Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality

by: MEJ Newman

Physical Review E, Vol. 64, No. 1. (28 June 2001), 016132.

View FullText article

DOI, PROLA (abstract), PROLA (pdf)

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

jrw, ddahlem, scis0000001, somasanyal, flavian_vasile, dpf

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

2001, betweenness, closeness, co-authorship, collaboration, community-detection, complex, endorsements, fun, geodesic, network, networks, no-tag, scientific-community, social

Abstract

Using computer databases of scientific papers in physics; biomedical research; and computer science; we have constructed networks of collaboration between scientists in each of these disciplines. In these networks two scientists are considered connected if they have coauthored one or more papers together. Here we study a variety of nonlocal statistics for these networks; such as typical distances between scientists through the network; and measures of centrality such as closeness and betweenness. We further argue that simple networks such as these cannot capture variation in the strength of collaborative ties and propose a measure of collaboration strength based on the number of papers coauthored by pairs of scientists; and the number of other scientists with whom they coauthored those papers.

@article{citeulike:1250703, abstract = {Using computer databases of scientific papers in physics; biomedical research; and computer science; we have constructed networks of collaboration between scientists in each of these disciplines. In these networks two scientists are considered connected if they have coauthored one or more papers together. Here we study a variety of nonlocal statistics for these networks; such as typical distances between scientists through the network; and measures of centrality such as closeness and betweenness. We further argue that simple networks such as these cannot capture variation in the strength of collaborative ties and propose a measure of collaboration strength based on the number of papers coauthored by pairs of scientists; and the number of other scientists with whom they coauthored those papers.}, author = {Newman, M. E. J. }, citeulike-article-id = {1250703}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132}, journal = {Physical Review E}, month = {June}, number = {1}, pages = {016132+}, posted-at = {2007-04-25 17:57:14}, priority = {2}, publisher = {American Physical Society}, title = {Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132}, volume = {64}, year = {2001} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:1250703 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1250703 TI - Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality JF - Physical Review E VL - 64 IS - 1 SP - 016132 PB - American Physical Society N2 - Using computer databases of scientific papers in physics; biomedical research; and computer science; we have constructed networks of collaboration between scientists in each of these disciplines. In these networks two scientists are considered connected if they have coauthored one or more papers together. Here we study a variety of nonlocal statistics for these networks; such as typical distances between scientists through the network; and measures of centrality such as closeness and betweenness. We further argue that simple networks such as these cannot capture variation in the strength of collaborative ties and propose a measure of collaboration strength based on the number of papers coauthored by pairs of scientists; and the number of other scientists with whom they coauthored those papers. AU - Newman, MEJ PY - 2001/06/28/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132 ER -

RIS BibTeX