» Articles » PMID: 26372643

The Interplay Between Scientific Overlap and Cooperation and the Resulting Gain in Co-Authorship Interactions

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2015 Sep 16
PMID 26372643
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Considering the importance of scientific interactions, understanding the principles that govern fruitful scientific research is crucial to policy makers and scientists alike. The outcome of an interaction is to a large extent dependent on the balancing of contradicting motivations accompanying the establishment of collaborations. Here, we assembled a dataset of nearly 20,000 publications authored by researchers affiliated with ten top universities. Based on this data collection, we estimated the extent of different interaction types between pairwise combinations of researchers. We explored the interplay between the overlap in scientific interests and the tendency to collaborate, and associated these estimates with measures of scientific quality and social accessibility aiming at studying the typical resulting gain of different interaction patterns. Our results show that scientists tend to collaborate more often with colleagues with whom they share moderate to high levels of mutual interests and knowledge while cooperative tendency declines at higher levels of research-interest overlap, suggesting fierce competition, and at the lower levels, suggesting communication gaps. Whereas the relative number of alliances dramatically differs across a gradient of research overlap, the scientific impact of the resulting articles remains similar. When considering social accessibility, we find that though collaborations between remote researchers are relatively rare, their quality is significantly higher than studies produced by close-circle scientists. Since current collaboration patterns do not necessarily overlap with gaining optimal scientific quality, these findings should encourage scientists to reconsider current collaboration strategies.

Citing Articles

Assessing collaboration among team scientists within a triadic research center partnership.

Behar-Horenstein L, Richey J, Smith U Qual Res Med Healthc. 2023; 5(2):9724.

PMID: 37441668 PMC: 10336870. DOI: 10.4081/qrmh.2021.9724.


Great minds think alike, or do they often differ? Research topic overlap and the formation of scientific teams.

Smith T, Vacca R, Krenz T, McCarty C J Informetr. 2020; 15(1).

PMID: 33343689 PMC: 7742966. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101104.


Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis.

Sanz-Cabanillas J, Ruano J, Gomez-Garcia F, Alcalde-Mellado P, Gay-Mimbrera J, Aguilar-Luque M PLoS One. 2017; 12(4):e0175419.

PMID: 28403245 PMC: 5389828. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175419.

References
1.
Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B . Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science. 2013; 342(6157):468-72. DOI: 10.1126/science.1240474. View

2.
Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Nunes Amaral L . Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science. 2005; 308(5722):697-702. PMC: 2128751. DOI: 10.1126/science.1106340. View

3.
Freilich S, Zarecki R, Eilam O, Segal E, Henry C, Kupiec M . Competitive and cooperative metabolic interactions in bacterial communities. Nat Commun. 2011; 2:589. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1597. View

4.
Mazloumian A . Predicting scholars' scientific impact. PLoS One. 2012; 7(11):e49246. PMC: 3504022. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049246. View

5.
Kozak M, Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L . How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics. 2015; 102:1101-1117. PMC: 4302239. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1439-8. View