Homophily in co-autorship networks

Open access

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to measure the impact that homophily, structural characteristics of the networks, number of citations of the alters and their Hirsch score have on the number of citations of an ego. I have chosen co-authorship networks as a subject of research because they have a great influence on knowledge and on the diffusion of ideas. The studied populations are represented by full-time academics affiliated to sociology departments in Romania, Poland and Slovenia. Ego-network analysis was used as research design. The data was analyzed using linear hierarchical regression. For all three populations the average number of citations of the alter has a considerable positive impact on the number of citations of the ego. Conversely, the Hirsch score of the alter has a negative impact on the number of citations of the ego. The data analyzed in this article claims that the assumptions about the positive impact of alter citations, network size and the betweenness score on the number of the authors citations are supported empirically.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Barabási A. L. and Albert R. (1999) ‘Emergence of scaling in random networks’ Science 286(5439) pp. 509–512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509.

  • Barnett A. W Ault R. and L Kaserman D. (1988) ‘The Rising Incidence of Co-Authorship in Economics: Further Evidence’ The Review of Economics and Statistics 70 pp. 539–543.

  • Bauer K. and Bakkalbasi N. (2005) ‘An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment’ D-Lib Magazine. doi:10.1045/september2005-bauer.

  • Borgatti S. P. and Halgin D. S. (2011) ‘Organization Science’ Organization Science 22(5) pp. 1168–1181.

  • Bornmann L. and Daniel H. D. (2007) ‘What do we know about the h index?’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(9) pp. 1381–1385. doi:10.1002/asi.20609.

  • Boucher V. (2015) ‘Structural homophily’ International Economic Review 56(1) pp. 235–264. doi:10.1111/iere.12101.

  • Bozeman B. Fay D. and Slade C. P. (2013) ‘Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art’ Journal of Technology Transfer pp. 1–67. doi:10.1007/ s10961-012-9281-8.

  • Costas R. and Bordons M. (2007) ‘The h-index: Advantages limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level’ Journal of Informetrics 1(3) pp. 193–203. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001.

  • Dowling J. and Pfeffer J. (1975) ‘Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior’ The Pacific Sociological Review 18(1) pp. 122–136. doi:10.2307/1388226.

  • Egghe L. (2006) ‘An improvement of the h-index: The g-index’ ISSI Newsletter pp. 1–4.

  • Engla N. E. W. (2010) ‘New england journal’ Perspective 363(1) pp. 1–3. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1002530.

  • Friedkin N. E. (1998) ‘Toward a Structural Social Psychology’ in A Structural Theory of Social Influence pp. 23–34.

  • Fu F. Nowak M. A. Christakis N. A. and Fowler J. H. (2012) ‘The evolution of homophily’ Scientific Reports 2. doi:10.1038/ srep00845.

  • Garfield E. (1970) ‘Citation indexing for studying science’ Nature 227(5259) pp. 669–671. doi:10.1038/227669a0.

  • Hâncean M. (2016) ‘AQuaRel’. România.

  • Hâncean M. G. and Perc M. (2016) ‘Homophily in co-authorship networks of East European sociologists’ Scientific Reports 6. doi:10.1038/srep36152.

  • Hirsch J. E. (2005) ‘An index to quantify an individual’s s scientific research output’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 102(46) pp. 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0507655102.

  • Kandel D. B. (1978) ‘Homophily Selection and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships’ American Journal of Sociology 84(2) pp. 427–436. doi:10.1086/226792.

  • Lazarsfeld P. F. and Merton R. K. (1954) ‘Frienship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis’ in Freedom and Control in Modern Society.

  • Marsden P. V. (1987) ‘Core Discussion Networks of Americans’ American Sociological Review 52(1) p. 122. doi:10.2307/2095397.

  • Matusiak A. and Morzy M. (2012) ‘Social Network Analysis in Scientometrics’ 2012 Eighth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems pp. 692–699. doi:10.1109/SITIS.2012.105.

  • McPherson M. Smith-Lovin L. and Cook J. M. (2001) ‘Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks’ Annual Review of Sociology 27(1) pp. 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev. soc.27.1.415.

  • Moody J. (2004) ‘The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999’ American Sociological Review 69(2) pp. 213–238. doi:10.1177/000312240406900204.

  • Moody J. and White D. R. (2003) ‘Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups’ American Sociological Review 68(1) p. 103. doi:10.2307/3088904.

  • Newman M. E. J. (2001) ‘Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results’ Physical Review E 64(1) p. 016131. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131.

  • Newman M. E. J. (2004) ‘Co-authorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(Supplement 1) pp. 5200–5205. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0307545100.

  • Price D. J. D. S. (1963) Little Science Big ScienceLittle Science Big Science.

  • Rueda G. Gerdsri P. and Kocaoglu D. F. (2007) ‘Bibliometrics and social network analysis of the nanotechnology field’ Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology pp. 2905–2911. doi:10.1109/ PICMET.2007.4349633.

  • Stokes T. D. and Hartley J. A. (1989) ‘Co-authorship Social Structure and Influence Within Specialties’ Social Studies of Science 19(1) pp. 101–125. doi:10.1177/030631289019001003.

  • Sundaresan S. R. Fischhoff I. R. Dushoff J. and Rubenstein D. I. (2007) ‘Network metrics reveal differences in social organization between two fission-fusion species Grevy’s zebra and onager’ Oecologia 151(1) pp. 140–149. doi:10.1007/ s00442-006-0553-6.

  • Wasserman S. and Faust K. (1994) Social network analysis : methods and applicationsAmerican Ethnologist. doi:10.1525/ ae.1997.24.1.219.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 121 121 13
PDF Downloads 107 107 7