Binary Scientific Star合作者核心大小
Binary Scientific Star Coauthors Core Size
摘要：
研究了“主要科学家”（LI）与其合著者（CA）的联合出版物（JP）数量（$J$）之间的关系$ J \propto A/r^α$以及随后的合著者核心概念（Ausloos 2013）是否可以扩展到团队式系统。这是通过考虑每个合著者可以如此强烈地绑定到LI，他们正在形成{ \it二元科学星}（BSS）系统相对于他们的其他合作者。此外，在同行评审期刊和“会议录”上发表的文章通常被认为是“不同质量”的，它们被分别区分开来。还检查了用于测量$J$和$α$的时间间隔的作用。还采取了新的间接措施。为了使这一点，两个LI的情况下，许多CA进行了研究。据发现，只有少数BSS需要进行有效的检查。指数$α$结果是“第二科学家”弱依赖，但仍然“大小”和“出版类型”依赖，根据CA或JP的数量。CA的核心价值被发现是（CA或JP）的大小和出版物类型的依赖，但仍然在一个可以理解的范围。有点出乎意料的是，没有发现在同行评审期刊和会议论文中发表的关于二元科学之星CA核心价值的特殊质的差异。最后，对BSS团队中的伙伴合作提出了一些看法。有人建议，这些措施可以作为区分科学家在团队中的作用的标准。
英文摘要：
It is examined whether the relationship $ J \propto A/r^α$, and the subsequent coauthor core notion (Ausloos 2013), between the number ($J$) of joint publications (JP) by a "main scientist" (LI) with her/his coauthors (CAs) can be extended to a team-like system. This is done by considering that each coauthor can be so strongly tied to the LI that they are forming {\it binary scientific star} (BSS) systems with respect to their other collaborators. Moreover, publications in peer review journals and in "proceedings", both often thought to be of "different quality", are separetely distinguished. The role of a time interval for measuring $J$ and $α$ is also examined. New indirect measures are also introduced. For making the point, two LI cases with numerous CAs are studied. It is found that only a few BSS need to be usefully examined. The exponent $α$ turns out to be "second scientist" weakly dependent, but still "size" and "publication type" dependent, according to the number of CAs or JP. The CA core value is found to be (CA or JP) size and publication type dependent, but remains in an understandable range. Somewhat unexpectedly, no special qualitative difference on the binary scientific star CA core value is found between publications in peer review journals and in proceedings. In conclusion, some remark is made on partner cooperation in BSS teams. It is suggested that such measures can serve as criteria for distinguishing the role of scientists in a team.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
