Important institutions of interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks in materials science

Li, Yang; Liu, Nairong; Liu, Xueyong

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2837-0

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, standards setting bodies are usually willing to forms cooperation networks to access additional technology and market knowledge, to create a minimum (critical) size for a project, and to share innovation costs and risks [63]. erefore, this paper argues that enterprises' competitiveness is closely related to the involvement of enterprises in dra ing critical standards and the co-authorship in such dra ing [6].…”

Section: Metrics Of Dynamic Multiplex Standard Networkmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…PageRank, an algorithm invented by Google to evaluate the importance of web pages, has been suggested to evaluate the significance of papers [20]. With the development of the complex network theory, some structural metrics have been used widely to evaluate the significance of papers, such as the degree centrality and betweenness centrality [6,5,21].…”

Section: Analysis Of Citation Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequently, scholars have studied at the microscopic (individuals), mesoscopic (institutions) and macroscopic (countries) levels [30,32,33] into technological cooperation in areas as diverse as sociology, medicine, mathematics, intelligence and information science, materials science, etc. [6,15,[34][35][36][37]. In establishing a network of research co-authorship covering physics, biomedicine, and computer science, Newman [13] has reported numerous findings: that the network had a "small-world" phenomenon [14]; that the network in each field contains a huge subgroup; and that the networks of different disciplines possess different characteristics.…”

Section: Analysis Of the Co-authorship Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two implications follow here. Firstly, to assess the signi cance of the standards, we may analyse the mutual referencing between standards in a manner analogous to analysing the networks of patents and of literatures [5][6][7][8][9]. Secondly, through examining the standard-dra ing by dra ers and the collaboration between dra ers, we may underline their involvement to the entire standards system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evolution of Enterprise Competitiveness in Multiplex Networks of Standards: A Case Study of the Communication Industry in China

Chen

Wei

2020

Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competing to set industry standards is a strategic option to a variety of industries. This paper aims to investigate the role of standard drafting in the evolution of enterprises’ competitiveness in multiplex networks of standards. Specifically, network-based measurements are deliberately designed to evaluate the enterprises participation, contribution, and collaboration in drafting standards. By demonstrating the development of the standard system in China’s communication industry, the effectiveness of our measurement system is verified. Accompanied by empirical observation, the data analysis shows that the relevant governmental agencies dominate the whole standard system; basic-technology providers acquire greater competitiveness through participating in the standards drafting than the other kinds of enterprises. Finally, the corresponding managerial suggestions are offered.

show abstract

Section: Metrics Of Dynamic Multiplex Standard Networkmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Analysis Of Citation Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of the Co-authorship Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolution of Enterprise Competitiveness in Multiplex Networks of Standards: A Case Study of the Communication Industry in China

Chen

Wei

2020

Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the institutional environment, social factors that influence scientific collaboration are growingly emphasized, such as personal differences (Birnholtz, 2007), linguistic or cultural divides (Freeman & Huang, 2015), and academic rank or institutional barriers (Jones, Wuchty, & Uzzi, 2008;Li, Li, Liu, & Liu, 2018;Thijs & Glänzel, 2010) (see Hall et al, 2018, for a detailed review). It is worth noting that institutions are stratified and are not weighted equally in the scientific collaboration network (Chang & Huang, 2013); thus, choosing whom to collaborate with is far from a random selection and would profoundly determine the different performances of scientific collaboration.…”

Section: Scientific Collaboration: Consequences and Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global village or virtual balkans? evolution and performance of scientific collaboration in the information age

Yao

Cheng

et al. 2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific collaboration is essential and almost imperative in modern science. However, collaboration may be difficult to achieve because of 2 major barriers: geographic distance and social divides. It is predicted that the advancement of information communication technologies (ICTs) will bring a puzzled conclusion for collaboration in the scientific community: the “Global Village” trend with significantly increased physical distance among collaborated scientists and the “Virtual Balkans” trend with significantly increased social stratification among collaborated scientists. The results of this study reveal that the scientific community evolves towards the Global Village generally on both the geographic and social dimension, but with variations in term of collaboration patterns. The influence of such collaboration patterns on research performance (that is, productivity and impact), however, is asymmetric to each side of collaborators. When researchers from top‐tier and general‐tier institutions collaborate, researchers from top‐tier institutions face a decrease in research productivity and impact, whereas researchers from general‐tier institutions increase in research productivity and impact. Furthermore, the development of ICTs plays an important role in shaping the evolving trends and moderating effects of collaboration patterns. Our findings provide a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration in the geographic, social, and technological aspect.

show abstract

Cross‐affiliation collaboration and power laws for research output of institutions: Evidence and theory from top three finance journals

Dong

Luo

Zeng

et al. 2023

International Studies of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross‐affiliation emerges as a new and fast‐developing means to promote collaboration in financial research. We find that the average number of affiliations reported per author in the top‐three finance journals increases steadily from 1.1 to 1.3 from 1995 to 2016. Scale‐free power laws characterize the resulting highly‐skewed distributions of top finance journal publications of worldwide institutions. We propose an explanation of the scale‐invariance, based on a network model featuring nonlinear growth and linear preferential attachment. The model indicates that success‐breeds‐success engenders 87% of total publications and hence the dispersion in research output, while accelerated growth of collaboration reduces the heterogeneity.

show abstract

Important institutions of interinstitutional scientific collaboration networks in materials science

Cited by 30 publications

References 52 publications

Evolution of Enterprise Competitiveness in Multiplex Networks of Standards: A Case Study of the Communication Industry in China

Evolution of Enterprise Competitiveness in Multiplex Networks of Standards: A Case Study of the Communication Industry in China

Global village or virtual balkans? evolution and performance of scientific collaboration in the information age

Cross‐affiliation collaboration and power laws for research output of institutions: Evidence and theory from top three finance journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About