Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Yan, E.; Chen, Z.; Li, K.: Authors' status and the perceived quality of their work : measuring citation sentiment change in nobel articles (2020) 0.04

0.040037964 = sum of:
  0.017983811 = product of:
    0.071935244 = sum of:
      0.071935244 = weight(_text_:authors in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071935244 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022054153 = product of:
    0.044108305 = sum of:
      0.044108305 = weight(_text_:k in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044108305 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.02
```
0.022025578 = product of:
  0.044051155 = sum of:
    0.044051155 = product of:
      0.17620462 = sum of:
        0.17620462 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17620462 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = 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.
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
```
0.012716474 = product of:
  0.025432948 = sum of:
    0.025432948 = product of:
      0.10173179 = sum of:
        0.10173179 = weight(_text_:authors in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10173179 = score(doc=274,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = 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.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014) 0.01

0.012505519 = product of:
  0.025011038 = sum of:
    0.025011038 = product of:
      0.050022077 = sum of:
        0.050022077 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050022077 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 26.10.2014 20:22:22

Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010) 0.01

0.011989206 = product of:
  0.023978412 = sum of:
    0.023978412 = product of:
      0.09591365 = sum of:
        0.09591365 = weight(_text_:authors in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09591365 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = 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.

Zhao, M.; Yan, E.; Li, K.: Data set mentions and citations : a content analysis of full-text publications (2018) 0.01

0.011027076 = product of:
  0.022054153 = sum of:
    0.022054153 = product of:
      0.044108305 = sum of:
        0.044108305 = weight(_text_:k in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044108305 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Wu, C.; Yan, E.; Zhu, Y.; Li, K.: Gender imbalance in the productivity of funded projects : a study of the outputs of National Institutes of Health R01 grants (2021) 0.01

0.011027076 = product of:
  0.022054153 = sum of:
    0.022054153 = product of:
      0.044108305 = sum of:
        0.044108305 = weight(_text_:k in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044108305 = score(doc=391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
      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
```
0.010490555 = product of:
  0.02098111 = sum of:
    0.02098111 = product of:
      0.08392444 = sum of:
        0.08392444 = weight(_text_:authors in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08392444 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = 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.

Yan, E.; Li, K.: Which domains do open-access journals do best in? : a 5-year longitudinal study (2018) 0.01

0.00918923 = product of:
  0.01837846 = sum of:
    0.01837846 = product of:
      0.03675692 = sum of:
        0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03675692 = score(doc=4257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Themes