Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Dear Balazs, 

 

You may wish to see the animation of the coauthorship networks in the
journal Social Networks since 1988 at
http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/socnetw/coauth/index.htm . The animation
is part of a larger study with different animations: 

 

(with) Thomas Schank, Andrea Scharnhorst, & Wouter De Nooy, Animating the
development of  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/socnetw/paper/index.htm> Social
Networks over time using a dynamic extension of multidimensional scaling. El
Profesional de la Información 17(6) (2008) 611-626. <pdf-version
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/socnetw/socnetw.pdf> > ;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4655

 

Our conclusion is that the network is not coordinated at the social, but at
the cognitive and semantic level.

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Balazs Vedres
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fragmentation of the European network science field

 

***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** 

Dear all,

We have preliminary findings about the fragmentation of the European network
science field:

http://www.ceu.hu/cns/ans/euns

With Marco Scotti and Mariya Ivancheva we mapped the co-authorship network
of European network science. We included all scientists with a European
affiliation who presented a paper at the INSNA Sunbelt conferences or the
NetSci annual conferences between 2005 and 2008 - 532 scholars. We looked up
the top 5 most cited publications of these scholars, and included their
co-authors in a dataset, that ultimately contains 3543 persons authoring
1689 publications.

We simulated scenarios when European authors are free to choose any
co-author, from any country or field. The only contraint that we kept is
that the number of authors, the number of publications, and the distribution
of authors per publications needs to stay the same.  In the one thousand
simulations the average number of components was 139, with a range of 98 to
166. The observed co-authorship network has 240 components, a high number
that is not likely to arise by chance. The bottom panel shows the relative
size of the largest component to the size of the network. In a fragmented
system the largest component does not gather a large fraction of the
network. In our simulations the largest component on the average gathers
91.2% of all nodes, with a range between 89.1% and 93.4%. The observed
proportion of the largest component is 18.6%, way smaller that we would
expect in an "unbiased" system.

Does anyone have comparable data on the US networks field?


Best
Balazs

_____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET
is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network
researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email message to
[log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of
the message. 


_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.