Paper detail

Selection in Scientific Networks

One of the most interesting scientific challenges nowadays deals with the analysis and the understanding of complex networks' dynamics. A major issue is the definition of new frameworks for the exploration of the dynamics at play in real dynamic networks. Here, we focus on scientific communities by analyzing the "social part" of Science through a descriptive approach that aims at identifying the social determinants (e.g. goals and potential interactions among individuals) behind the emergence and the resilience of scientific communities. We consider that scientific communities are at the same time communities of practice (through co-authorship) and that they exist also as representations in the scientists' mind, since references to other scientists' works is not merely an objective link to a relevant work, but it reveals social objects that one manipulates and refers to. In this paper we identify the patterns about the evolution of a scientific field by analyzing a portion of the arXiv repository covering a period of 10 years of publications in physics. As a citation represents a deliberative selection related to the relevance of a work in its scientific domain, our analysis approaches the co-existence between co-authorship and citation behaviors in a community by focusing on the most proficient and cited authors interactions patterns. We focus in turn, on how these patterns are affected by the selection process of citations. Such a selection a) produces self-organization because it is played by a group of individuals which act, compete and collaborate in a common environment in order to advance Science and b) determines the success (emergence) of both topics and scientists working on them. The dataset is analyzed a) at a global level, e.g. the network evolution, b) at the meso-level, e.g. communities emergence, and c) at a micro-level, e.g. nodes' aggregation patterns.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.