Network Structure, Self-Organization and the Growth of International Collaboration in Science.Research Policy, 34(10), 2005, 1608-1618.

By Caroline S. Wagner, Loet Leydesdorff. 2005

1,060 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Different approaches have been used to analyse international collaboration in science but none can fully explain its rapid growth. Using international co-authorships, we test the hypothesis that international collaboration is a self-organising network. Applying tools from network analysis, the paper shows that the growth of international co-authorships can be explained based on the organising principle of preferential attachment, although the attachment mechanism deviates from an ideal power-law. Several explanations for the deviation are explored, including that of the influence of institutional constraints on the mechanism of self-organisation.

Subfields: Genetics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b934903661a47dfa4c4d06ae47e1022851da20a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Network Exchange Patterns in Online Communities (2011, background): “Recent investigations of international scientific collaboration (Wagner and Leydesdorff 2005) and the makeup of creative teams (Barabasi 2005) are based on a preferential attachment argument.”
Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century - A review (2008, background): “Wagner and Leydesdorff (2005) viewed international collaboration as a self-organizing network based on the principle of preferential attachment.”
Quantifying social group evolution (2007, background): “n a social network [3,7,8,9,10]. Thanks to frequent changes in the activity and communication patterns of individuals, the associated social and communication network is subject to constant evolution [7,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Our knowledge of the mechanisms governing the underlying community dynamics i”
Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 (2014, background): “For example, it has been suggested that there may be long-term negative effects when nations engage excessively in collaborations rather than constructing their own research capabilities (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005).”
Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals (2007, methodology): “For example, core-periphery relations can be made visible using graph-analytical techniques, but not by using factor-analytical ones (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005).”