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 Social Networks over time using a dynamic extension of multidimensional scaling. El Profesional de la Información 17(6) (2008) 611-626. <pdf-version> ; 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.
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
[log in to unmask] ; 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 *****
We have preliminary findings about the fragmentation of the European network science field:
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?
_____________________________________________________________________ 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.