Ó The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Collaboration between researchers and between research organizations is generally considered a desirable course of action, in particular by some funding bodies. However, collaboration within a multidisciplinary community, such as the Computer– Human Interaction (CHI) community, can be challenging. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the CHI conference proceedings to determine if papers that have authors from different organization or countries receive more citations than papers that are authored by members of the same organization. There was no significant difference between these three groups, indicating that there is no advantage for collaboration in terms of citation frequency. Furthermore, we tested if papers written by authors from different organizations or countries receive more best paper awards or at least award nominations. Papers from only one organization received significantly fewer nominations than collaborative papers.

Ó The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Collaboration between researchers and between research organizations is generally considered a desirable course of action, in particular by some funding bodies. However, collaboration within a multidisciplinary community, such as the Computer– Human Interaction (CHI) community, can be challenging. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the CHI conference proceedings to determine if papers that have authors from different organization or countries receive more citations than papers that are authored by members of the same organization. There was no significant difference between these three groups, indicating that there is no advantage for collaboration in terms of citation frequency. Furthermore, we tested if papers written by authors from different organizations or countries receive more best paper awards or at least award nominations. Papers from only one organization received significantly fewer nominations than collaborative papers.

Abstract — This paper reviews the trajectory of three information visualization innovations: treemaps, conetrees, and hyperbolic trees. These three ideas were first published in the early 1990s, so we are able to track academic publications, patents, trade press articles over almost two decades. We describe the early history of each approach, problems with data collection from differing sources, appropriate metrics, and strategies for visualizing these longitudinal data sets. This paper makes two contributions: (1) it offers the information visualization community a history of how certain ideas evolved, influenced others, and were adopted for widespread use and (2) it provides example of how such trajectories of historical trends can be gathered and visualized. Guidance for innovators and future analysts is offered.

Ó The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This study presents a historical overview of the International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI). It summarizes its growth, internationalization and collaboration. Rankings for countries, organizations and authors are provided. Furthermore, an analysis of the military funding for HRI papers is performed. Approximately 20 % of the papers are funded by the US Military. The proportion of papers from the US is around 65% and the dominant role of the US is only challenged by the strong position of Japan, in particular by the contributions by ATR.

c t i v it y e p o r t 2007 Table of contents 1. Team.................................................................................... 1

Abstract not found