Web surveys are frequently used data collection procedure in studies of various online communities, but only little is known about how content of email invitations to list-based web surveys influences response rates. The present work investigated whether making authority, plea for help, and sense of community salient in email invitations determines the response of survey participants. Drawing from both survey methodology and recent research on online communities, this study also tested a hypothesis on the relationship between activity in an online community and survey response. Using a full-factorial experiment based on a simple random sample of 2500 members from the largest online health community in Slovenia, the results support only the hypothesis that plea for help is an effective response-inducing element in email invitations. Furthermore, the results support the hypotheses that online community activity, related to the frequency of visits and number of posts to an online community, are positively associated with response in list-based web survey. This study shows that having too much content by combining elements in email invitations does not improve response rates, which is important information for researchers and any investigators in general, who conduct list-based web surveys.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33758045
In the paper a model of random walks on weighted graphs where the weights are interval valued, and its connection to reversible imprecise Markov chains is proposed. While the theory of imprecise Markov chains is now well established, this is a first attempt to model reversible chains. In contrast with the existing theory, the probability models that have to be considered are now non-convex. One of the focuses of the paper are therefore computational aspects of the model. In particular, a local optimization algorithm for finding local optima, among which the global optimum is sought, which is the goal of the optimization is presented.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33938781
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 in this paper: 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
This article examines the structure of Slovenian disciplinary co-authorship networks' stability in two time periods (1991-2000 and 2001-2010). The goal of the article is to analyse differences in the stability and size of groups of researchers that co-author with each other (core research groups) formed in disciplines from the natural and technical sciences on one hand and the social sciences and humanities on the other. The cores were obtained by a pre-specified blockmodeling procedure assuming a multi-core-semi-periphery periphery structure. The stability of the obtained cores was measured with the Modified Adjusted Rand Index. The assumed structure was confirmed in all analyzed disciplines. The average size of the cores obtained is higher in the second time period and the average core size is greater in the natural and technical sciences than in the social sciences and humanities. There are no differences in average core stability between the natural and technical sciences and the social sciences and humanities when the stability of cores is defined through Modified Adjusted Rand Index while the differences emerges when the stability of cores is defined by the splitting of cores and not also by the percentage of researchers who left the cores.
COBISS.SI-ID: 33687901
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 does 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