We present a method to analyse the scientific contributions between research groups. Given multiple research groups, we construct their journal proceeding graphs and then compute the similarity gap between them using network analysis. This analysis can be used for measuring similarity gap of the topics qualities between research groups' scientific contributions. We demonstrate the practicality of our method by comparing the scientific contributions by Korean researchers with those by the global researchers for information security in 2006 - 2008. The empirical analysis shows that the current security research in South Korea has been isolated from the global research trend.
An alternative approach is to analyse researchers' social networks such as co-citation networks @cite_2 @cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_5 and co-authorship networks @cite_28 @cite_22 @cite_39 @cite_33 . Citation networks can be also used to evaluate the importance of journals proceedings by computing centrality values of the nodes in a citation graph. Co-authorship networks are an important class of social networks and have been used extensively. Many co-authorship networks have been studied to investigate the patterns, motivation, and the structure of scientific collaboration @cite_18 @cite_34 @cite_32 @cite_20 @cite_12 @cite_7 @cite_10 @cite_3 . Morris @cite_31 proposed a model to monitor the birth and development of a scientific speciality with a collection of journal papers. Lee @cite_35 practically analysed the research trends in the information security field using co-word analysis''. Our work is to extend these to measure the similarity gap between research groups by comparing their publication outputs.
@cite_35 @cite_18 @cite_22 @cite_33 @cite_7 @cite_28 @cite_32 @cite_3 @cite_39 @cite_24 @cite_27 @cite_2 @cite_5 @cite_31 @cite_34 @cite_10 @cite_12 @cite_20
1608828583 2049086518 2162010993 1972830890
This article introduces a suite of approaches and measures to study the impact of co-authorship teams based on the number of publications and their citations on a local and global scale. In particular, we present a novel weighted graph representation that encodes coupled author-paper networks as a weighted co-authorship graph. This weighted graph representation is applied to a dataset that captures the emergence of a new field of science and comprises 614 articles published by 1036 unique authors between 1974 and 2004. To characterize the properties and evolution of this field, we first use four different measures of centrality to identify the impact of authors. A global statistical analysis is performed to characterize the distribution of paper production and paper citations and its correlation with the co-authorship team size. The size of co-authorship clusters over time is examined. Finally, a novel local, author-centered measure based on entropy is applied to determine the global evolution of the field and the identification of the contribution of a single author's impact across all of its co-authorship relations. A visualization of the growth of the weighted co-author network, and the results obtained from the statistical analysis indicate a drift toward a more cooperative, global collaboration process as the main drive in the production of scientific knowledge. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 10: 57–67, 2005 In this study, we propose and validate social networks based theoretical model for exploring scholars' collaboration (co-authorship) network properties associated with their citation-based research performance (i.e., g-index). Using structural holes theory, we focus on how a scholar's egocentric network properties of density, efficiency and constraint within the network associate with their scholarly performance. For our analysis, we use publication data of high impact factor journals in the field of ''Information Science & Library Science'' between 2000 and 2009, extracted from Scopus. The resulting database contained 4837 publications reflecting the contributions of 8069 authors. Results from our data analysis suggest that research performance of scholars' is significantly correlated with scholars' ego-network measures. In particular, scholars with more co-authors and those who exhibit higher levels of betweenness centrality (i.e., the extent to which a co-author is between another pair of co-authors) perform better in terms of research (i.e., higher g-index). Furthermore, scholars with efficient collaboration networks who maintain a strong co-authorship relationship with one primary co-author within a group of linked co-authors (i.e., co-authors that have joint publications) perform better than those researchers with many relationships to the same group of linked co-authors. Recent graph-theoretic approaches have demonstrated remarkable successes for ranking networked entities, but most of their applications are limited to homogeneous networks such as the network of citations between publications. This paper proposes a novel method for co-ranking authors and their publications using several networks: the social network connecting the authors, the citation network connecting the publications, as well as the authorship network that ties the previous two together. The new co-ranking framework is based on coupling two random walks, that separately rank authors and documents following the PageRankparadigm. As a result, improved rankings of documents and their authors depend on each other in a mutually reinforcing way, thus taking advantage of the additional information implicit in the heterogeneous network of authors and documents. Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988–2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.