The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science
Open accessAbstract
Different approaches have been used to analyse international collaboration in science but none can fully explain its rapid growth. Using international co-authorships, we test the hypothesis that international collaboration is a self-organising network. Applying tools from network analysis, the paper shows that the growth of international co-authorships can be explained based on the organising principle of preferential attachment, although the attachment mechanism deviates from an ideal power-law. Several explanations for the deviation are explored, including that of the influence of institutional constraints on the mechanism of self-organisation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/30918 · Cited by 43,060
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
The New production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4463 · Cited by 7,046
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
Social Network Analysis: A Handbook.
Pappi, F. U., & Scott, J. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2075047 · Cited by 5,969
(1968) · PubMed · Cited by 4,803
The structure of scientific collaboration networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.404 · Cited by 4,482
The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
Baber, Z., Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1995) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2076669 · Cited by 4,406
Dorogovtsev, S. N., & Mendes, J. F. F. (2002) · Advances in Physics · doi:10.1080/00018730110112519 · Cited by 3,171
Cited by
Newman, M. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198805090.001.0001 · Cited by 2,297
Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23266 · Cited by 484
International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003 · Cited by 455
Self-citationNetwork Exchange Patterns in Online Communities
Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0600 · Cited by 347
International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?
Chen, K., Zhang, Y., & Fu, X. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.005 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1608-1618
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964920419
- Cited by
- 1,111
- References
- 66
- FWCI
- 18.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002
- The paper
- Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.