Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Roychowdhury, V.P."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Simkin, M.V.; Roychowdhury, V.P.: ¬A mathematical theory of citing (2007) 0.00 
    0.0030491136 = product of:
  0.006098227 = sum of:
    0.006098227 = product of:
      0.012196454 = sum of:
        0.012196454 = weight(_text_:a in 589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012196454 = score(doc=589,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 589, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Recently we proposed a model in which when a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random papers, cites them, and also copies a fraction of their references. The model was stimulated by our finding that a majority of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in other papers. It accounted quantitatively for several properties of empirically observed distribution of citations; however, important features such as power-law distributions of citations to papers published during the same year and the fact that the average rate of citing decreases with aging of a paper were not accounted for by that model. Here, we propose a modified model: When a scientist writes a manuscript, he picks up several random recent papers, cites them, and also copies some of their references. The difference with the original model is the word recent. We solve the model using methods of the theory of branching processes, and find that it can explain the aforementioned features of citation distribution, which our original model could not account for. The model also can explain sleeping beauties in science; that is, papers that are little cited for a decade or so and later awaken and get many citations. Although much can be understood from purely random models, we find that to obtain a good quantitative agreement with empirical citation data, one must introduce Darwinian fitness parameter for the papers.
    Type
    a
  2. Simkin, M.V.; Roychowdhury, V.P.: Why does attention to web articles fall with Time? (2015) 0.00 
    0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=2163,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2163, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We analyze access statistics of 150 blog entries and news articles for periods of up to 3 years. Access rate falls as an inverse power of time passed since publication. The power law holds for periods of up to 1,000 days. The exponents are different for different blogs and are distributed between 0.6 and 3.2. We argue that the decay of attention to a web article is caused by the link to it first dropping down the list of links on the website's front page and then disappearing from the front page and its subsequent movement further into background. The other proposed explanations that use a decaying with time novelty factor, or some intricate theory of human dynamics, cannot explain all of the experimental observations.
    Type
    a

Years