Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Acknowledgement network and citation count: the moderating role of collaboration network

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The scholars mentioned in a paper’s acknowledgement (acknowledgees) play an important role in the paper’s development and citation count. However, there are exiguous studies have been conducted on the acknowledgees from a network perspective. Based on the social network theory, we propose that the citation count of a paper is greatly affected by the acknowledgement network. The collaboration network is expected to negatively moderate the relationship between acknowledgement network and citation count. We establish the acknowledgement network with nodes as acknowledgees and authors, and ties as acknowledgement relationship between them. Using the bibliographic data of scientific articles from 2008 to 2010 in the field of wind energy as sample, which is provided by Web of Science Core Collection database, we build both acknowledgement network and collaboration network. Negative binomial regression model and several robustness tests are used as our research methods. The results show that acknowledgees’ centrality in the acknowledgement network has a positive effect on citation count. The authors’ centrality in the collaboration network negatively moderates the relationship between acknowledgees’ centrality and citation count. Specifically, the higher the author’s centrality in the collaboration network, the more likely the effect of acknowledgees’ centrality on the paper’s citation count will be inhibited. Finally, the theoretical and methodological contributions as well as practical implications are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (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 Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., & Jaafari, A. (2013). Research impact and scholars’ geographical diversity. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajiferuke, I., & Famoye, F. (2015). Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics, 59(2), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badar, K., Hite, J. M., & Badir, Y. F. (2012). Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: The case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 94(2), 755–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensman, S. J. (2008). Distributional differences of the impact factor in the sciences versus the social sciences: An analysis of the probabilistic structure of the 2005 journal citation reports. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1366–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., & Börner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2005). “Cross-Firm” inventors and social networks: Localized knowledge spillovers revisited. Annales D’économie Et De Statistique, 79(80), 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannella, A. A., & McFadyen, M. A. (2016). Changing the exchange: The dynamics of knowledge worker ego networks. Journal of Management, 42(4), 1005–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Councill, I. G. (2006). Characterizing scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgement indexing and citation analysis. Pennsylvania State University.

  • Criscuolo, P., Dahlander, L., Grohsjean, T., & Salter, A. (2017). Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 433–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001a). Acknowledgement trends in the research literature of information science. Journal of Documentation, 57(3), 427–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001b). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909–1918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., Mckenzie, G., & Rubio, L. (1993a). The norms of acknowledgment in four humanities and social sciences disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 49(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., Rubio, L., & Weaver-Wozniak, S. (1993b). Accounting for influence: Acknowledgments in contemporary sociology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(7), 406–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1994). The Scholar’s courtesy: A survey of acknowledgement behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 50(3), 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., et al. (2018). Authorship, citations, acknowledgments and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science. Social Science Information, 57(2), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Faes, A., & Bordons, M. (2017). Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 576–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahmy, C., & Young, J. T. N. (2015). Invisible colleagues: The informal organization of knowledge production in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(4), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C., Roeder, D., & Mulholland, R. R. (1979). Centrality in social networks: II. Experimental results. Social Networks, 2(2), 119–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannoni, D. S. (2002). Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1–31.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Liu, N. (2016). Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy. Research Policy, 45(1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. J. (2015). How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field. Scientometrics, 102(1), 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. J. (2017). The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffner, A. G. (1979). Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 377–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2003). Dissertation acknowledgements: The anatomy of a Cinderella Genre. Written Communication, 20(3), 242–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, H., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88(2), 653–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlovčec, M., & Mladenić, D. (2014). Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics, 102(1), 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khor, K. A., & Yu, L. G. (2016). Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1095–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachance, C., & Larivière, V. (2014). On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 863–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2009). Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. H., & Brusilovsky, P. (2018). The first impression of conference papers: Does it matter in predicting future citations? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. (2008). How to identify emerging research fields using scientometrics: An example in the field of Information Security. Scientometrics, 76(3), 503–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2019). The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(2), 198–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W. (2019). The data source of this study is web of science core collection? Not enough. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1815–1824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Tang, L., & Hu, G. (2020). Funding information in web of science: An updated overview. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1509–1524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (2018). Beyond Garfield’s citation index: An assessment of some issues in building a personal name acknowledgments index. Scientometrics, 114(2), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L. (2014). Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 728–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R. (2016). Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 108(1), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M., & Larivière, V. (2017). The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 80–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M., & Larivière, V. (2020). Who are the acknowledgees? An analysis of gender and academic status. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 582–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1994). On determinants of citation scores: A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Team, S. (2009). Science of science (Sci2) Tool.

  • Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. Á., Luzardo Briceño, M., & Jabbour, G. (2010). Scholarly gratitude in five geographical contexts: A diachronic and cross-generic approach of the acknowledgment paratext in medical discourse (1950–2010). Scientometrics, 86(3), 763–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Casado, E., Garcia-Zorita, J. C., Serrano-López, A. E., Larsen, B., & Ingwersen, P. (2013). Renewable energyresearch 1995–2009: A case study of windpower research in EU, Spain, Germany and Denmark. Scientometrics, 95(1), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimbel, A. (1953). Structural parameters of communication networks. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 15(4), 501–507.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Skilton, P. F. (2006). A comparative study of communal practice: Assessing the effects of taken-for-granted-ness on citation practice in scientific communities. Scientometrics, 68(1), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, J. A., Acuna, M. H., Anderson, B. J., Baker, D. N., Benna, M., Boardsen, S. A., et al. (2009). MESSENGER observations of magnetic reconnection in mercury’s magnetosphere. Science, 324(5927), 606–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, K., Hvelplund, F., & Mathiesen, B. V. (2010). Evaluation of wind power planning in Denmark—Towards an integrated perspective. Energy, 35(12), 5443–5454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundling, P. (2017). The many hands of science: Commonalities and differences in the research contributions of authors and subauthors. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 591–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018a). Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018b). Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references? Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 906–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, L., Hu, G., & Liu, W. (2017). Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 790–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2014). Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 963–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S. V. (2010). A STEP toward understanding wind power development policy barriers in advanced economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 2796–2807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasilevsky, N. A., Hosseini, M., Teplitzky, S., Ilik, V., Mohammadi, E., Schneider, J., Kern, B., Colomb, J., Edmunds, S. C., Gutzman, K., Himmelstein, D. S., White, M., Smith, B., O’Keefe, L., Haendel, M., & Holmes, K. L. (2021). Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles. Accountability in Research, 28(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallaschek, S., & Heiberger, R. (2019). Kudos to you! Comparing co-authorships and acknowledgements in political science journals from Germany. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/bg4qz.

  • Walters, G. D. (2006). Predicting subsequentcitations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Authorimpact versus journal impact. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2016). Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration. Research Policy, 45(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Zhang, L. (2018). Proximal advantage in knowledge diffusion: The time dimension. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 858–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, N. M., & Thomer, A. K. (2014). Paratexts and documentary practices: Text mining authorship and acknowledgment from a bioinformatics corpus. In Examining paratextual theory and its applications in digital culture (pp. 84–109). IGI Global.

  • Yan, Y., Li, J. T., & Zhang, J. J. (2021). Protecting intellectual property in foreign subsidiaries: An internal network defense perspective. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00430-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, People’s Republic of China

    Shanwu Tian & Ping Li

  2. School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, People’s Republic of China

    Xiurui Xu

Authors
  1. Shanwu Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiurui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiurui Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tian, S., Xu, X. & Li, P. Acknowledgement network and citation count: the moderating role of collaboration network. Scientometrics 126, 7837–7857 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04090-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04090-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation