作者學術合作的凝聚力：輪廓狩野圖的應用

Cohesion of Authors’ Academic Collaboration: Application of Silhouette-Kano Diagram

升等與研究計畫的補助審查需檢附論文清單，尚少見其量化研究合作的凝聚力。提出「輪廓狩野圖」的繪製方法，以輪廓分數為座標（橫：群內偏離；縱：群間分離），結合狩野三區（魅力／期望／必備）的檢視，將合作強度分為強／中／弱。自科學網的SCI論文資料庫擷取6位高產量作者的生涯論文，依座標與分數判讀：魅力區且輪廓分數≥0.70為強；臨界為中；區外或入必備區為弱。結果顯示：6位中4位落於魅力區且分數皆≥0.70，判為強合作研究者；2位為弱合作研究者，其中一位單著論文量占81%（138／171），另一位的中間作者占50%（291／585），其輪廓分數分別為0.84與0.57：顯示僅憑論文量或輪廓狩野圖，不足以反映合作的結構，卻需另以輪廓分數檢視其合作研究的凝聚力。「輪廓狩野圖」能直觀評估合作的凝聚力，建議以「區位（魅力）+輪廓分數≥0.70」作為強合作的門檻。高產量不等於高凝聚，可為謀職、升等與補助研究審查提供客觀參考。

In academic hiring, promotion, and grant evaluation, publication lists are routinely required, yet quantitative assessments of collaboration cohesion remain uncommon. This study proposes a Silhouette–Kano chart to visualize an author’s publication portfolio, using the silhouette score as coordinates (x-axis: within-cluster deviation; y-axis: between-cluster separation) and overlaying Kano’s three zones (Attractive, One-dimensional, Must-be) to classify collaboration strength as strong, medium, or weak. Based on an SCI-indexed database from the Web of Science, we analyzed the career publications of six highly productive authors. The operational rule—“Attractive region + silhouette≥0.70 = strong; on the boundary = medium; outside or Must-be = weak”—was applied. Four authors were located in the Attractive region with silhouette scores≥0.70 and were thus classified as strong. Two were classified as weak due to their authorship patterns: one produced 81% single-authored papers (138/171), and another served as a middle author in 50% of papers (291/585); their silhouette scores were 0.84 and 0.57, respectively. These findings indicate that high productivity does not necessarily indicate strong collaboration cohesion. Both the spatial location on the Silhouette–Kano chart and the author’s positional roles provide critical insights into collaborative structure. The proposed chart offers an intuitive, quantitative benchmark for assessing collaboration cohesion, and the criterion“Attractive region + silhouette≥0.70”is recommended as an operational threshold to support fairer academic evaluations in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions.