Community detection on elite mathematicians’ collaboration network

Huang, Yurui; Wang, Zimo; Tian, Chaolin; Ma, Yifang

doi:10.2478/jdis-2024-0026

Abstract

Purpose

This study focuses on understanding the collaboration relationships among mathematicians, particularly those esteemed as elites, to reveal the structures of their communities and evaluate their impact on the field of mathematics.

Design/methodology/approach

Two community detection algorithms, namely Greedy Modularity Maximization and Infomap, are utilized to examine collaboration patterns among mathematicians. We conduct a comparative analysis of mathematicians’ centrality, emphasizing the influence of award-winning individuals in connecting network roles such as Betweenness, Closeness, and Harmonic centrality. Additionally, we investigate the distribution of elite mathematicians across communities and their relationships within different mathematical sub-fields.

Findings

The study identifies the substantial influence exerted by award-winning mathematicians in connecting network roles. The elite distribution across the network is uneven, with a concentration within specific communities rather than being evenly dispersed. Secondly, the research identifies a positive correlation between distinct mathematical sub-fields and the communities, indicating collaborative tendencies among scientists engaged in related domains. Lastly, the study suggests that reduced research diversity within a community might lead to a higher concentration of elite scientists within that specific community.

Research limitations

The study’s limitations include its narrow focus on mathematicians, which may limit the applicability of the findings to broader scientific fields. Issues with manually collected data affect the reliability of conclusions about collaborative networks.

Practical implications

This study offers valuable insights into how elite mathematicians collaborate and how knowledge is disseminated within mathematical circles. Understanding these collaborative behaviors could aid in fostering better collaboration strategies among mathematicians and institutions, potentially enhancing scientific progress in mathematics.

Originality/value

The study adds value to understanding collaborative dynamics within the realm of mathematics, offering a unique angle for further exploration and research.

References

Asif, R., & Islam, M. A. (2016, April). Finding most collaborating mathematicians a co-author network analysis of mathematics domain. In 2016 International Conference on Computing, Electronic and Electrical Engineering (ICE Cube) (pp. 289–293). IEEE.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barabâsi, A.-L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3-4), 590–614.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barber, M. J., & Scherngell, T. (2013). Is the European R&D network homogeneous? Distinguishing relevant network communities using graph theoretic and spatial interaction modelling approaches. Regional studies, 47(8), 1283–1298.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clauset, A., Newman, M. E., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70(6), 066111.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695, 1–9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Danon, L., Diaz-Guilera, A., Duch, J., & Arenas, A. (2005). Comparing community structure identification. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2005(09), P09008.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Falih, I., Grozavu, N., Kanawati, R., & Bennani, Y. (2018). Anca: Attributed network clustering algorithm. In Complex Networks & Their Applications VI: Proceedings of Complex Networks 2017 (The Sixth International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications) (pp. 241–252). Springer International Publishing.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3-5), 75–174.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fortunato, S., & Hric, D. (2016). Community detection in networks: A user guide. Physics Reports, 659(11), 1–44.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gaskó, N., Lung, R. I., & Suciu, M. A. (2016). A new network model for the study of scientific collaborations: Romanian computer science and mathematics co-authorship networks. Scientometrics, 108, 613–632.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Groeneveld, R. A., & Meeden, G. (1984). Measuring skewness and kurtosis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D: The Statistician, 33(4), 391–399.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grossman, J. W. (2002). Patterns of collaboration in mathematical research. SIAM News, 35(9), 8–9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harris, M. J., Murtfeldt, R., Wang, S., Mordecai, E. A., & West, J. D. (2023). The role and influence of perceived experts in an anti-vaccine misinformation community. medRxiv.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huang, Y., Cheng, X., Tian, C., Jiang, X., Ma, L., & Ma, Y. (2024). Talent hat, cross-border mobility, and career development in China. Quantitative Science Studies, 1–24.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huang, Y., Tian, C., & Ma, Y. (2023). Practical operation and theoretical basis of difference-indifference regression in science of science: The comparative trial on the scientific performance of Nobel laureates versus their coauthors. Journal of Data and Information Science, 8(1), 29–46.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Izquierdo, I., Vessuri, H., & Gonzalez, R. (2018). Scientific collaboration networks of mathematicians from the former soviet union in the global south. Journal of Education and Human Development, 7(4), 83–93.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klein, J. T. (2005). Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Collaboration: An Emerging Cognitive Science (1st ed., pp. 23–50). NY: Psychology Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7-8), 762–781.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Liu, F., Xue, S., Wu, J., Zhou, C., Hu, W., Paris, C., Nepal, S., Yang, J., & Yu, P. S. (2020). Deep learning for community detection: progress, challenges and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08225.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mao, J., Cao, Y., Lu, K., & Li, G. (2017). Topic scientific community in science: A combined perspective of scientific collaboration and topics. Scientometrics, 112, 851–875.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl_1), 5200–5205.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ng, A., Jordan, M., & Weiss, Y. (2001). On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In T. Dietterich, S. Becker, & Z. Ghahramani (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 (NIPS 2001).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Potts, J., Hartley, J., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C., & Rennie, E. (2017). A journal is a club: A new economic model for scholarly publishing. Prometheus, 35(1), 75–92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Orr, R. (2022). OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 48(10), 893–916.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reichardt, J., & Bornholdt, S. (2006). Statistical mechanics of community detection. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 74(1), 016110.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rosvall, M., Axelsson, D., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2009). The map equation. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 178(1), 13–23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163(4148), 688–688.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Singh, H., Becattini, N., Cascini, G., & Škec, S. (2021). How familiarity impacts influence in collaborative teams? Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 1735–1744.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Somerfield, P. J., Clarke, K. R., & Warwick, R. M. (2008). Simpson index. In S. E. Jørgensen & B. D. Fath (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ecology (pp. 3252–3255). Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tomassini, M., & Luthi, L. (2007). Empirical analysis of the evolution of a scientific collaboration network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 385(2), 750–764.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Nguyen, M., Kirley, M., & García-Flores, R. (2012). Community evolution in a scientific collaboration network. 2012 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation,
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, K., Michalska, S., Cohen, E., Szomszor, M., & Grant, J. (2023). Exploring the application of machine learning to expert evaluation of research impact. Plos one, 18(8), e0288469.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Xu, H., Liu, M., Bu, Y., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, C., Acuna, D. E., Gray, S., Meyer, E., & Ding, Y. (2024). The impact of heterogeneous shared leadership in scientific teams. Information Processing & Management, 61(1), 103542.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yu, S., Xia, F., Zhang, C., Wei, H., Keogh, K., & Chen, H. (2021). Familiarity-based collaborative team recognition in academic social networks. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 9(5), 1432–1445.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhang, X.-S., Wang, R.-S., Wang, Y., Wang, J., Qiu, Y., Wang, L., & Chen, L. (2009). Modularity optimization in community detection of complex networks. Europhysics Letters, 87(3), 38002.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhang, Y., Pan, R., Wang, H., & Su, H. (2023). Community detection in attributed collaboration network for statisticians. Stat, 12(1), e507.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhao, Y., Karypis, G., & Fayyad, U. (2005). Hierarchical clustering algorithms for document datasets. Data mining and knowledge discovery, 10, 141–168.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article