Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Modular versus Hierarchical: A Structural Signature of Topic Popularity in Mathematical Research

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read After controlling for network size, popular mathematics topics form modular schools of thought while niche topics organize as hierarchical expert cores, and average constraint reverses sign.

desk verdict A reproducible, well-documented descriptive study of math collaboration networks whose headline 'size-independent' claim is not identified by the regression design. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22946 v1 pith:EEJKKY5X submitted 2025-06-28 cs.SI cs.CYcs.DLmath.HO

Brian Hepler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.CYcs.DLmath.HO MSC 01A8091D3005C8262R07
keywords scientificcollaborationnetworkstopicpopularitymodularitycore-peripherystructurenetworksizeconfoundingco-authorshipstructuralholesmathematicalresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a research topic's popularity in mathematics carries a structural signature that is not reducible to scale. Using co-authorship networks built from 121,391 papers grouped into 1,938 topics, it finds that popular topics are more modular, or partitioned into distinct communities, while niche topics are more core-periphery organized around a dense expert core. These associations survive regression controls for network size: modularity ($\beta=0.55$), coreness ratio ($\beta=-0.73$), and average constraint ($\beta=0.46$, reversed sign). The authors interpret this as evidence that choosing a topic is implicitly choosing a collaborative environment, not merely a subject. They stop short of claiming causality, framing the results as associations that warrant longitudinal follow-up.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-stage statistical design and a ten-metric structural signature of co-authorship networks. Networks are built by forming a clique among co-authors of each multi-author paper within a topic, and the signature includes collaboration rate, repeated collaboration, degree centralization, assortativity, small-world coefficient, robustness ratio, modularity, coreness ratio, average constraint, and average effective size. The decisive step is the size-control regression $\text{Metric} \sim \text{Popularity} + \log(\text{Network Size})$ on standardized variables, preceded by Mann-Whitney tests and Cliff's delta effect sizes, with the entire analysis repeated across four topic-model granularities. Modularity, defined as the strength of a network's division into communities, and coreness ratio, the proportion of authors in the dense core, are the main discriminators; average constraint supplies the reversal.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the size-control models with a different network-size variable, such as number of distinct authors or total author-paper incidences, and repeat the analysis on popular and niche topics matched one-to-one on author count; the size-independence claim fails if the modularity and coreness differences shrink to zero or reverse. A longitudinal check would also settle it: topics that cross from niche to popular should shift from core-periphery toward modular organization if the association is a stable structural signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a size-independent structural dichotomy in mathematics collaboration networks. Popular topics, the top 20% by paper count, have substantially higher modularity and lower coreness than niche topics even after log author count is controlled, while average constraint flips from lower in popular topics to higher. A separate emergent effect appears only under size control: at equal network size, popular topics show much lower collaboration rates. Six other metrics, including robustness ratio, degree assortativity, degree centralization, small-world coefficient, average effective size, and repeated collaboration rate, lose significance after size control, leading the paper to classify them as scale-driven artifacts. The surviving pattern is framed as the combined action of universal scaling laws and field-specific social organization tied to popularity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that including log author count in the regression removes the full effect of network size, so the popularity coefficients measure popularity rather than residual scale effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Popular fields are internally fragmented, so a new researcher is likely to land inside one community rather than the field as a whole.
  • Niche fields concentrate collaboration around a small expert core, making access to that core through advisors or institutional placement structurally important.
  • Metrics like robustness ratio and degree assortativity should not be cited as popularity effects without a size control, because their raw associations vanish once scale is accounted for.
  • At equal network size, popular fields have lower collaboration rates, implying different collaboration norms even when total teamwork in larger fields is higher.
  • The constraint reversal suggests that brokerage positions in popular fields tend to be occupied by established researchers, consistent with cumulative advantage.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the association is causal, the paper predicts a lifecycle in which a topic that gains popularity becomes more modular and less core-dominated over time; this is testable by applying the same pipeline to longitudinal data.
  • The sharp threshold behavior the paper reports suggests a possible phase transition in network organization, which could be compared against generative network models that combine preferential attachment with community formation.
  • The same structural signature could be measured in other scientific disciplines to see whether the modular-hierarchical dichotomy is specific to mathematics or reflects a general property of attention-driven collaboration.
  • The career implications remain implicit; linking an individual researcher's network position within popular versus niche topics to later career outcomes would be the direct next test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 1,938 algorithmically identified mathematical research topics from 121,391 arXiv papers (2020–2025), constructs co-authorship networks for each topic, and compares ten network metrics between the top and bottom 20% of topics by paper count ('popular' vs 'niche'). In baseline comparisons, popular topics show higher modularity and small-world behavior, while niche topics show higher coreness, centralization, and robustness-to-attack. After regressing each metric on popularity and log(author count), the authors report that modularity, coreness ratio, and average constraint remain significantly associated with popularity, and that constraint reverses sign after size control. They interpret these results as evidence that popular topics organize into modular 'schools of thought' and niche topics into hierarchical core-periphery structures, independent of network size, and they introduce an interactive platform (Math Research Compass) based on the results.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide a large-scale, multi-metric description of how collaboration structure varies with topic popularity in mathematics, with potential value for career guidance and science policy. The study has notable strengths: the analysis is reproducible in principle (code and data are public), the main effects are very large (e.g., Cliff's delta ≈ -0.93 for coreness), and the results are checked across multiple topic-model granularities and pandemic-period splits. However, the load-bearing assertion that the pattern is 'not an artifact of scale' rests on an identification assumption that is not validated in the manuscript, and the constraint-reversal result is especially sensitive to that assumption. The descriptive findings are solid; the size-independence interpretation is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.5 and Section 2.6, Table 4] The claim that modularity, coreness, and constraint effects are 'not an artifact of scale' rests on the popularity coefficient in the regression Metric ~ Popularity + log(Network Size), but the two popularity groups are the top and bottom 20% of paper count (74–2,207 vs 11–17 papers), and paper count is mechanically and nonlinearly related to author count, the size covariate. The paper never reports the overlap of log(author count) between the two groups; if the groups barely overlap, the popularity coefficient is identified only by extrapolating a linear size trend across a gap, and any nonlinearity in the true metric-size relationship (e.g., modularity saturation or coreness decay) will masquerade as a popularity effect. The robustness checks in Appendix C (min_topic_size variations, temporal splits) reuse the same log-linear control and so cannot detect this failure. I would need to see the support overlap and either a restricted analysis on overlapping author-count ranges, matching, or a nonparametric size control before accepting the size-independence claim.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 4 (Avg. Constraint row)] The constraint reversal is particularly fragile because average constraint is not a function of node count alone; it depends on the degree sequence and edge density. Controlling for log(Network Size) does not control for average degree or edge density, both of which differ sharply between tiny niche networks and large popular networks. The paper itself cites Everett and Borgatti (2020) on the size-dependence of constraint, so a claim of a size-independent reversal requires additional controls (e.g., average degree, edge density) or a demonstration that the reversal survives within overlapping degree ranges; otherwise the reversal may reflect residual degree/size nonlinearity rather than a genuine popularity effect.
  3. [Section 2.4.3 and Appendix A] The 'coreness ratio' is one of the two central metrics of the paper's dichotomy, but it is never defined precisely. The text says only that it is the 'proportion of authors belonging to the network's densely connected core,' and Appendix A gives no formula, no k-core level, no threshold, and no statement about weighted versus unweighted graphs. Without this definition, the main coreness result (Cliff's delta = -0.93; beta = -0.73 after size control) cannot be reproduced or evaluated. Please provide the exact computational definition used in the code.
  4. [Section 3.3.3 and Table 5] The statement that 'interaction models generally provided minimal additional explanatory power' is contradicted by the reported interaction coefficients. In Table 5, the Popularity x log(Authors) term is significant for coreness ratio (beta = -0.354, p < 0.01) and collaboration rate (beta = 1.383, p < 0.001). Significant interactions mean the effect of size differs by popularity group, so the additive size-control model in Table 4 does not summarize the data well for these metrics. The authors should either reconcile this with their additivity claim or interpret the Table 4 coefficients as conditional on a misspecified model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Table 6 (Repeated Collab. Rate row)] The effect size for repeated collaboration rate changes from delta = 0.590 (min_topic_size = 10) to delta = 0.284 (min_topic_size = 15), with non-overlapping 95% bootstrap confidence intervals; the text's claim that 'the same metrics were robustly associated with popularity in every single run' overstates stability for this metric.
  2. [Section 2.4.2] The small-world coefficient is written as omega = (C/C_random)/(L/L_random), which is not the standard definition of the small-world coefficient; if a customized ratio is intended, it should be named and justified, especially since the reported values (84.1 +/- 141.7) are extremely skewed.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption says the exemplar pairs were 'systematically selected to have similar connected component sizes,' but the selection criteria are not described and no quantitative size matching is reported; as presented the figure is illustrative rather than evidence.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Appendix B] The author name disambiguation pipeline reports a manually validated precision of 86% on 100 merges but no recall estimate; since false negatives are acknowledged as the more likely error type and would make networks appear more fragmented, a recall estimate would help bound the effect on the modularity and coreness metrics.
  5. [Table 4 (Avg. Constraint row)] Because the constraint reversal is a central novel result and its p-value (0.004) is just below the Bonferroni threshold (alpha = 0.005), a small perturbation could alter the classification; reporting exact p-values and bootstrap confidence intervals for the reversal would make its fragility transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: popularity and network metrics are operationally distinct, and the reported associations are not constructed from the popular/niche labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: arXiv metadata to BERTopic topics (Section 2.1), author-name disambiguation and collaboration network construction (Sections 2.2-2.3), network metric computation (Section 2.4), popularity classification by paper count (Section 2.5), and then baseline comparisons and size-controlled regressions (Section 2.6). None of the outcome metrics—modularity, coreness ratio, average constraint, or the other seven—is defined in terms of popularity, and popularity is defined solely by total paper count, not by any network statistic that is later interpreted as a result. The regressions compare observed metric values across popularity groups with a log(author count) control; this is a conditional comparison rather than a self-fulfilling construction. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no dependence on the author's own prior results, and no imported uniqueness theorem forcing a particular choice. The strongest potential concern is that popularity (paper count) and network size (author count) are mechanically related, so the size-control coefficients may not fully isolate a size-independent popularity signal; the paper itself acknowledges this identification difficulty in Section 1 and treats popularity as a given cross-sectional characteristic. That is an identification limitation, not circular reasoning. Because the derivation chain is self-contained and the central claims rest on independently computed network statistics, no equation or definition reduces the reported popularity effects to the inputs of the analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen thresholds for topic definition, popularity classification, and author disambiguation. The paper provides sensitivity analyses for many of these, but the popularity-as-paper-count choice is the most consequential because it is inseparable from network size.

