phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | scientific coauthorship networks in sociology— “Science collaboration networks occupy an important place in the analysis of social networks.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Based on this insight, we can conclude that the scientific networks of coauthors’ works of sociologists in Serbia are not quite developed.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We have analysed coauthors’ works according to the criterion of belonging to the same or different scientific/educational institution.” | |
| mechanism | 1990s isolation and economic collapse produced minimal science funding and minimal international contact, which suppressed the coauthorship that funding and contact would otherwise generate— “Among all else, it produced minimal investment in science, as well as hard and minimal international cooperation.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | projects framed around very general themes let each associate work on his own issue without leaving his own profession, so participation never turns into joint problem-solving and hence not into coauthorship— “Problems related to the project are mostly chosen based on such general notion which could enable the project work of the associates who could tackle various issues, without the obligation to step out of their own profession.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | the absence of distinguished scientists who gather younger associates leaves no nuclei around which collaboration networks could form— “In Serbian Sociology there are no distinguished scientists who tend to gather younger associates” | mechanisms[2] |
| extends | Moody (2004), The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network— “Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that the cooperation of the Serbian sociologists at the beginning of the 21st century was three times smaller than the cooperation of the sociologists portrayed in Moody’s research.” | claim_relations[0] |
| sense | science collaboration - AS AT LEAST ONE SHARED BYLINE: in network analysis the authors are the nodes and a link exists if there is at least one coauthored work, so the relation is binary and carries no degree, duration or division of labour— “In this kind of analysis, the actors (nods) are authors, and connections (links) between them are coauthored works. The connection exists if there is at least one coauthored work between two scientists” | senses[0] |
| sense | science collaboration - AS A SOCIAL CONVENTION with moving boundaries: what counts is settled between scientists rather than by a criterion, and the paper says the boundary is prone to change— “The process of determining the boundaries of collaboration is prone to change” | senses[1] |
| sense | citation - SEVERAL DIFFERENT ACTS UNDER ONE NAME: bibliographic pairing, co-citation, direct, symbolic, negative, diplomatic and auto citation, which a count cannot tell apart— “Škorić (2010) says that citation envelops many aspects: bibliographic pairing, co-citation, direct citation, symbolic citation, negative, diplomatic and auto citation” | senses[2] |
| audit | science collaboration —operationalised-as→ coauthored work — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: the previous sentences name 'science collaboration networks' built on coauthorship.— “In this kind of analysis, the actors (nods) are authors, and connections (links) between them are coauthored works. The connection exists if there is at least one coauthored work between two scientists” | concept_edges[0] |
| edge | auto citation —is-a→ citation— “Škorić (2010) says that citation envelops many aspects: bibliographic pairing, co-citation, direct citation, symbolic citation, negative, diplomatic and auto citation” | concept_edges[1] |
| for which use | limitation — any result about science collaboration networks: the paper states very few works define what science collaboration is, so studies of it need not be studies of the same thing— “However, there are very few works which define what science collaboration is.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — a comparison of collaboration rates between studies or communities: the term is hard to define because it is largely a matter of social conventions between scientists, and what some count as collaboration others would call a loose grouping or informal connection— “Katz and Martin (1997) concluded that the term of “collaboration” is hard to define, because it is in great measure a thing of social conventions between scientists. That which by some would be considered as collaboration, others could define as loose grouping or collection of informal connections” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — a synthesis across collaboration-network studies: researchers commonly take one aspect only and narrow their operational definitions accordingly, so the definitions differ between the studies being combined— “Researchers of the scientific networks more commonly opt for just one of its aspects and therefore narrow their operational definitions of science collaboration networks” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — a citation-based measure of influence: the same count aggregates ceremonial citation, a demonstration of knowing the literature, with diplomatic non-citation, the purposeful omission of authors from a rival group— “Cole (1970) speaks about “ceremonial citation” as a demonstration in literature knowing and “diplomatic non-citation” as purposeful non-citation of authors from rival group etc.” | limitations[5] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The paper states it cannot readily explain why Serbian sociologists do not co-author.— “The question why the Serbian sociologists do not cooperate during the writing of scientific works cannot be answered easily.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The paper notes that its comparison is between scientific communities of very different sizes, so the author/coauthor distributions are not directly comparable.— “Considering the fact that the issue is about comparing scientific communities of various sizes, the samples of such a distribution of authors’ and coauthors’ works are quite different.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The field measures a thing it rarely defines: the paper states that very few works define what science collaboration is.— “However, there are very few works which define what science collaboration is.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The term rests on social convention, and what one researcher counts as collaboration another counts as a loose grouping.— “Katz and Martin (1997) concluded that the term of “collaboration” is hard to define, because it is in great measure a thing of social conventions between scientists. That which by some would be considered as collaboration, others could define as loose grouping or collection of informal connections” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Each study narrows the term to one aspect, so the operational definitions differ between the works being compared. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | Citation counts aggregate acts that mean opposite things, including citing to display reading and deliberately not citing a rival. | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Single-authored works make up 89.1% of the published texts and coauthored works only 10.9%. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Among the coauthored papers, collaboration between colleagues in the same institution is twice as frequent as collaboration across institutions. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The authors conclude from these frequencies that coauthorship networks among Serbian sociologists are underdeveloped. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Serbian sociologists at the start of the 21st century collaborated three times less than the sociologists in Moody's international data. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Using Moody's methodology, Kronegger and colleagues found different network structures among sociologists. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | None of the study programmes has a subject dedicated to the theory and analysis of social networks. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | In all four Slovenian disciplines examined, scientists preferentially form new coauthorships with the coauthors of their coauthors, closing triangles - a signature of small-world clustering within network borders. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | 89.1% — share of single-authored papers in the three Serbian sociology journals, 2000-2010 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 10.9% — share of coauthored papers in the same three journals over the same period Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 33.2% — share of coauthored works in Sociological Abstracts 1963-1999, the comparison figure taken from Moody Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 3.00 — average network distance between Slovenian sociologists reported by Kronegger et al., against 3.97 in physics, 4.36 in biotechnology and 3.91 in mathematics Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| variable | proportion of author works (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | proportion of coauthor works (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| definition | basic research unit of science collaboration Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | ceremonial citation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | diplomatic non-citation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| definition | core knowledge Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[7] |
| definition | research frontier Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[8] |
| definition | preferential attachment model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[9] |
| definition | small-world model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[10] |
| definition | structural cohesion model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[11] |
| concept | science collaboration Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | coauthored work Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | citation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | auto citation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | core knowledge Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| proportion | as written: The proportion of author works in total number of published texts Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| frequency distribution | as written: Frequency of authors’ and coauthors’ works Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824