Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study on the Centrality Measures for Analyzing Research Collaboration Networks

공동연구 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 지수에 대한 비교 연구

  • 이재윤 (명지대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2014.08.19
  • Accepted : 2014.09.05
  • Published : 2014.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explores the characteristics of centrality measures for analyzing researchers' impact and structural positions in research collaboration networks. We investigate four binary network centrality measures (degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and PageRank), and seven existing weighted network centrality measures (triangle betweenness centrality, mean association, weighted PageRank, collaboration h-index, collaboration hs-index, complex degree centrality, and c-index) for research collaboration networks. And we propose SSR, which is a new weighted centrality measure for collaboration networks. Using research collaboration data from three different research domains including architecture, library and information science, and marketing, the above twelve centrality measures are calculated and compared each other. Results indicate that the weighted network centrality measures are needed to consider collaboration strength as well as collaboration range in research collaboration networks. We also recommend that when considering both collaboration strength and range, it is appropriate to apply triangle betweenness centrality and SSR to investigate global centrality and local centrality in collaboration networks.

이 연구의 목적은 공동연구 네트워크에서 연구자의 영향력과 입지를 분석하는데 사용되는 중심성 지수들의 특징에 대해서 고찰하는 것이다. 전통적인 이진 네트워크 중심성 지수로는 연결정도중심성, 매개중심성, 근접중심성, 페이지랭크를 다루었고, 공동연구 네트워크에서의 중심성을 측정하기 위해서 개발되었거나 사용된 가중 네트워크 중심성 지수로는 삼각매개중심성, 평균연관성, 가중페이지랭크, 공동연구 h-지수와 공동연구 hs-지수, 복합연결정도중심성, c-지수에 대해서 살펴보았으며, 새로운 지수로 제곱근합 지수 SSR을 제안하였다. 이들 12종의 중심성 지수를 건축학, 문헌정보학, 마케팅 분야의 세 가지 공동연구 네트워크에 적용해본 결과 각 지수들의 특성과 지수 간 관계를 파악할 수 있었다. 분석 결과 공동연구 네트워크에서 공동연구 범위와 공동연구 강도를 모두 고려하기 위해서는 가중 네트워크 중심성 지수를 사용해야 하는 것으로 나타났다. 특히 공동연구 범위와 강도를 모두 고려하는 전역중심성을 측정하기 위해서는 삼각매개중심성 지수를 사용하고, 지역중심성을 측정하기 위해서는 SSR 지수를 사용하는 것이 바람직하다고 제안하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 명지대학교