free parameters (5)
  • Popularity threshold (20%)
    Chosen by hand to define popular/niche; sensitivity analyses across 15-30% show consistency, but the binary split is still a modeling choice.
  • HDBSCAN min_topic_size = 15
    Parameter for topic clustering; validated across 10,20,25 for robustness, but central to topic definition.
  • UMAP hyperparameters (n_neighbors, n_components) = 15, 5
    UMAP parameters, chosen with sensitivity analysis on a subsample; affect topic boundaries.
  • AND thresholds (Levenshtein, Jaccard, min papers) = 0.95, 0.5, 2
    Hand-chosen thresholds in the disambiguation pipeline; precision validated at 86%.
  • First-name similarity thresholds (Western vs Asian) = 0.87, 0.92
    Hand-chosen thresholds for name merging; affect author identity and network topology.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption arXiv metadata in 2020-2025 is representative of mathematical research output
    The study's conclusions about mathematical collaboration are drawn entirely from arXiv, which may underrepresent applied fields and industry research (acknowledged in Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption BERTopic clusters correspond to meaningful research topics
    Manual validation of 100 topics found 74% high quality, but the topic model is not a ground-truth classification.
  • domain assumption Author name disambiguation precision of 86% is sufficient for network analysis
    The AND pipeline validated on 100 random merges; residual errors could distort metrics, though the authors argue conservative errors attenuate effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modular versus Hierarchical: A Structural Signature of Topic Popularity in Mathematical Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEJKKY5X

@misc{pith2026250622946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modular versus Hierarchical: A Structural Signature of Topic Popularity in Mathematical Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEJKKY5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22946}
}
read the original abstract

Mathematical researchers, especially those in early-career positions, face critical decisions about topic specialization with limited information about the collaborative environments of different research areas. The aim of this paper is to study how the popularity of a research topic is associated with the structure of that topic's collaboration network, as observed by a suite of measures capturing organizational structure at several scales. We apply these measures to 1,938 algorithmically discovered topics across 121,391 papers sourced from arXiv metadata during the period 2020--2025. Our analysis, which controls for the confounding effects of network size, reveals a structural dichotomy--we find that popular topics organize into modular "schools of thought," while niche topics maintain hierarchical core-periphery structures centered around established experts. This divide is not an artifact of scale, but represents a size-independent structural pattern correlated with popularity. We also document a "constraint reversal": after controlling for size, researchers in popular fields face greater structural constraints on collaboration opportunities, contrary to conventional expectations. Our findings suggest that topic selection is an implicit choice between two fundamentally different collaborative environments, each with distinct implications for a researcher's career. To make these structural patterns transparent to the research community, we developed the Math Research Compass (https://mathresearchcompass.com), an interactive platform providing data on topic popularity and collaboration patterns across mathematical topics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Collaboration networks for 3 exemplar pairs of popular and niche mathematical research topics, system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks

