Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefit distribution mechanism in the team members’ scientific research collaboration network

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 06 August 2014

Abstract

Scientific research collaboration networks are well-established research topics, which can be divided into two kinds of research paradigms: (1) The topological features of the whole scientific collaboration networks and the collaboration representations in some given fields. (2) The individual nodes’ characteristics in the collaboration networks and their endorsements in the networks. However, in the above studies, all the nodes’ roles in the scientific collaboration network are the same, all of whom are called collaborators, thus the relationships among all the nodes in the scientific collaboration network are symmetric, and the scientific collaboration network is undirected. Such symmetric roles and relationships in the undirected networks have no incentive effects on the members’ participations and efforts in the team’s scientific research. In this paper, the roles of team members in the scientific research collaborations are defined, including the scientific research pioneers and contributors, their collaboration relationships are considered from the viewpoint of principal-agent theory, and then the directed scientific collaboration network is built. Then the benefit distribution mechanism in the team members’ networked scientific research collaborations is presented, which will encourage the team members with different roles to make their efforts in their scientific research collaborations and improve the quality of scientific research outputs. An example is used to test the above ideas and conclude that the individual member’s real outputs not only lie in his/her real scientific research efforts, but also rest with his/her contributions to other members’ scientific research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2011). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: Multi-levels and cross-time analysis. Scientometrics, 89(2), 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2006). Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(4), 445–459.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Aminbakhsh, S., Gunduz, M., & Sonmez, R. (2013). Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects. Journal of Safety Research, 46(9), 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. B., López, E. R., & Martín, T. B. (2009). Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the academic research groups’ scientific quality. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aziz, N. A., & Rozing, M. P. (2013). Profit(p)-index: The degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS ONE, 8(4), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., & Costas, R. (2013). Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field. Scientometrics, 96(2), 443–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kılınç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8143–8151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dance, A. (2012). Who’s on first? Nature, 489, 591–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng Q. H., & Wang Z. P. (2011). Degree centrality in scientific collaboration supernetwork. In 2011 International Conference on Information Science and Technology (ICIST) (pp. 259–262), March 26–28.

  • Ding, Y. (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modeling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 384–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D., Oldridge, R., & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 145–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and ‘periphery effects’ in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institute Articles 1995–000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guraya, S. Y. (2013). Bandwagon of impact factor for journal scientometrics. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 8(2), 69–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, A. (2010). Team incentives in networks. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/pg/current/d_programme/upgrade_presentatins/team_incentives_in_networks.pdf.

  • He, W., & Wei, K. (2009). What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support System, 46(4), 826–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henneman, S., Rybski, D., & Liefner, I. (2012). The myth of global science collaboration–collaboration patterns in epistemic communities. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koustas, Z., & Serletis, A. (1999). On the Fisher effect. Journal of Monetary Economics, 44(1), 105–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D. (2009). Who’s on First? Listing authors by relative contribution trumps the alphabet. Political Science and Politics, 43(1), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., & Zhu, L. (2002). Major factors affecting China’s inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity. Scientometrics, 55(2), 287–316.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Shan, W., & Yu, J. (2011). Shaping the interdisciplinary knowledge network of China: A network analysis based on citation data from 1981 to 2010. Scientometrics, 89(1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. L., Wang, M. Y., Zhang, L., Wang, P., & Zhou, Z. X. (2013). Journal impact factor: Is it only used in China and South Asia? Current Science, 105(11), 1480–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthew, O. J., & Alison, W. (2002). The evolution of social and economic networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 106(2), 265–295.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (2002). Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 89(20), 20870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), 101(Suppl. 1), 5200–5205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. W., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(15), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (2010). Economic sociology: A systematic inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? The Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(14), 1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration: A synthesis of challenges and strategies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. W., Waltman, L., & Eck, N. J. V. (2012). Research collaboration and the expanding science grid: Measuring globalisation processes worldwide. Retrieved December 7, 2012, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4194.

  • Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M., Rand, T., Resh, V., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), 13–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 92–166). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, A. (2011). A dynamic model of network formation. Games and Economic Behavior, 34(2), 331–341.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, X. B., Zhai, L., & Fan, W. G. (2013). C-index: A weighted network node centrality measure for collaboration competence. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 416–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research for this paper is partly supported by the National Social Science Foundation Grant of China (No. 12CTQ029), the National Natural Science Foundation Grants of China (Nos. 71273076 and 71202159), and the Humanities and Social Science Project of the Educational Ministry in China under Grant No. 13YJC630166.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center of Information Resources Management, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, 150080, Heilongjiang, China

    Limei Zhao

  2. HIT-UMKC Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, Heilongjiang, China

    Qingpu Zhang & Liang Wang

Authors
  1. Limei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qingpu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Limei Zhao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, L., Zhang, Q. & Wang, L. Benefit distribution mechanism in the team members’ scientific research collaboration network. Scientometrics 100, 363–389 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1322-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1322-7

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation