A novel method for determining research groups from co-authorship network and scientific fields of authors.

Tomaž Pisanski, Mark Pisanski, Jan Pisanski


Large networks not only have a large number of vertices but also have a large number of edges. Usually such networks are dense and difficult to visualise, even locally. This paper considers the case where large weights on edges represent proximity of the corresponding end-vertices. We follow two main ideas in this paper. The first one is \emph{network pruning}, that is removal of edges that makes the resulting network more manageable while keeping the main characteristic of the original network. The other idea is to partition the network vertex set in such a way that the induced connected components represent groups of network elements that fit together. Furthermore, we assume that the vertices of the network are labeled by \emph{types}. In this paper we apply our approach to
co-authorship network of researchers in Slovenia in order to identify research groups, finding group leaders and the degree of inter-disciplinarity of
the group. For the network pruning phase we use a pathfinder network and for vertex partition appropriate line-cuts. Each cluster is assigned a distribution of types. A measure of inter-disciplinarity of research group is derived from such a distribution.

Full Text:



T. Bartol, G. Budimir, P. Južnič, K. Stopar. Mapping and classification of agriculture in Web of Science: other subject categories and research fields may benefit. Scientometrics, vol. 109 (2016) no. 2, pp. 979-996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2071-6

V. Batagelj. On Fractional Approach to Analysis of Linked Networks, Scientometrics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03383-y

V. Batagelj, P. Doreian, A. Ferligoj, N. Kejžar. Understanding large temporal networks and spatial networks: Exploration, pattern searching, visualization and network evolution, (2014) John Wiley & Sons.

J.A. Bondy and U.S.R. Murty. Graph theory, (2008) Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 244. Springer, New York.

C. Chen. Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, vol. 2 (2017) no.2, pp1-40. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006

C. Chen, S. Morris. Visualizing evolving networks: Minimum spanning trees versus pathfinder networks. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2003 (2003), pp. 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2003.1249010

A. Ferligoj et al. Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics, vol. 104, (2015), no. 3, pp. 985–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7

M. Gallivan, M. Ahuja. . Co-authorship, homophily, and scholarly influence in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 16 (2015) no. 12, 2. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00416

L. Kronegger, F. Mali, A. Ferligoj, and P. Doreian. Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, vol. 90 (2012), no.2, pp. 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0493-8

JB. Kruskal. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. vol.7 (1956) no.1, pp. 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1956-0078686- 7

T. Jacobsen, RL. Punzalan, ML. Hedstrom. Invoking “collective memory”: Mapping the emergence of a concept in archival science. Archival Science, vol. 13(2013)no. 2-3, pp. 217-251.

S. Pečlin, P. Južnič, R. Blagus, MČ . Sajko, J. Stare. Effects of international collaboration and status of journal on impact of papers. Scientometrics, vol. 93 (2012) no. 3, pp. 937-948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0768-8

J. Pisanski, T. Pisanski. The use of collaboration distance in scheduling conference talks. Informatica : an international journal of computing and informatics, vol. 43 (2019) no. 4, pp. 461–466, https://doi.org/10.31449/inf.v43i4.2832.

A. Quirin O. Cordón, V. P. Guerrero–Bote, B. Vargas– Quesada, F. Moya–Anegón. A quick MST-based algorithm to obtain Pathfinder networks (1; n

J. Leskovec, A. Rajaraman, and J. Ullman. Mining of Massive Datasets (2014), Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139924801

MathSciNet: https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/index.html

Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/home.uri

SICRIS: https://www.sicris.si/public/jqm/cris.aspx?lang=eng

A. Vavpetič, V. Batagelj, V. Podpečan. An implementation of the Pathfinder algorithm for sparse networks and its application on text network, In M. Bohanec (ed.),12th International Multiconference Information Society, vol. A (2009) pp. 236–239.

HD. White. Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 54 (2003) no. 5, pp. 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10228

Diversity index, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_index

H. Yang, HJ. Lee. Research trend visualization by MeSH terms from Pubmed. International journal of environmental research and public health, vol. 15 (2018) no. 6, 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061113

SY. Yu. Detecting collaboration patterns among iSchools by linking scholarly communication to social networking at the macro and micro levels. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal vol. 23 (2013) no. 2, pp. 1–13.

zbMATH: https://zbmath.org/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31449/inf.v44i2.3079

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.