The Extraction of Community Structures from Publication Networks to Support Ethnographic Observations of Field Differences in Scientific Communication

The scientific community of researchers in a research specialty is an important unit of analysis for understanding the field specific shaping of scientific communication practices. These scientific communities are, however, a challenging unit of analysis to capture and compare because they overlap, have fuzzy boundaries, and evolve over time. We describe a network analytic approach that reveals the complexities of these communities through examination of their publication networks in combination with insights from ethnographic field studies. We suggest that the structures revealed indicate overlapping sub- communities within a research specialty and we provide evidence that they differ in disciplinary orientation and research practices. By mapping the community structures of scientific fields we aim to increase confidence about the domain of validity of ethnographic observations as well as of collaborative patterns extracted from publication networks thereby enabling the systematic study of field differences. The network analytic methods presented include methods to optimize the delineation of a bibliographic data set in order to adequately represent a research specialty, and methods to extract community structures from this data. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a case study of two research specialties in the physical and chemical sciences.Comment: Accepted for publication in JASIS

The Myth of Global Science Collaboration - Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities

Scientific collaboration is often perceived as a joint global process that involves researchers worldwide, regardless of their place of work and residence. Globalization of science, in this respect, implies that collaboration among scientists takes place along the lines of common topics and irrespective of the spatial distances between the collaborators. The networks of collaborators, termed 'epistemic communities', should thus have a space-independent structure. This paper shows that such a notion of globalized scientific collaboration is not supported by empirical data. It introduces a novel approach of analyzing distance-dependent probabilities of collaboration. The results of the analysis of six distinct scientific fields reveal that intra-country collaboration is about 10-50 times more likely to occur than international collaboration. Moreover, strong dependencies exist between collaboration activity (measured in co-authorships) and spatial distance when confined to national borders. However, the fact that distance becomes irrelevant once collaboration is taken to the international scale suggests a globalized science system that is strongly influenced by the gravity of local science clusters. The similarity of the probability functions of the six science fields analyzed suggests a universal mode of spatial governance that is independent from the mode of knowledge creation in science.Comment: 13 pages, 3 figures, 1 tabl

Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management

This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full pape

Communities and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management

This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full pape

Communities and patterns of scientific collaboration

This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)This paper investigates the role of homophily and focus constraint in shaping collaborative scientific research. First, homophily structures collaboration when scientists adhere to a norm of exclusivity in selecting similar partners at a higher rate than dissimilar ones. Two dimensions on which similarity between scientists can be assessed are their research specialties and status positions. Second, focus constraint shapes collaboration when connections among scientists depend on opportunities for social contact. Constraint comes in two forms, depending on whether it originates in institutional or geographic space. Institutional constraint refers to the tendency of scientists to select collaborators within rather than across institutional boundaries. Geographic constraint is the principle that, when collaborations span different institutions, they are more likely to involve scientists that are geographically co-located than dispersed. To study homophily and focus constraint, the paper will argue in favour of an idea of collaboration that moves beyond formal co-authorship to include also other forms of informal intellectual exchange that do not translate into the publication of joint work. A community-detection algorithm is applied to the co-authorship network of the scientists that submitted in Business and Management in the 2001 UK RAE. While results only partially support research-based homophily, they indicate that scientists use status positions for discriminating between potential partners by selecting collaborators from institutions with a rating similar to their own. Strong support is provided in favour of institutional and geographic constraints. Scientists tend to forge intra-institutional collaborations; yet, when they seek collaborators outside their own institutions, they tend to select those who are in geographic proximity