Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: a multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers

SpringerPlus

Table 2 Interviewees and their centrality in the global nanotechnology research network

Interviewee^{a, b, c}	Eigenvector centrality	Closeness centrality	Degree centrality	Eccentricity
TUD1A	1.39 × 10⁻⁶	0.18	1.06 × 10⁻⁴	14
TUD1B	5.98 × 10⁻⁶	0.19	1.16 × 10⁻⁴	13
TUE1A	7.69 × 10⁻⁷	0.17	5.70 × 10⁻⁵	15
TUE1B	5.31 × 10⁻⁶	0.19	8.46 × 10⁻⁵	14
UT1A	2.26 × 10⁻⁶	0.18	7.73 × 10⁻⁵	14
UT1B	7.32 × 10⁻⁷	0.17	3.86 × 10⁻⁵	14
TUD2A	3.76 × 10⁻⁷	0.17	6.07 × 10⁻⁵	14
TUD2B	1.77 × 10⁻⁶	0.17	1.16 × 10⁻⁴	15
TUE2A	6.75 × 10⁻⁶	0.19	1.71 × 10⁻⁴	13
TUE2B	7.68 × 10⁻⁶	0.19	1.27 × 10⁻⁴	14
UT2A	6.03 × 10⁻⁷	0.17	1.12 × 10⁻⁴	14
UT2B	5.61 × 10⁻⁶	0.20	1.31 × 10⁻⁴	14
TUD3A	1.29 × 10⁻¹⁰	0.13	7.36 × 10⁻⁶	16
TUD3B	1.02 × 10⁻⁶	0.18	1.07 × 10⁻⁴	14
TUE3A	2.63 × 10⁻⁶	0.19	1.55 × 10⁻⁴	15
TUE3B	2.34 × 10⁻⁶	0.18	1.32 × 10⁻⁴	14
UT3A	2.36 × 10⁻⁵	0.17	5.89 × 10⁻⁵	14
UT3B	1.39 × 10⁻³	0.18	1.18 × 10⁻⁴	15

^aTUD is Delft University of Technology, TUE is Eindhoven University of Technology, and UT is University of Twente
^bThe research orientation is indicated by the following digits: 1 (pure basic), 2 (use-inspired) and 3 (pure applied)
^cA and B indicate the two different interviewees in every category