随着学科之间渗透日益扩展，越来越多的机构意识到科研合作对促进科研工作的重要作用，并越来越重视研究合作。通过对机构之间的合作网络进行分析，可以更深层次地理解研究合作的意义，指导合作的方向和方式。运用复杂网络方法以中国管理科学领域机构合作为研究对象，从网络整体属性和个体属性两个层面系统分析机构合作的网络结构，并按照时间段划分分析其演化规律。以遴选的137种管理科学重要期刊（A类期刊和A+期刊）为基础，收集了中国大陆学者2001-2015发表的论文6670篇，作为分析的样本数据。研究结果表明近年来中国管理科学领域机构层面的合作度和合作率总体上变化不大。网络整体属性指标分析结果显示中国管理科学领域的机构合作网络中大部分合作关系很弱，随着网络中结点数量增加，连通子图数量反而减少。核心-边缘分析结果显示香港科研机构在合作网络中起到重要连接作用。微观的中心性指标分析结果表明在三个中心性指标以及发文篇数及被引次数指标下，排序第一的都是中国科学院。程度中心性、中间中心性与接近中心性之间存在着很强的正相关关系，发文篇数和被引次数都和程度中心性、接近中心性、中间中心性有着较强的正相关关系。
With the expanding penetration of disciplines, more and more organizations realize that research cooperation conducive to the development of scientific research and attach great importance to research cooperation. The cooperation network between organizations is analyzed from co-authorship paper, which will help to understand the significance of research cooperation at a deeper level and to guide the direction and mode of research cooperation. Recently, Management Science has been experiencing rapid development and playing increasing important roles in the economic prosperity and social development in China. However, the research about the cooperation network about Management Science in China is still relatively scarce. Based on Mainland China scholars' 6670 papers included by 137 important Management Science journals (rating A or A+) from 2001 to 2015, social network analysis method is adopted to make a statistical analysis of the structure and evolution of institution collaboration network on management sciences in Mainland China. The empirical results show that the institutional-level cooperation rate and cooperation degree of about Management Science in China are 81.31% and 2.32 respectively. Moreover, the cooperation rate and cooperation degree change little during 2001 to 2015. Indicators of the overall network analysis reveal that the most cooperation relation among the institutions is feeble. The number of connected subgraphs is reduced with the increasing nodes in the network. The core-edge analysis shows that Hong Kong's research institutions play an important connection role among the cooperation network. The results of degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and closeness centrality indicate that the Chinese Academy of Sciences is the most influential institution among the cooperation network. Moreover, there is a strong positive correlation between the centrality indicators and the number of articles, and the number of being cited.
[1] 国家自然科学基金委员会管理科学部.管理科学发展战略:暨管理科学十二五优先资助领域[M].北京:科学出版社,2011.
[2] 徐伟宣,李建平.我国管理科学与工程学科的新进展[J].中国科学院院刊,2008,23(2):162-166.
[3] Wang J, Yan Ruiliang, Hollister K, et al. A historic review of management science research in China[J]. Omega, 2008,36(6):919-932.
[4] White L, Smith H, Currie C. OR in developing countries:A review[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2011,208(1):1-11.
[5] Gazni A, Sugimoto C R, Didegah F. Mapping world scientific collaboration:Authors, institutions, and countries[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(2):323-335.
[6] Coccia M, Wang Lili. Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(8):2057-2061.
[7] Newman M E J. The structure of scientific collaboration networks[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2001, 98(2):404-409.
[8] Yan Erjia, Ding Ying, Zhu Qinghua. Mapping library and information science in China:A coauthorship network analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 83(1):115-131.
[9] 刘盛博,丁堃.中国科技管理领域科技合作复杂网络分析[J].情报学报,2010,29(1):177-183.
[10] Chang Paolong, Hsieh P N. Bibliometric overview of operations research/management science research in Asia[J]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 25(2) 217-241.
[11] 邱均平,温芳芳.我国"985工程"高校科研合作网络研究[J].情报学报,2011,30(7):746-755.
[12] 王贤文,丁堃,朱晓宇.中国主要科研机构的科学合作网络分析——基于Web of Science的研究[J].科学学研究,2010,28(12):1806-1812.
[13] 刘作仪,吴登生,李建平.2001-2010年我国管理与运筹学研究态势的计量分析:基于Web of Science数据[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2012,14(1):1-8.
[14] Wang Weichao, Wu Yishan, Pan Yuntao. An investigation of collaborations between top Chinese universities:A new quantitative approach[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2):1535-1545.
[15] Niu Fenggao, Qiu Junping. Network structure, distribution and the growth of Chinese international research collaboration[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2):1221-1233.
[16] Zhou Ping, Bornmann L. An overview of academic publishing and collaboration between China and Germany[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(2):1781-1793.
[17] 刘云,常青.中国基础研究国际合作的科学计量测度与评价[J].管理科学学报,2001,4(1):64-74.
[18] He Tianwei. International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 80(3):571-582.
[19] Kumar S, Jan J M. Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980-2010[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 97(3):491-517.
[20] Koseoglu M A. Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research:1980-2014[J]. Scientometrics,2016, 109(1):203-226.
[21] Fry T D, Donohue J M, Saladin B A, et al. The internationalisation of operations management research[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2015, 53(16):4857-4887.
[22] Kumar S, Rohani V A, Ratnavelu K. International research collaborations of ASEAN Nations in economics, 1979-2010[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(1):847-867.
[23] 张利华,闫明.基于SNA的中国管理科学科研合作网络分析——以《管理评论》(2004-2008)为样本[J].管理评论,2010,22(4):39-46.
[24] 闫相斌,宋晓龙.我国管理科学领域机构学术合作网络分析[J].科研管理,2011,32(12):104- 111.
[25] Barabási A L, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks[J]. Science, 1999, 286(5439):509-512.
[26] 陈子凤,官建成.合作网络的小世界性对创新绩效的影响[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(3):115-120.
[27] Nooy W, Mrvar A,Batagelj V. Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University, 2005.
[28] Freeman L C. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification[J]. Social networks, 1979, 1(3):215-239.
[29] Liu Xiaoming, Bollen J, Nelson M L, et al. Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2005, 41(6):1462-1480.
