Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From triadic closure to conference closure: the role of academic conferences in promoting scientific collaborations

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An academic conference is not only a venue for publishing papers but also a nursery room for new scientific encounters. While previous research has investigated scientific collaboration mechanisms based on the triadic closure and focal closure, in this paper, we propose a new collaboration mechanism named conference closure. Conference closure means that scholars involved in a common conference may collaborate with each other in the future. We analyze the extent to which scholars will meet new collaborators from both the individual and community levels by using 22 conferences in the field of data mining extracted from DBLP digital library. Our results demonstrate the existence of conference closure and this phenomenon is more remarkable in conferences with high field rating and large scale attendees. Scholars involved in multiple conferences will encounter more collaborators from the conferences. Another interesting finding is that although most conference attendees are junior scholars with few publications, senior scholars with fruitful publications may gain more collaborations during the conference. Meanwhile, the conference closure still holds if we control the productivity homophily. Our study will shed light on evaluating the impact of a conference from the social function perspective based on the index of conference closure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrizah, A., Erfanmanesh, M., Rohani, V. A., Thelwall, M., Levitt, J. M., & Didegah, F. (2014). Sixty-four years of informetrics research: Productivity, impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 101(1), 569–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alaimo, R. (2004). Top six reasons to attend a conference. Knowledge Quest, 33, 34–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, X., Xia, F., Lee, I., Zhang, J., & Ning, Z. (2016). Identifying anomalous citations for objective evaluation of scholarly article impact. PloS one, 11(9), e0162364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L. (2016). Network science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Battiston, F., Iacovacci, J., Nicosia, V., Bianconi, G., & Latora, V. (2016). Emergence of multiplex communities in collaboration networks. PloS one, 11(1), e0147451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianconi, G., Darst, R. K., Iacovacci, J., & Fortunato, S. (2014). Triadic closure as a basic generating mechanism of communities in complex networks. Physical Review E, 90(4), 042806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2016). Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(8), 2057–2061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramér, H. (2016). Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9) (Vol. 9). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, C., & Taylor, R. N. (2015). Analyzing runtime adaptability of collaboration patterns. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 27(11), 2725–2750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2010). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, J., Pei, J., & Kamber, M. (2011). Data mining: Concepts and techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., Geng, X. S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2009). Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Research Policy, 38(2), 306–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H., Tang, J., Wu, S., Liu, L., et al. (2014). Mining triadic closure patterns in social networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web, ACM (pp. 499–504).

  • Jones, H., & Hugman, A. (2010). Does a conference act as a catalyst for further publications and collaborations? A pilot study of a small science and mathematics education conference. In Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference), (vol. 16).

  • Klug, M., & Bagrow, J. P. (2016). Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. Open Science, 3(4), 160007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science, 311(5757), 88–90.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Classifying scientific disciplines in slovenia: A study of the evolution of collaboration structures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumpula, J. M., Onnela, J. P., Saramäki, J., Kaski, K., & Kertész, J. (2007). Emergence of communities in weighted networks. Physical Review Letters, 99(22), 228701.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ley, M. (2009). Dblp: Some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2(2), 1493–1500.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. (2010). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, T., Tang, J., Hopcroft, J., Fang, Z., & Ding, X. (2013). Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 7(2), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, L., & Sirois, M. J. (2006). Spearman correlation coefficients, differences between. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200–5205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E., Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (2002). Random graph models of social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 1), 2566–2572.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Opsahl, T. (2013). Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Social Networks, 35(2), 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pain, E. (2015). How to network effectively http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/10/how-network-effectively

  • Pain, E. (2016). Building successful collaborations. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/06/building-successful-collaborations

  • Pao, M. L. (1986). An empirical examination of Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C., Atzmueller, M., Kibanov, M., & Stumme, G. (2014). Predictability of evolving contacts and triadic closure in human face-to-face proximity networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, W. (1957). On the statistics of individual variations of productivity in research laboratories. Proceedings of the IRE, 45(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Ma, H., Eide, D., Hsu, B. J. P., Wang, K. (2015). An overview of microsoft academic service (mas) and applications. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web, ACM, (pp. 243–246).

  • Su, X., Wang, W., Yu, S., Zhang, C., Bekele, T. M., Xia, F. (2016). Can academic conferences promote research collaboration? In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on joint conference on digital libraries, ACM, (pp. 231–232).

  • van Ypersele, J. P., et al. (2013). The maze of impact metrics. Nature, 502(7472), 423–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voos, H. (1974). Lotka and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 25(4), 270–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W., Yu, S., Bekele, T. M., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2017). Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars’ academic ages. Scientometrics, 112(1), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y., Venkatramanan, S., & Chiu, D. M. (2016). Research collaboration and topic trends in computer science based on top active authors. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, F., Chen, Z., Wang, W., Li, J., & Yang, L. T. (2014). Mvcwalker: Random walk-based most valuable collaborators recommendation exploiting academic factors. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 2(3), 364–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, F., Su, X., Wang, W., Zhang, C., Ning, Z., & Lee, I. (2016). Bibliographic analysis of nature based on twitter and facebook altmetrics data. PloS one, 11(12), e0165997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, F., Wang, W., Bekele, T. M., & Liu, H. (2017). Big scholarly data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 3(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the International Scientific Partnership Program ISPP at King Saud University for funding this research work through ISPP\(\#\) 0078.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116620, China

    Wei Wang, Xiaomei Bai, Feng Xia & Teshome Megersa Bekele

  2. Faculty of Management and Economics, Institute of Information and Decision Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China

    Xiaoyan Su

  3. Computing Center, Anshan Normal University, Anshan, 114007, China

    Xiaomei Bai

  4. Riyadh Community College, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11437, Saudi Arabia

    Amr Tolba

  5. Mathematics and Computer Science Department, Faculty of Science, Menoufia University, Shebeen El Kom, Egypt

    Amr Tolba

Authors
  1. Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaomei Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feng Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teshome Megersa Bekele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoyan Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amr Tolba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Xia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, W., Bai, X., Xia, F. et al. From triadic closure to conference closure: the role of academic conferences in promoting scientific collaborations. Scientometrics 113, 177–193 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2468-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2468-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation