Social scientists have extensively studied the relationships between co-authorship, scholarly productivity, and reputation, but few studies have examined these phenomena in the field of contemporary China studies. This article aims to fill this gap by investigating the impact of co-author networks on productivity and citations. It draws its conclusions by analyzing 2784 articles published between 2011 and 2021 in nine major international journals dedicated to contemporary China. The findings reveal unique trends among specialists on contemporary China, characterized by low average productivity and a broad publication distribution across disciplinary journals. The study also demonstrates a positive correlation between co-authorship, network connections, productivity, and citations, emphasizing the role of mentoring strategies and extra-mural collaborations in enhancing productivity. Furthermore, the formation of “invisible colleges” within the main networks is observed, influencing the literature and citation landscape. However, these invisible colleges are not monopolizing publishing opportunities if compared with other fields of knowledge.
AbbasiAAltmannJHossainL (2011) Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics5(4): 594–607.
2.
AkbaritabarACasniciNSquazzoniF (2018) The conundrum of research productivity: A study on sociologists in Italy. Scientometrics114(3): 859–882.
3.
AkbaritabarATraagVACaimoA, et al. (2020) Italian sociologists: A community of disconnected groups. Scientometrics124(3): 2361–2382.
4.
AksnesDWRørstadKPiroFSivertsenG (2013) Are mobile researchers more productive and cited than non-mobile researchers? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists. Research Evaluation22(4): 215–223.
5.
BeaverD (2001) Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics52(3): 365–377.
6.
BiscaroCGiupponiC (2014) Co-authorship and bibliographic coupling network effects on citations. PLoS One9(6): e99502.
7.
BoissevainJ (1974) Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions. New York: St. Martin Press.
8.
BourdieuP (1988) Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
BourdieuP (1990) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
BozemanBCorleyE (2004) Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy33(4): 599–616.
11.
BozemanBFayDSladeCP (2013) Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer38(1): 1–67.
12.
CiboisP (2009) Percentage of maximum deviation from independence (PEM): Comment on Lefèvre and Champely’s analyse d’un tableau de contingence. BMS: Bulletin of Sociological Methodology / Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique103(1): 66–74.
13.
CraneD (1972) Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
De HaanJ (1997) Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology. Scientometrics39(2): 197–208.
15.
De Solla PriceDJBeaverD (1966) Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist21(11): 1011–1018.
16.
DuctorL (2015) Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity?Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics77(3): 385–407.
17.
DurkheimE (2013) De la division sociale du travail [On the social division of labor]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (in French).
18.
EtzkowitzH (1984) Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva21(2–3): 198–233.
19.
FengSKirkleyA (2020) Mixing patterns in interdisciplinary co-authorship networks at multiple scales. Scientific Reports10(1):7731.
20.
FoxMFMohapatraS (2007) Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education78(5): 542–571.
21.
GoutsmedtATrucA (2022) Networkflow: Functions for a workflow to manipulate networks. Available at: https://github.com/agoutsmedt/networkflow (accessed 14 January 2023).
22.
GuanJYanYZhangJJ (2017) The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations. Journal of Informetrics11(2): 407–422.
23.
HenriksenD (2016) The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics107(2): 455–476.
24.
HollisA (2001) Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Economics8(4): 503–530.
25.
HongWZhaoY (2016) How social networks affect scientific performance: Evidence from a national survey of Chinese scientists. Science, Technology, and Human Values41(2): 243–273.
26.
JiPJinJKeZT, et al. (2022) Co-citation and co-authorship networks of statisticians. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics40(2): 469–485.
27.
JonkersKTijssenR (2008) Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics77(2): 309–333.
28.
KatzJSHicksD (1997) How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics40(3): 541–554.
29.
KatzJSMartinBR (1997) What is research collaboration?Research Policy26(1): 1–18.
30.
KretschmerH (2004) Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the web. Scientometrics60(3): 409–420.
31.
KretschmerHRousseauR (2001) Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology52(8): 610–614.
32.
KumarS (2015) Co-authorship networks: A review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management67(1): 55–73.
33.
LeeSBozemanB (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science35(5): 673–702.
34.
LiEYLiaoCHYenHR (2013) Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy42(9): 1515–1530.
35.
LiuPXiaH (2015) Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field. Scientometrics103(1): 101–134.
36.
LotkaA (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences16(12): 317–323.
37.
MaFLiYChenB (2014) Study of the collaboration in the field of the Chinese humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics100(2): 439–458.
38.
Martín-SempereMJRey-RochaJGarzón-GarcíaB (2002) The effect of team consolidation on research collaboration and performance of scientists: Case study of Spanish University researchers in Geology. Scientometrics55(3): 377–394.
39.
MelinG (2000) Pragmatism and self-organization research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy29(1): 31–40.
40.
MoodyJ (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review69(2): 213–238.
41.
MurphyLJ (1973) Lotka’s law in the humanities?Journal of the American Society for Information Science24(6): 461–462.
42.
NahapietJGhoshalS (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review23(2): 242–266.
43.
NewmanMEJ (2001a) Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E64(1): 1–7.
44.
NewmanMEJ (2001b) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America98(2): 404–409.
45.
NewmanMEJ (2004) Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In: Ben-NaimEFrauenfelderHToroczkaiZ (eds) Complex Networks (Vol. 650). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.337–370.
46.
ParishAJBoyackKWIoannidisJPA (2018) Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS One13(1): e0189742.
47.
PetersHPFvan RaanAFJ (1994) On determinants of citation scores: A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society for Information Science45(1): 39–49.
48.
PontilleD (2003) Authorship practices and institutional contexts in sociology: Elements for a comparison of the United States and France. Science, Technology, and Human Values28(2): 217–243.
49.
PravdicNOluic-VukovicV (1991) Distribution of scientific productivity: Ambiguities in the assignment of author rank. Scientometrics20(1): 131–144.
50.
Ruiz-CastilloJCostasR (2014) The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics8(4): 917–934.
51.
StewartJA (2023) Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles. Social Forces62(1): 166–189.
52.
StoltzDS (2023) Rising co-authorship in sociology, 1895–2022 (preprint). SocArXiv.
53.
TangL (2013) Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration. Journal of Informetrics7(2): 330–344.
54.
ThelwallMWilsonP (2014) Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics8(4): 963–971.
55.
TraagVAWaltmanLvan EckNJ (2019) From Louvain to Leiden: Guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific Reports9(1):5233.
56.
WallaceMLLarivièreVGingrasY (2012) A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. PLoS One7(3): e33339.
57.
WannerRALewisLSGregorioDI (1981) Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education54(4): 238–253.
58.
WilderEIWaltersWH (2019) Quantifying scholarly output: Contribution studies and productivity studies in sociology since 1970. The American Sociologist50(3): 430–436.
59.
WuC (2023) The gender citation gap: Why and how it matters. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie60(2): 188–211.
60.
XieYShaumanKA (1998) Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review63(6): 847–870.
61.
YairGGoldsteinKRotemN, et al. (2022) The three cultures in American science: Publication productivity in physics, history and economics. Scientometrics127(6): 2967–2980.
62.
ZuckermanH (1967) Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review32(3): 391–403.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
