The social network of scientific collaborators may ‘over-determine’ citation practices: high levels of This is also about symbolic capital associated with collaboration networks: within the science system, publications are the primary means of establishing scientific authority among peers The issue of small-scale structure can only be partially explored through co-author networks. FWCI is a measure based on the number of citations that publications receive.
One would expect that the specialty in question covers the majority of peers cited, but such a limit, while defining a ‘closed’ system, would possibly introduce an artefact, particularly for more interdisciplinary specialties such as biochemistry (see For each of the chosen specialties, A) number of papers, B) average number of references per paper, C) average number of authors per paper, D) average number of papers written by each author, E) percentage of identified references within the same specialty, and F) percentage of identified references defined as ‘recent’ (less than 10 years older than the source item).Based on the dataset described in the previous section, we first compute a few basic macroscopic variables which allow us to characterize the growth and structure of the chosen fields. The last three (F, G, H) are shown on a logarithmic scale for clarity (which explains why ‘distant’ references seem to be close to 100%). This includes all Alliance group universities, plus a couple from outside the group to put things into context. We have observed that co-authorship citations are low and remarkably stable, both in absolute (Beyond a characterization of the citation practices of individual specialties, we can interpret these findings as measures of the value of the social networks in citation practices. To explore this, I used the SciVal database[1] to investigate the possible correlation between international collaboration[2] and citations. [1] Data source: SciVal is a comprehensive database of publications, including journal and conference articles. Appropriate collaboration is much like appropriate citation of external sources. Second, the analysis needs to be focused on the individual authors, in order to gain insight into their referencing practices and individual social networks.In order to investigate the citation practices of a given scientific specialty in relation to its co-authorship network, we form a set of references For each source article, we examine its set of references and classify them in the following way:These categories are defined as mutually exclusive: if a referenced paper can be placed in more than one category, then it is assigned the one closest to a self-citation. While this metric is important, it should be considered within the broader context and be Please contact Emily Davey (Research Outputs Manager, University Library) or Katie Osgood (Research and Innovation Services) if you have any further questions or thoughts. FWCI is a measure based on the number of citations that publications receive.

Our findings clearly show that recent increases in the proximity of citing and cited authors are, in part, due to an increase in the size of collaborations.

There are clear benefits to be had from international collaboration in research. The graph below shows a clear pattern. Portsmouth is red, other universities in the There’s a significant positive correlation between international collaboration and FWCI, as shown on the graph above and the To explore this in more depth, I focused in on a group of comparators. This is the case in astrophysics and astronomy, for instance.

This means that it’s fairer than looking at raw citation counts, which can be biased towards certain subject areas and publications published a longer time ago which have had more time to accrue citations.Each dot on the graph below represents a UK university. Performed the experiments: MLW VL. Overall, there is little tendency to cite those nearby in the collaboration network, excluding direct self-citations. In contrast to White In this paper we thus analyze the references of each article in terms of four levels of proximity, defined as co-authors or co-authors of co-authors in analogy with the concept of Erdös numbers (see The data for this analysis comes from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science, which include the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) for the 1945–2008 period. Given the various levels of integration between co-authors, our findings shed light on the question of the availability of ‘arm's length’ expert reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts.Scientific collaborations and citation practices have been an important focus of interest among sociologists of science, seeking to provide insight into science as an inherently social and team-based endeavour. To explore this, I used the SciVal database[1] to investigate the possible correlation between international collaboration[2] and citations.To measure citations, I used the Field Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) metric. As the graph below shows, publications submitted to the REF by Portsmouth in 2014 which had international collaboration also had a higher average FWCI.

Analyzed the data: MLW VL. On average STEM subjects have a higher percentage of international collaboration compared to social sciences and the arts, but the positive correlation is still present in almost all subjects.