Analysis of co-authoring and board of examiners networks of graduate programs: evidence on the performance of teachers in the interdisciplinary field for the 2013-2016 four-year period Análise de redes de coautoria e de bancas de avaliação em programas de pós-graduação: evidências na atuação dos docentes da área interdisciplinar para o quadriênio 2013-2016 Análisis de redes de coautoría e de bancas examinadoras de programas de posgrado: evidencia sobre el desempeño de los docentes en el área interdisciplinaria para el cuatrienio 2013-2016
Tipo
Artigo
Data de publicação
2022
Periódico
Ciencia da Informacao
Citações (Scopus)
0
Autores
Soares S.M.
Schimit P.H.T.
Schimit P.H.T.
Orientador
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
© 2022, Brazilian Institute for Information in Science and Technology. All rights reserved.Scientific collaboration is a common practice for constructing and disseminating knowledge, and one of the products is the publication of co-authored scientific articles. These publications form a network of co-authors, and studying these networks helps to understand aspects of collaboration and the construction of knowledge. This co-authorship network can be analyzed using complex network measures to make the comparison easier between programs, such as the shortest middle path, clustering coefficient, and density, among other measures. Other types of scientific collaboration also generate a network of contacts, such as mutual participation in the board of examiners. In Brazil, science is mainly produced in the postgraduate programs of universities, which are evaluated and classified by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel(CAPES – directly translation of Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior). As each area of knowledge is evaluated differently, this work studies the postgraduate programs of the Interdisciplinary area, subarea of engineering, technology, and management for the 2013-2016 quadrennium. The objective is to evaluate the scientific collaboration between professors of the same program from the network of co-authorship articles. The conclusion is that networks have different characteristics according to the type of management (public or private). If a program has a network that indicates greater internal collaboration among researchers for a type of scientific production (co-authorship or boards), this is reflected in the other network.