-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009)
0.02
0.022031307 = product of:
0.044062614 = sum of:
0.044062614 = product of:
0.17625046 = sum of:
0.17625046 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17625046 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
-
Milojevic, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: ¬The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science : analysis of article title words (2011)
0.01
0.012804354 = product of:
0.025608707 = sum of:
0.025608707 = product of:
0.051217414 = sum of:
0.051217414 = weight(_text_:b in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051217414 = score(doc=4608,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011)
0.01
0.012719782 = product of:
0.025439564 = sum of:
0.025439564 = product of:
0.10175826 = sum of:
0.10175826 = weight(_text_:authors in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10175826 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.
-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012)
0.01
0.012719782 = product of:
0.025439564 = sum of:
0.025439564 = product of:
0.10175826 = sum of:
0.10175826 = weight(_text_:authors in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10175826 = score(doc=274,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010)
0.01
0.011992325 = product of:
0.02398465 = sum of:
0.02398465 = product of:
0.0959386 = sum of:
0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0959386 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
-
Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015)
0.01
0.010864854 = product of:
0.021729708 = sum of:
0.021729708 = product of:
0.043459415 = sum of:
0.043459415 = weight(_text_:b in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043459415 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009)
0.01
0.010493284 = product of:
0.020986568 = sum of:
0.020986568 = product of:
0.08394627 = sum of:
0.08394627 = weight(_text_:authors in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08394627 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.
-
Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.; He, B.; Tang, J.; Yan, E.; Lin, N.; Qin, Z.; Dong, T.: Modeling topic and community structure in social tagging : the TTR-LDA-Community model (2011)
0.01
0.009054045 = product of:
0.01810809 = sum of:
0.01810809 = product of:
0.03621618 = sum of:
0.03621618 = weight(_text_:b in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03621618 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.052226946 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
