This paper examines the collaboration structures and dynamics of the co-authorship network of all Slovenian researchers. Its goal is to identify the key factors driving collaboration and the main differences in collaboration behavior across scientific fields and disciplines. Two approaches to modelling network dynamics are combined: the small-world model and the mechanism of preferential attachment, also known as the process of cumulative advantage. Stochastic-actor-based modelling of co-authorship network dynamics uses data for the complete longitudinal co-authorship networks for the entire Slovenian scientific community from 1996 to 2010. We confirmed the presence of clustering in all fields and disciplines. Preferential attachment is far more complex than a single global mechanism. There were two clear distinctions regarding collaboration within scientific fields and disciplines. One was that some fields had an internal national saturation inhibiting further collaboration. The second concerned the differential impact of collaboration with scientists from abroad on domestic collaboration. In the natural, technical, medical, and biotechnical sciences, this promotes collaboration within the Slovenian scientific community while in the social sciences and humanities this inhibits internal collaboration.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33292637
We explore classifying scientific disciplines including their temporal features by focusing on their collaboration structures over time. Bibliometric data for Slovenian researchers registered at the Slovenian Research Agency were used. These data were obtained from the Slovenian National Current Research Information System. We applied a recently developed hierarchical clustering procedure for symbolic data to the co-authorship structure of scientific disciplines. To track temporal changes, we divided data for the period 1986–2010 into five 5year time periods. The clusters of disciplines for the Slovene science system revealed 5 clusters of scientific disciplines that, in large measure, correspond with the official national classification of sciences. However, there were also some significant differences pointing to the need for a dynamic classification system of sciences to better characterize them. Implications stemming from these results, especially with regard to classifying scientific disciplines, understanding the collaborative structure of science, and research and development policies, are discussed.
COBISS.SI-ID: 32693853
The evaluation of research performance increasingly relies on quantitative indicators determined by national science policies. We focus on two dimensions of research performance—productivity and excellence—as defined in the evaluation methodology of the Slovenian Research Agency. Our analysis focuses on the effects of two science policy factors—co-authorship collaboration and researcher funding—on the productivity and excellence of Slovenian researchers at the level of research disciplines. A multilevel analysis using a hierarchical linear model with regression analysis was applied to the data with several nested levels. As many variables have a semi-continuous distribution, a statistical model was used to address them. The results show a very strong positive effect of international co-authorship collaboration on productivity and excellence, while fragmentation of funding shows a negative impact only on excellence. We also include interviews with excellent Slovenian researchers regarding their views on scientific excellence and quantitative indicators.
COBISS.SI-ID: 34302813
In the paper we show that the bibliographic data can be transformed into a collection of compatible networks. Using network multiplication different interesting derived networks can be obtained. In defining them an appropriate normalization should be considered. The proposed approach can be applied also to other collections of compatible networks. The networks obtained from the bibliographic data bases can be large (hundreds of thousands of vertices). Fortunately they are sparse and can be still processed relatively fast. We answer the question when the multiplication of sparse networks preserves sparseness. The proposed approaches are illustrated with analyses of collection of networks on the topic "social network" obtained from the Web of Science. The works with large number of co-authors add large complete subgraphs to standard collaboration network thus bluring the collaboration structure. We show that using an appropriate normalization their effect can be neutralized. Among other, we propose a measure of collaborativness of authors with respect to a given bibliography and show how to compute the network of citations between authors and identify citation communities.
COBISS.SI-ID: 16739929
In sociology of science much attention is dedicated to the study of scientific networks, especially to co-authorship and citations in publications. Other trends of research have investigated the advantages, limits, performances and difficulties of interdisciplinary research, which is increasingly advocated by the main lines of public research funding. This paper explores the dynamics of interdisciplinary research in Italy over 10 years of scientific collaboration on research projects. Instead of looking at the output of research, i.e. publications, we analyse the original research proposals that have been funded by the Ministry of University and Research for a specific line of funding, the Research Projects of National Interest. In particular, we want to see how much interdisciplinary research has been conducted during the period under analysis and how changes in the overall amount of public funding might have affected disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration. We also want to cluster the similarities and differences of the amount of disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration across scientific disciplines, and see if it changes over time. Finally, we want to see if interdisciplinary projects receive an increasing share of funding compared to their disciplinary bounded counterparts. Our results indicate that while interdisciplinary research diminishes along the years, potentially responding to the contraction of public funding, research that cut across disciplinary boundaries overall receives more funding than research confined within disciplinary boundaries. Furthermore, the clustering procedure do not indicate clear and stable distinction between disciplines, but similar patterns of disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration are shown by discipline with common epistemological frameworks, which share compatible epistemologies of scientific investigations. We conclude by reflecting upon the implications of our findings for research policies and practices and by discussing future research in this area.
COBISS.SI-ID: 34171997