Paper detail

Zipf-Mandelbrot-Pareto model for co-authorship popularity

Each co-author (CA) of any scientist can be given a rank ($r$) of importance according to the number ($J$) of joint publications which the authors have together. In this paper, the Zipf-Mandelbrot-Pareto law, i.e. $ J \propto 1/(ν+r)^ζ$ is shown to reproduce the empirical relationship between $J$ and $r$ and shown to be preferable to a mere power law, $ J \propto 1/r^α $. The CA core value, i.e. the core number of CAs, is unaffected, of course. The demonstration is made on data for two authors, with a high number of joint publications, recently considered by Bougrine (2014) and for 7 authors, distinguishing between their "journal" and "proceedings" publications as suggested by Miskiewicz (2013). The rank-size statistics is discussed and the $α$ and $ζ$ exponents are compared. The correlation coefficient is much improved ($\sim$ 0.99, instead of 0.92). There are marked deviations of such a co-authorship popularity law depending on sub-fields. On one hand, this suggests an interpretation of the parameter $ν$. On the other hand, it suggests a novel model on the (likely time dependent) structural and publishing properties of research teams. Thus, one can propose a scenario for how a research team is formed and grows. This is based on a hierarchy utility concept, justifying the empirical Zipf-Mandelbrot-Pareto law, assuming a simple form for the CA publication/cost ratio, $c_r = c_0\: log_2 (ν+r)$. In conclusion, such a law and model can suggest practical applications on measures of research teams. In Appendices, the frequency-size cumulative distribution function is discussed for two sub-fields, with other technicalities

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

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 map preview

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.