    Albert-L \'a szl \'o Barab \'a si and R \'e ka Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286 0 (5439): 0 509--512, 1999. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509

    doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 1999

  2. [2]

    Models of core/periphery structures

    Stephen P Borgatti and Martin G Everett. Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21 0 (4): 0 375--395, 2000. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(99)00019-2

    doi:10.1016/s0378-8733(99)00019-2

  3. [3]

    J. C. Brunson, S. Fassino, A. McInnes, M. Narayan, B. Richardson, C. Franck, and R. Laubenbacher. Evolutionary events in a mathematical sciences research collaboration network. Scientometrics, 99 0 (3): 0 973--998, 2014. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1209-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1209-z 2014

  4. [4]

    Ronald S. Burt. Structural Holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Structural holes and good ideas

    Ronald S Burt. Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110 0 (2): 0 349--399, 2004. doi:10.1086/421787

    doi:10.1086/421787 2004

  6. [6]

    A supervised and distributed framework for cold-start author disambiguation in large-scale publications

    Yibo Chen, Zhiyi Jiang, Jianliang Gao, Hongliang Du, Liping Gao, and Zhao Li. A supervised and distributed framework for cold-start author disambiguation in large-scale publications. Neural Computing and Applications, 35: 0 13093--13108, 2023. doi:10.1007/s00521-020-05684-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00521-020-05684-y 2023

  7. [7]

    On the use of arxiv as a dataset

    Colin B Clement, Matthew Bierbaum, Kevin P O'Keeffe, and Alexander A Alemi. On the use of arxiv as a dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00075, 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1905.00075

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.00075 1905

  8. [8]

    Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions

    Norman Cliff. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114 0 (3): 0 494--509, 1993. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494

    doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494 1993

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Invisible Colleges; Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities

    Diana Crane. Invisible Colleges; Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,, 1972

    1972

  2. [10]

    de Solla Price and Donald deB

    Derek J. de Solla Price and Donald deB. Beaver. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21 0 (11): 0 1011--1018, 1966. doi:10.1037/h0024051

    1966 doi

  3. [11]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arxiv preprint, 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805

    2019 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Unpacking burt's constraint measure

    Martin G Everett and Stephen P Borgatti. Unpacking burt's constraint measure. Social Networks, 62: 0 65--73, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2020.02.001

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Community detection in graphs

    Santo Fortunato. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486 0 (3): 0 75--174, 2010. ISSN 0370-1573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Linton C. Freeman. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1 0 (3): 0 215--239, 1978. ISSN 0378-8733. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

    1978 doi

  7. [15]

    The strength of weak ties

    Mark S Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 0 (6): 0 1360--1380, 1973

    1973

  8. [16]

    BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure

    Maarten Grootendorst. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure . arXiv preprint, 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.05794

    2022 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hagberg, Pieter J

    Aric A. Hagberg, Pieter J. Swart, and Daniel S. Chult. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX . In Gaël, Jarrod Varoquaux, and Travis Vaught, editors, Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy2008), pages 11--15, 2008. URL https://w...

    2008

  10. [18]

    A strategic model of social and economic networks

    Matthew O Jackson and Asher Wolinsky. A strategic model of social and economic networks. Journal of economic theory, 71 0 (1): 0 44--74, 1996. doi:10.1006/jeth.1996.0108

    1996

  11. [19]

    The homophily principle in social network analysis: A survey

    Kazi Zainab Khanam, Gautam Srivastava, and Vijay Mago. The homophily principle in social network analysis: A survey. Multimedia Tools Appl., 82 0 (6): 0 8811–8854, 2022. ISSN 1380-7501. doi:10.1007/s11042-021-11857-1

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance

    Rajat Khanna and Isin Guler. Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance. Strategic Management Journal, 43 0 (7): 0 1402--1430, 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3367

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Scale‐free collaboration networks: An author name disambiguation perspective

    Jinseok Kim. Scale‐free collaboration networks: An author name disambiguation perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70 0 (7): 0 685–700, January 2019. ISSN 2330-1643. doi:10.1002/asi.24158

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Factors influencing the research impact in cancer research: a collaboration and knowledge network analysis

    Shuang Liao, Christopher Lavender, and Huiwen Zhai. Factors influencing the research impact in cancer research: a collaboration and knowledge network analysis. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22 0 (1): 0 96, 2024. doi:10.1186/s12961-024-01205-8

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Charles F. Manski. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60 0 (3): 0 531--542, 1993. ISSN 0034-6527. doi:10.2307/2298123