References

  1. 김영주 (2006). 국내 건축학 분야 연구자들의 지적 구조에 관한 연구. 석사학위논문, 경기대학교 대학원, 문헌정보학과.(Kim, Young Joo (2005). A study on the intellectual structure of the field of architecture research in Korea. Unpublished master's thesis, Kyonggi University, Suwon, Korea.)
  2. 김용학, 윤정로, 조혜선, 김영진 (2007). 과학기술 공동연구의 연결망 구조: 좁은 세상과 위치 효과. 한국사회학, 41(4), 68-103.(Kim, Yong Hak, Yoon, Jung Ro, Cho, Haesun, & Kim Yung Jin (2007). Structure of collaboration network among Korean scientists: 'Small World' and position effect. Korean Journal of Sociology, 41(4), 68-103.)
  3. 김원진, 정영미 (2010). 과학기술분야 국제협력 증진을 위한 아시아 국가 간 공동연구 현황 분석. 정보관리학회지, 27(3), 103-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.3.103(Kim, Won-Jin, & Chung, Young-Mee (2010). A study on research collaboration among Asian countries in science and technology. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 27(3), 103-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.3.103)
  4. 이수상 (2011). 공저빈도에 따른 공저 네트워크의 속성 연구: 문헌정보학 분야 4개 학술지를 중심으로. 한국도서관.정보학회지, 42(2), 105-125.(Lee, Soo-Sang (2011). A analytical study on the properties of coauthorship network based on the co-author frequency. Korean Library And Information Science Society, Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 42(2), 105-125.)
  5. 이수상 (2013). 연구자 네트워크의 중심성과 연구성과의 연관성 분석: 국내 기록관리학 분야 학술논문을 중심으로. 한국도서관.정보학회지, 44(3), 405-428.(Lee, Soo-Sang (2013). Analytical study on the relationship between centralities of research networks and research performances. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 44(3), 405-428.)
  6. 이재윤 (2006a). 계량서지적 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 척도에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 40(3), 191-214.(Lee, Jae Yun (2006a). Centrality measures for bibliometric network analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 40(3), 191-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2006.40.3.191)
  7. 이재윤 (2006b). 연구성과 평가를 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167(Lee, Jae Yun (2006b). Some improvements on h-index: Measuring research outputs by citations. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(3), 167-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167)
  8. 이재윤 (2008). 서지적 저자결합 분석: 연구동향 분석을 위한 새로운 접근. 정보관리학회지, 25(1), 173-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.1.173(Lee, Jae Yun (2008). Bibliographic author coupling analysis: A new methodological approach for identifying research trends. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 25(1), 173-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.1.173)
  9. 이재윤 (2010). 계량분석 기법을 활용한 연구 동향 분석: LED 분야. 산업기술진흥원.(Lee, Jae Yun (2010). A bibliometric analysis on LED research trends. Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT). (in Korean).)
  10. 이재윤 (2013). tnet과 WNET의 가중 네트워크 중심성 지수 비교 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(4), 241-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.241(Lee, Jae Yun (2013). A comparison study on the weighted network centrality measures of tnet and WNET. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 241-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.241)
  11. 이재윤, 김판준, 강대신, 김희정, 유소영, 이우형 (2011). 계량서지적 기법을 활용한 LED 핵심 주제영역의 연구 동향 분석. 정보관리연구, 42(3), 1-26.(Lee, Jae Yun, Kim, Pan-Jun, Kang, Dae-Shin, Kim, Hee-Jung, Yu, So-Young, & Lee, Woo-Hyoung (2011). A bibliometric analysis on LED research. Journal of Information Management, 42(3), 1-26.) https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2011.42.3.001
  12. Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Pub.
  13. Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0176-z
  14. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1-7), 101-117.
  15. Chung, EunKyung (2011). Interdisciplinary collaborations in the domain of digital libraries. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(2), 37-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.037
  16. Ding, Y., Yan, E., Frazho, A., & Caverlee, J. (2009). PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2229-2243. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21171
  17. Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Muller, E., & Stremersch, S. (2010). Database submission: The evolving social network of marketing scholars. Marketing Science, 29(3), 561-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0539
  18. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of America, 102(46), 16569-16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  19. Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2006, May). A new centrality measure for social network analysis applicable to bibliometric and webometric data. Paper presented at the Second International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & 7th COLLNET Meeting, Nancy, France. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/7606/2/Kretschmer18aps.pdf
  20. Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (2011). Intellectual structure and infrastructure of informetrics: Domain analysis from 2001 to 2010. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(2), 11-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.011
  21. Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (2013). Collaboration networks and document networks in informetrics research from 2001 to 2011. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(1), 179-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.179
  22. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1462-1480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012
  23. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks: II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64, 016132. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132
  24. Shrum, W., Genuth, J., & Chompalov, I. (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  25. Xing, W., & Ghorbani, A. (2004). Weighted pagerank algorithm. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Communication Networks and Services Research (CNSR'04), 305-314.
  26. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107-2118. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21128
  27. Yan, X., Zhai, L., & Fan, W. (2013). C-index: A weighted network node centrality measure for collaboration competence. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 223-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.004
  28. Yoshikane, F., & Kageura, K. (2004). Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks. Scientometrics, 60(3), 435-446. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034385.05897.46
  29. Zheng, J., Zhao, Z., Zhang, X., Chen, D., & Huang, M. (2014). International collaboration development in nanotechnology: A perspective of patent network analysis. Scientometrics, 98(1), 683-702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1081-x

Cited by

  1. A Study on Analyzing Co-authorship Networks of Library and Information Science in Taiwan vol.32, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.2.167