Analysis of the scientific collaboration patterns in the Emergy Accounting field: A review of the co-authorship network structure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5890/JEAM.2013.01.001Abstract
Using Social network analysis techniques, the authors visualize the co-authorship network and provide descriptive statistics regarding the degree to which researchers are embedded in it. The aim of this paper is to point out three issues including: (1) the use and quantification of international bibliographic databases; (2) Social Network Analysis and interpreting merits; and (3) visualization and the analysis of coauthorship networks for co-authorship data. The results showed that there was a strong linear relationship between the number of papers published and an author’s h-index. And the co-author network displayed the following features: with medium connected groups of authors; the network density is low; many sparse ties since there are still observed isolated authors or simple clusters in the network; and a medium propensity to collaborate with co-authors. Such an understanding is a necessary pre-requisite to establish an information flow and collaboration pattern among authors involved in the progress of the emergy accounting field.References
[1] Ulgiati, S. and Brown, M.T. (2002), Quantifying the environmental support for dilution and abatement of process emissions: The case of electricity production, Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 335-348.
[2] Liu, G.Y., Yang, Z.F., Chen, B. and Ulgiait, S. (2011), Monitoring trends of urban development and environmental impact of Beijing, 1999-2006, Science of The Total Environment, 409(18), 3295-3308.
[3] Sachs, J. (2005), Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, UN Millennium Project, London, UK: Earthscan.
[4] Harris, P.J., Harris, E., Thompson, S., Harris-Roxas, B. and Kemp, L. (2009), Human health and wellbeing in environmental impact assessment in New South Wales, Australia: auditing health impacts within environmental assessments of major projects, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(5), 310-318.
[5] Odum, H.T. (1971), Environment, Power, and Society, New York: Wiley Interscience.
[6] Odum, H.T., Diamond, C. and Brown, M.T. (1987), Emergy analysis and public policy in Texas, policy research project report, Ecological Economics, 12, 54-65.
[7] Odum, H.T. (1996), Environmental accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[8] Brown, M.T. and Ulgiati, S. (2004), Emergy analysis and environmental accounting, Encyclopedia of Energy, 2, 329-354.
[9] Odum, H.T. (1988), Self-organization, transformity, and information, Science, 242, 1132-1139.
[10] Campbell, D.E. (2005), Financial accounting methods to further develop and communicate environmental accounting using emergy, In: Brown, M.T., Bardi, E., Campbell, D., Comar, V., Huang, S.L., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D., Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis. 3 - Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology, Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, USA, pp. 185-198.
[11] Dong, X.B., Ulgiati, S., Yan, M.C. and Gao, W.S. (2008), Progress, influence and perspectives of emergy theories in China, in support of environmentally sound economic development and equitable trade, Energy Policy, 36, 1019-1028.
[12] Aram, J.D. (2004), Concepts of interdisciplinarity: Configurations of knowledge and action, Human Relations, 57(4), 379- 412.
[13] Glanzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2005), Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship, In: Moed, H., Glanzel, W., Schmoch , U. (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, pp. 257-276. Springer, Netherlands.
[14] De Stefano, D., Giordano, G. and Vitale, M.P. (2011), Issues in the analysis of co-authorship networks, Quality & Quantity, 45, 1091-1107.
[15] Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage.
[16] Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C. and Galán, J.L. (2006), Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 957-983.
[17] Faust, K. (2006), Comparing social networks: Size, density, and local structure, Metodološki zvezki, 3(2), 185-216.
[18] Putzke, J., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D. and Gloor, P. (2010), The evolution of interaction networks in massively multiplayer online games, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(2), 69-94.
[19] Persson, O. and Beckmann, M. (1995). Locating the network of interacting authors in scientific specialties, Scientometrics, 33(3), 351-366.
[20] Newman, M.E.J. and Park, J. (2003), Why social networks are different from other types of networks, Physical Review E, 68(3), 1-8.
[21] Cheong, F. and Corbitt, B.J. (2009), A social network analysis of the co-authorship network of the pacific Asia conference on information system from 1993 to 2008, In: Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009), Verona, Italy, 8-10 June 2009.
[22] Said, Y., Wegman, E., and Sharabati, W. (2010), Author-coauthor social networks and emerging scientific subfield, In: Palumbo, F., Lauro, N.C., Greenacre, M.J. (eds.) Data Analysis and Classification, Berlin: Springer.
[23] Costanza, R. and Kubiszewski, I. (2012), The authorship structure of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship, Ecosystem Services, 1, 16–25.
[24] Freeman, L. (1979), Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification, Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
Article Metrics
Usage tracking begins September 1, 2026.