A geographical analysis of knowledge production in computer science

ABSTRACT

We analyze knowledge production in Computer Science by means of coauthorship networks. For this, we consider 30 graduate programs of different regions of the world, being 8 programs in Brazil, 16 in North America (3 in Canada and 13 in the United States), and 6 in Europe (2 in France, 1 in Switzerland and 3 in the United Kingdom). We use a dataset that consists of 176,537 authors and 352,766 publication entries distributed among 2,176 publication venues. The results obtained for different metrics of collaboration social networks indicate the process of knowledge creation has  changed differently for each region. Research is increasingly done in teams across different fields of Computer Science. The size of the giant component indicates the existence of isolated collaboration groups in the European network, contrasting to the degree of connectivity found in the Brazilian and North-American counterparts. We also analyzed the temporal evolution of the social networks representing the three regions. The number of authors per paper experienced an increase in a time span of 12 years. We observe that the number of collaborations between authors grows faster than the number of authors, benefiting from the existing network structure. The temporal evolution shows differences between well-established fields, such as Databases and Computer Architecture, and emerging fields, like Bioinformatics and Geoinformatics. The patterns of collaboration analyzed in this paper contribute to an overall understanding of Computer Science research in different geographical regions that could not be achieved without the use of complex networks and a large publication database.

REFERENCES

• 1: A. L. Barabasi, H. Jeong, Z. Neda, E. Ravasz, A. Schubert, and T. Vicsek. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. PHYSICA A, 311:3, 2002.
• 2: Katy Börner , Luca Dall'Asta , Weimao Ke , Alessandro Vespignani, Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams: Research Articles, Complexity, v.10 n.4, p.57-67, March 2005 [doi>10.1002/cplx.v10:4]
• 3: D. S. Callaway, J. E. Hopcroft, J. M. Kleinberg, M. E. J. Newman, and S. H. Strogatz. Are randomly grown graphs really random? Physical Review E, 64:041902, 2001.
• 4: Chaomei Chen , Il-Yeol Song , Xiaojun Yuan , Jian Zhang, The thematic and citation landscape of Data and Knowledge Engineering (1985-2007), Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.67 n.2, p.234-259, November, 2008 [doi>10.1016/j.datak.2008.05.004]
• 5: Ergin Elmacioglu , Dongwon Lee, On six degrees of separation in DBLP-DB and more, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.34 n.2, June 2005 [doi>10.1145/1083784.1083791]
• 6: Jian Huang , Ziming Zhuang , Jia Li , C. Lee Giles, Collaboration over time: characterizing and modeling network evolution, Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining, February 11-12, 2008, Palo Alto, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1341531.1341548]
• 7: T. Kamada , S. Kawai, An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs, Information Processing Letters, v.31 n.1, p.7-15, April 1989 [doi>10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6]
• 8: Alberto H. F. Laender , Carlos J. P. de Lucena , José Carlos Maldonado , Edmundo de Souza e Silva , Nivio Ziviani, Assessing the research and education quality of the top Brazilian Computer Science graduate programs, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.40 n.2, June 2008 [doi>10.1145/1383602.1383654]
• 9: Jure Leskovec , Jon Kleinberg , Christos Faloutsos, Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations, Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining, August 21-24, 2005, Chicago, Illinois, USA [doi>10.1145/1081870.1081893]
• 10: Xiaoming Liu , Johan Bollen , Michael L. Nelson , Herbert Van de Sompel, Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.41 n.6, p.1462-1480, December 2005 [doi>10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012]
• 11: S. Milgram. The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2:60--67, 1967.
• 12: Mario A. Nascimento , Jörg Sander , Jeffrey Pound, Analysis of SIGMOD's co-authorship graph, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.32 n.3, p.8-10, September 2003 [doi>10.1145/945721.945722]
• 13: M. E. Newman. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. of the United States of America, 98(2):404--409, January 2001.
• 14: M. E. Newman. Assortative mixing in networks. Physical Review Letters, 89(20):208701, October 2002.
• 15: M. E. Newman. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2):167--256, 2003.
• 16: M. E. Newman. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. In Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. of the United States of America, pages 5200--5205, 2004.
• 17: D. Watts. Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2):493--527, September 1999.
• 18: D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz. Collective dynamics of small-world" networks. Nature, 393(6684):440--442, June 1998.
• 19: S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827):1036--1039, May 2007.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS
      H.4.m Miscellaneous

General Terms:
Experimentation

Keywords:
coauthorship networks, collaboration social networks, computer science