    1993 doi

  16. [24]

    The role of citation networks to explain academic promotions: an empirical analysis of the italian national scientific qualification

    Maria Cristiana Martini, Elvira Pelle, Francesco Poggi, and Andrea Sciandra. The role of citation networks to explain academic promotions: an empirical analysis of the italian national scientific qualification. Scientometrics, 128: 0 4235--4263, 2021. doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04485-5

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and Steve Astels. hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering. Journal of Open Source Software, 2 0 (11): 0 205, 2017. doi:10.21105/joss.00205

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, Nathaniel Saul, and Lukas Großberger. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection. Journal of Open Source Software, 3 0 (29): 0 861, 2018. doi:10.21105/joss.00861

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks

    Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 0 (Volume 27, 2001): 0 415--444, 2001. ISSN 1545-2115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    The matthew effect in science

    Robert K Merton. The matthew effect in science. Science, 159 0 (3810): 0 56--63, 1968. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56

    1968 doi

  21. [29]

    The structure of scientific collaboration networks

    Mark EJ Newman. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98 0 (2): 0 404--409, 2001. doi:10.1073/pnas.021544898

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    Assortative mixing in networks

    Mark EJ Newman. Assortative mixing in networks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89: 0 208701, 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.208701

    2002 doi

  23. [31]

    Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration

    Mark EJ Newman. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 0 (suppl\_1): 0 5200--5205, 2004. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf's law

    Mark EJ Newman. Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf's law. Contemporary Physics, 46 0 (5): 0 323--351, 2005. doi:10.1080/00107510500052444

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    Modularity and community structure in networks

    Mark EJ Newman. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 0 (23): 0 8577--8582, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Mapping collaborations and partnerships in sdg research

    Jane Payumo, Guangming He, Anusha Chintamani Manjunatha, Devin Higgins, and Scout Calvert. Mapping collaborations and partnerships in sdg research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Volume 5 - 2020, 2021. doi:10.3389/frma.2020.612442

    2020

  27. [35]

    Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers

    Alexander Michael Petersen. Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 0 (34): 0 E4671--E4680, 2015. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501444112

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    A causal test of the strength of weak ties

    Karthik Rajkumar, Guillaume Saint-Jacques, Iavor Bojinov, Erik Brynjolfsson, and Sinan Aral. A causal test of the strength of weak ties. Science, 377 0 (6612): 0 1304--1310, 2022. doi:10.1126/science.abl4476

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    A supervised machine learning approach to author disambiguation in the web of science

    Andreas Rehs. A supervised machine learning approach to author disambiguation in the web of science. Journal of Informetrics, 15 0 (3): 0 101166, 2021. ISSN 1751-1577. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2021.101166

    2021

  30. [38]

    Romano, J

    J. Romano, J. D. Kromrey, J. Coraggio, and J. Skowronek. Appropriate statistics for ordinal-level data: Should we really be using t-tests and anovas on ranks? The Journal of Experimental Education, 74 0 (4): 0 347--369, 2006

    2006

  31. [39]

    Cosma Rohilla Shalizi and Andrew C. Thomas. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods & Research, 40 0 (2): 0 211--239, 2011. ISSN 0049-1241. doi:10.1177/0049124111404820

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Author name disambiguation for collaboration network analysis and visualization

    Andreas Strotmann, Dangzhi Zhao, and Tania Bubela. Author name disambiguation for collaboration network analysis and visualization. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46 0 (1): 0 1--20, 2009. doi:10.1002/meet.2009.1450460218

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The role of endogenous and exogenous mechanisms in the formation of r & d networks

    Mario V Tomasello, Mauro Napoletano, Antonios Garas, and Frank Schweitzer. The role of endogenous and exogenous mechanisms in the formation of r & d networks. Scientific reports, 4 0 (1): 0 5679, 2014. doi:10.1038/srep05679

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks

    Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393 0 (6684): 0 440--442, 1998. doi:10.1038/30918

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge

    Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin Jones, and Brian Uzzi. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science (New York, N.Y.), 316: 0 1036--9, 06 2007. doi:10.1126/science.1136099

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    Higher-order structures of local collaboration networks are associated with individual scientific productivity

    Wenlong Yang and Yang Wang. Higher-order structures of local collaboration networks are associated with individual scientific productivity. EPJ Data Science, 13 0 (1): 0 15, 2024. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00453-6

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Xiao Zhang, Travis Martin, and M. E. J. Newman. Identification of core-periphery structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E, 91: 0 032803, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.91.032803

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.