Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.041938342 = sum of:
  0.021271009 = product of:
    0.085084036 = sum of:
      0.085084036 = weight(_text_:authors in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.085084036 = score(doc=2346,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020667333 = product of:
    0.041334666 = sum of:
      0.041334666 = weight(_text_:j in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041334666 = score(doc=2346,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.2482419 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In many scientific fields, the order of coauthors on a paper conveys information about each individual's contribution to a piece of joint work. We argue that in prior network analyses of coauthorship networks, the information on ordering has been insufficiently considered because ties between authors are typically symmetrized. This is basically the same as assuming that each coauthor has contributed equally to a paper. We introduce a solution to this problem by adopting a coauthorship credit allocation model proposed by Kim and Diesner (2014), which in its core conceptualizes coauthoring as a directed, weighted, and self-looped network. We test and validate our application of the adopted framework based on a sample data of 861 authors who have published in the journal Psychometrika. The results suggest that this novel sociometric approach can complement traditional measures based on undirected networks and expand insights into coauthoring patterns such as the hierarchy of collaboration among scholars. As another form of validation, we also show how our approach accurately detects prominent scholars in the Psychometric Society affiliated with the journal.

0.029654887 = sum of:
  0.0150408745 = product of:
    0.060163498 = sum of:
      0.060163498 = weight(_text_:authors in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060163498 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014614012 = product of:
    0.029228024 = sum of:
      0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029228024 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on journal publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.