Topical connections between the institutions within an organisation (institutional co-authorships, direct citation links and co-citations) | Scientometrics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Topical connections between the institutions within an organisation (institutional co-authorships, direct citation links and co-citations)

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, numerous studies have been published which have used bibliometric data to look at collaborations in research. This study presents a proposal with which the topical connections of the institutions of an organization can be investigated through analysis of co-authorships, direct citation links, and co-citations. Based on various bibliometric data sets for an organization whose institutions are used as an example, this study illustrates the possibility of comparing the self-perception of institutions of this organization (co-authorships, direct citation links) with a view to (possible) mutual collaboration with the external perception (co-citations). This comparison is made firstly for the whole organization with the aid of network graphs; secondly, the comparison is presented in a table for a specific institution and its (possible) collaborations in the organization. Particularly the tabular breakdown of the links between the institutions can provide concrete indications of possible further collaboration between the institutions which have not yet manifested themselves in co-authorships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. (2012). Collaborations: The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. doi:10.1038/497557a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Sanyal, S., & Vespignani, A. (2007). Network science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 537–607. doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W. (2009). Using detailed maps of science to identify potential collaborations. Scientometrics, 79(1), 27–44. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0402-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M., & Schmidt, S. (2014). The influence of knowledge-based resources and business scholars’ internationalization strategies on research performance. Research Policy, 43(1), 48–59.

  • Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7–15.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Jan, J. (2013). Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics, 97(3), 491–517. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Citation increments between collaborating countries. Scientometrics, 94(3), 817–831. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0797-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman, M. E. J. (2013). Coauthorship and citation patterns in the physical review. Physical Review E, 88(1), 012814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2006). Journal futures: Researcher behaviour at early internet maturity. Paper presented at the UK Serials Group (UKSG) Annual Conference, University of Warwick, UK.

  • Simonton, D. K. (2013). After Einstein: Scientific genius is extinct. Nature, 493(7434), 602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. G. (1977). A co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7(2), 139–166. doi:10.1177/030631277700700202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1988). Problems with peer review and alternatives. British Medical Journal, 296(6624), 774–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38. doi:10.1177/016555158300600105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). On growth, ageing, and fractal differentiation of science. Scientometrics, 47(2), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The data used in this paper are from a bibliometrics database developed and maintained by the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL, Munich) and derived from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) prepared by Thomson Reuters.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539, Munich, Germany

    Lutz Bornmann

  2. Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 15793, 1001 NG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Loet Leydesdorff

Authors
  1. Lutz Bornmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loet Leydesdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lutz Bornmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L. Topical connections between the institutions within an organisation (institutional co-authorships, direct citation links and co-citations). Scientometrics 102, 455–463 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1425-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1425-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation