Email: kretschmer.h@onlinehome.de Web site : h-kretschmer.de

1. Wissenschaftliche Kooperationsprozesse unter bibliometrischen und sozialpsychologischen Gesichtpunkten Hildrun Kretschmer PD, Dr. sc. phil. Dr. oec., Dipl.-psych. Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft, HU Special Engaged Professor, Dalian University of Technology, China WISELAB of the Dalian University of Technology (Director together with Liu Zeyuan) WISELAB: Webometrics, Informetrics, Scientometrics, Econometrics Laboratory

2. Email: kretschmer.h@onlinehome.de Web site : http://www.h-kretschmer.de She has studied psychology and received both her doctorate Dr. oec. and her doctorate Dr.sc.phil. She is private lecturer (PD) since 1996. Her work deals with collaboration processes in science from the viewpoints of bibliometrics and socio-psychology, modelling of collaboration systems and theory, development and change of dynamic social structures in science. She was a member of the EU funded WISER project on web indicators for science, technology and innovation research from 2002-2005. She is appointed as Associate Editor of both the international journal Scientometricsand the Journal of Information Management and Scientometrics.

3. Currently, she is co-ordinating the Global Interdisciplinary Research Network COLLNET: "Collaboration in Science and in Technology", Web site: http://www.collnet.de. She is editor of 10 conference proceedings and she has published more than 70 peer reviewed articles or contributions in national and international journals or monographs, several non-peer reviewed publications. She was working as organizer or program chair of 10 international conferences or workshops in the area of webometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, collaboration in science and in technology.

4. Abstract Bibliometric and webometric methods of collaboration network analyses are presented including gender studies. A theoretical approach of the development of collaboration patterns are discussed from the psychological or sociological point of view: Who is collaborating with whom? 1

9. The rise in collaboration in science and technology experienced world-wide at national and international level, has assumed such an overriding importance that there is now an urgent need perceptible to study such processes with a view to acquiring fundamental knowledge for organizing future research and its application to science and technology policies. Foundation of COLLNET (www.collnet.de) Therefore in the year 2000 the time had come in the meantime to create a global interdisciplinary research network COLLNET on the topic "Collaboration in Science and in Technology" with 64 members from 20 countries of all continents.

10. Collaboration until 1997 Collaboration until 1999 Collaboration until 2001 Collaboration until 2003.

11. 0. Foundation and Development of COLLNET 1. Introduction 1.1. From Librametry to Webometrics 1.2. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future 1.3. Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship 1.4. Patterns of scientific collaboration

12. 2. Theory in Psychology/Sociology of Science 2.1. Social stratification of authors revealed from the coauthorship network 2.2. A contribution to the dispute on the Ortega hypothesis: Connection between publication rate and stratification of scientists, tested by various methods 2.3. Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities 2.4. Measurement of social stratification, a contribution to the dispute on the Ortega Hypothesis 2.5. Birds of a feather flock together: The four –step way from proverb to measurement

13. 2.6. Author Inflation Leads to a Breakdown of Lotka’s Law 2.7. Development of structures in coauthorship networks 2.8. Similarities and dissimilarities in coauthorship networks. Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature 2.9. Distribution of Co-Author Couples in Journals: “Continuation” of Lotka´s Law on the 3rd Dimension 2.10. Chinese-Indian-German collaboration results that provided the impetus for the foundation of COLLNET

14. 3. Collaboration networks (Bibliographic and Web networks) 3.1. Author productivity and Erdös distances in co-authorship and in web link networks 3.2. Visibility of Collaboration on the Web 3.3. Reflection of Co-authorship Networks in the Web: Web Hyperlinks versus Web Visibility Rates 3.4. A New Centrality Measure for Social Network Analysis Applicable to Bibliometric and Webometric Data

15. 4. Gender Studies and Collaboration 4.1. The Role of Chinese women in science and technology development based on statistical data 4.2. Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis 4.3. G e n d e r s t u d i e s a n d i n d i c a t o r s i n t h e w e b 4.4. Visibility of collaboration between immunology institutions on the web including aspects of gender studies

16. 1. Introduction 1. 1. From Librametry to Webometrics by Kretschmer & Thelwall The development of information and library sciences together with science studies will, among other things, be fashioned by the development of quantitative studies conducted in this field. The terminology thus obtained shall be perceived as a reflection of the technical, social and political backgrounds of the researchers. The technical redevelopment of methods of communication through the Internet presents a challenge for information scientists to cultivate novel quantitative methods and techniques in order to measure rates of information exchange in this new medium.

17. 1. 2. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future by Donald deB. Beaver Personal observations and reflections on scientific collaboration and its study, past, present, and future, containing new material on motives for collaboration, and on some of its salient features. Continuing methodological problems are singled out, together with suggestions for future research.

18. 1.3. Analyzing scientific networks through co- authorship by Glänzel and Schubert Co-authorship is one of the most tangible and well documented forms of scientific collaboration. Almost every aspect of scientific collaboration networks can be reliably tracked by analyzing co-authorship networks by bibliometric methods. In the present study, scientific collaboration is considered both at individual and national levels, with special focus given to multinational collaborations. Both literature data and original results witnessed a dramatic quantitative and structural change in the last decades of the 20th century. The changes, to great extent, can be attributed to the universal tendencies of globalisation and the political restructuring of Europe. The standards and, particularly, the visibility of scientific research, as a rule, benefit from the ever increasing level of collaboration, but the profits do not come automatically. This fact underlines the necessity of a regular quantitative monitoring of inputs and outcomes, i.e., bibliometric surveys.

19. 1. 4. Patterns of scientific collaboration by Yamashita & Okubo The objective of the research is to analyze international cooperation by use of a new indicator, Probabilistic Partnership Index (PPI). The authors investigate inter-sectoral cooperation between France and Japan for the period of 1981-2004, by classifying every “research institution” appeared in the data set into “sectors”. The authors examine international collaborative patterns of the two countries and investigate domestic collaborative patterns and multi-lateral relationships established within the French-Japanese cooperation.

20. 2. Theory in Psychology/Sociology of Science 2.1. Social stratification of authors revealed from the coauthorship network by Kretschmer Seven bibliographies from the fields of medicine, physics and social sciences were used. The authors were classified by groups in accordance with the number of publications per author. Studies were made to determine the statistically expected number of coauthorships by proceeding from assuming an independence of coauthorship between authors from the number of their publications.

21. Hypothesis : The proportion of the sum of coauthorship found between authors with the same number of publications to the sum of the statistically expected one is larger than the proportion of the sum of coauthorships found between authors with a different number of publications to the sum of the statistically expected one. This hypothesis could be verified in all seven bibliographies. Coauthorships between authors do not come into being independently of the number of their publications, i.e. of their social ranks.

22. 2.2. A contribution to the dispute on the Ortega hypothesis: Connection between publication rate and stratification of scientists, tested by various methods by Kretschmer & Müller It was tested whether the publication rate of scientists as a rough measure of their "eminence", influences their stratification. The stratification is reflected in cooperation, in co-authorships, in the structure of the citations and in the distribution of publications among the various problem areas of a scientific discipline. The findings of these investigations was discussed as a contribution to the dispute among authors who accept or reject the Ortega hypothesis which states that the research done by average scientists substantially contributes to the advance of science.

23. 2.3. Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities by Kretschmer In invisible colleges the relative frequency of coauthorships is higher between scientists with the same number of publications than between authors of different ones. The opposite is valid in institutionalized communities.

24. 2.4. Measurement of social stratification, a contribution to the dispute on the Ortega Hypothesis by Kretschmer The extent of stratification decreases with increasing number of coauthors per paper

25. 2.5. Birds of a feather flock together: The four – step way from proverb to measurement The influence of scientific productivity on collaboration structure in invisible colleges can be proved with increasing precision over several steps.

26. 2.6. Author Inflation Leads to a Breakdown of Lotka’s Law by Kretschmer & Rousseau It is empirically shown that, even using the normal or total counting procedure, Lotka’s law breaks down when articles with a large, i.e. more than hundred, number of authors are included in the bibliography.

27. 2.7. Development of structures in coauthorship networks by Kretschmer A new science, interdisciplinary by nature, has recently emerged. It is concerned with the study of complex systems and the analysis into their underlying structures that are, invariably, derived from physical, chemical, biological or social systems. In the course of the last three centuries the scientists' community has been perceived as a non-linear dynamic system. Self-organization, growth and instability have provided the source for developmental processes of a system of an arbitrary type. Therefore, in describing the structural development in scientists' communities, the studies are predicated on analogies apparent in the development of other systems, e.g. the organism of an individual, such as a man, or such super­organisms as the state of termites, the ants or the honey-bees.

28. 2.8. Similarities and dissimilarities in coauthorship networks. Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature by Kretschmer Based on Gestalt theory the existence of a field-force equilibrium is assumed for explanation how according to the conciseness principle mathematically precise gestalts could exist in coauthorship networks. A simple mathematical function is developed for the description of these gestalts which can encompass complementary tendencies (as metapher the principle of Yin and Yang) in their dynamic interplay and thus, can reflect the change in gestalts. For example “Birds of a feather flock together” and “Opposites attract” are explained as complementary tendencies.

29. 2.9. Distribution of Co-Author Couples in Journals: “Continuation” of Lotka´s Law on the 3rd Dimension by Kretschmer Lotka´s law states that scientists will be counted who have i publications included in the bibliography. In the present paper couples of scientists will be counted under the condition of both the first scientists count who have i publications, and the second scientists count who have j publications included in the bibliography. The following question arises: Is there any regularity for the distribution of co-author couples in journals?

30. 2.10. Chinese-Indian-German collaboration results that provided the impetus for the foundation of COLLNET by Kretschmer, Liang & Kundra The collaboration model of Kretschmer was applied to the co-authorship network of Indian medicine with the aim of being able to observe changes in structure over a period of 30 years. The idea of Liang, on her “Distribution of major Scientific and Cultural Achievements in Terms of Age” was put in relation to the collaboration model of Kretschmer.

31. 3. Collaboration networks (Bibliographic and Web networks) 3.1. Author productivity and Erdös distances in co- authorship and in web link networks by Kretschmer The increasing scientific-political importance of cooperation in science requires the application of new methods of analysis of social networks in co-authorship and in Web link networks. In this context, some interesting papers on "Erdös Number" which gives the shortest way (topological distance) between an author and the well-known Hungarian mathematician Erdös in co-authorship network have been published recently. A few new queries which particularly concern the position of highly productive authors in the network were developed in the present paper.

32. Thus, a relationship of distribution of these authors among the clusters in the co-authorship network could be proved in dependence on the size of these clusters. Highly productive authors have on an average low Erdös Numbers and thus shorter distances to all the other authors of a special field than low productive authors whereby the influencing possibility of highly productive scientists gets expressed among others in the development of this special field. A theory on the stratification in science with respect to the over random similarity of the scientists who are collaborating with one another which could be covered with other empirical methods before could also be confirmed on application of the Erdös Numbers. The application of the new developed queries also on the web links between homepages of authors is proposed for studies in future. It has to be studied if co-authorship and web link networks have similar structures or not regarding the author productivity and Erdös Distances.

33. 3.2 Visibility of Collaboration on the Web by Kretschmer & Aguillo The emerging influence of new information and communication technologies (ICT) on collaboration in science and technology has to be considered. In particular, the question of the extent to which collaboration in science and in technology is visible on the Web needs examining. Thus the purpose of this study is to examine whether broadly similar results would occur if solely Web data was used rather than all available bibliometric co-authorship data. For this purpose a new approach of Web visibility indicators of collaboration is examined. The ensemble of COLLNET members is used to compare: - co-authorship patterns in traditional bibliometric databases - and the network visible on the Web.

34. 3.3 Reflection of Co-authorship Networks in the Web: Web Hyperlinks versus Web Visibility Rates by Kretschmer, Kretschmer & Kretschmer About ten years ago a new research field called “webometrics” emerged. Similarities between methods used in webometrics and scientometrics or informetrics are evident from the literature. Are there also similarities between scientometric and Web indicators of collaboration for possible use and technology policy making?

35. Usually, the bibliometric method used to study collaboration is the investigation of co-authorships. In this paper, Web hyperlinks and Web visibility indicators are examined to establish their usefulness as Web indicators of collaboration to find out if similarities exist between Web based structures and bibliographic based structures. Three empirical studies of collaboration between institutions or individual scientists have shown that Web hyperlink structures don’t reflect collaboration structures collected by co-authorship data. However Web visibility indicators of collaboration are different from hyperlinks because they can be successfully used as Web indicators of collaboration.

36. 3.4. A New Centrality Measure for Social Network Analysis Applicable to Bibliometric and Webometric Data by Hildrun and Theo Kretschmer Abstract In the literature there are a large number of publications in sociology, in computer science or in information sciences, as well as in studies of collaboration in science describing the studies of social networks with unweighted ties because measures involving unweighted ties are easier to calculate. It is not surprising that there are few studies on networks with weighted ties since they not only need more complex formulas but need a process of quantification when quantitative empirical data are not directly available.

37. However quantitative empirical data are directly available under the condition of using bibliometric or webometric data. In conclusion new complex measures of the degree centrality are introduced including weighted ties possible for use of the analysis of co-authorship or citation networks. Both co-authorship relations and citations are well quantified data (weighted ties). These new measures are applied to a co-authorship network as an example.

38. 4.Gender Studies and Collaboration 4.1. The role of Chinese women in science and technology development based on statistical data by Wang Yan, Wu Yishan, Zhao Lixin Mao Zhedong, former Chairman of China, had a famous wisdom: “Women can hold up half the sky”. It influenced a lot of people in China, including both women and men. Women play more and more important role in the development of China, and more and more people care about the issue about gender equality. However, have Chinese women played a role they ought to and could to? Have they gained the equal position as men? There are still many questions to answer. We want to discuss the role of Chinese women in science and technology development. We just want to investigate the phenomena reflected by statistical data and try to find some problem, because many researchers have done a lot of work to discuss the cause of these phenomena.

39. 4.2. Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis by Thelwall, Barjak & Kretschmer Gender inequalities are prevalent in science despite many initiatives to try to eradicate them. Given the deep-rooted and complex nature of these inequalities there is a continuing need for research into their causes and manifestations. This study analyses one aspect of web communication, hyperlinks, to explore whether they are a potential source of insights into gender differences in this important scientific communication medium. A study of links to life sciences research groups in nine European found little evidence of gender differences, except in Germany. As a consequence, it is argued that hyperlinks are not a promising source of quantitative information about gender differences in communication strategies or online visibility, at least for senior researchers or research groups.

40. 4.3. G e n d e r S t u d i e s a n d I n d i c a t o r s i n t h e W e b by Kretschmer & Aguillo New indicators for gender studies in the Web are introduced and tested in a pilot study of 223 multi-authored publications in a set of 64 COLLNET members. COLLNET is a global interdisciplinary research network under the title “Collaboration in Science and in Technology” with 64 members from 20 countries. Studies are presented on the one hand with the focus - on the set of multi-authored publications and on the other with the focus - on the set of authors (Social network analysis).

41. Indicators for gender studies under both conditions are introduced here: - Bibliometric and Web indicators of gender co-operation - Web visibility rates and - Indicators of gender centrality in bibliographic and in Web networks

42. 4.4. Visibility of collaboration between immunology institutions on the web including aspects of gender studies by Kretschmer, Kretschmer & Kretschmer A number of studies can be found in the literature about analyzing scientific collaboration networks through co-authorship but very few have examined the reflection of these networks on the Web. In this paper the collaboration between 80 German institutions of immunology is analyzed, including gender collaboration. The percentage of co-authored papers visible on the Web increased from 1997 to 2002. In this connection the visualized Web network in 2002 is slightly more similar to the bibliographic co-authorship network than in 1997.

43. Highly productive institutions have a higher central position in both collaboration networks and consequently greater influence on the entire scientific community than the lower productive institutions. The contribution of female members of the German Society of Immunology in both the bibliographic and Web networks is very low in relation to the male counterparts. That corresponds with general results of a large gender study conducted by the European Commission.