to develop differently from networks which are predicated on preferential attachment to nodes with high degree centrality.Comment: Journal of Informetrics (in press

Authorship analysis of specialized vs diversified research output

The present work investigates the relations between amplitude and type of collaboration (intramural, extramural domestic or international) and output of specialized versus diversified research. By specialized or diversified research, we mean within or beyond the author's dominant research topic. The field of observation is the scientific production over five years from about 23,500 academics. The analyses are conducted at the aggregate and disciplinary level. The results lead to the conclusion that in general, the output of diversified research is no more frequently the fruit of collaboration than is specialized research. At the level of the particular collaboration types, international collaborations weakly underlie the specialized kind of research output; on the contrary, extramural domestic and intramural collaborations are weakly associated with diversified research. While the weakness of association remains, exceptions are observed at the level of the individual disciplines