Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  1. Lu, C.; Bu, Y.; Wang, J.; Ding, Y.; Torvik, V.; Schnaars, M.; Zhang, C.: Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity : a cross-level moderation model (2019) 0.06 
    0.058188327 = sum of:
  0.017720366 = product of:
    0.07088146 = sum of:
      0.07088146 = weight(_text_:authors in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07088146 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5219, 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=5219)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04046796 = product of:
    0.08093592 = sum of:
      0.08093592 = weight(_text_:v in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08093592 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.32293302 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.
  2. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.02 
    0.021702927 = product of:
  0.043405853 = sum of:
    0.043405853 = product of:
      0.17362341 = sum of:
        0.17362341 = weight(_text_:authors in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17362341 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = 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.
  3. Ding, Y.: Visualization of intellectual structure in information retrieval : author cocitation analysis (1998) 0.02 
    0.020673761 = product of:
  0.041347522 = sum of:
    0.041347522 = product of:
      0.16539009 = sum of:
        0.16539009 = weight(_text_:authors in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16539009 = score(doc=2792,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a cocitation analysis study from the international retrieval research field from 1987 to 1997. Data was taken from Social SciSearch, via Dialog, and the top 40 authors were submitted to author cocitation analysis to yield the intellectual structure of information retrieval. The resulting multidimensional scaling map revealed: identifiable author groups for information retrieval; location of these groups with respect to each other; extend of centrality and peripherality of authors within groups, proximities of authors within groups and across group boundaries; and the meaning of the axes of the map. Factor analysis was used to reveal the extent of the authors' research areas and statistical routines included: ALSCAL; clustering analysis and factor analysis
  4. 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) 0.02 
    0.02023398 = product of:
  0.04046796 = sum of:
    0.04046796 = product of:
      0.08093592 = sum of:
        0.08093592 = weight(_text_:v in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08093592 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.32293302 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Ding, Y.: Topic-based PageRank on author cocitation networks (2011) 0.02 
    0.015346288 = product of:
  0.030692575 = sum of:
    0.030692575 = product of:
      0.1227703 = sum of:
        0.1227703 = weight(_text_:authors in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1227703 = score(doc=4348,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ranking authors is vital for identifying a researcher's impact and standing within a scientific field. There are many different ranking methods (e.g., citations, publications, h-index, PageRank, and weighted PageRank), but most of them are topic-independent. This paper proposes topic-dependent ranks based on the combination of a topic model and a weighted PageRank algorithm. The author-conference-topic (ACT) model was used to extract topic distribution of individual authors. Two ways for combining the ACT model with the PageRank algorithm are proposed: simple combination (I_PR) or using a topic distribution as a weighted vector for PageRank (PR_t). Information retrieval was chosen as the test field and representative authors for different topics at different time phases were identified. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to analyze the ranking difference between I_PR and PR_t.
  6. He, B.; Ding, Y.; Ni, C.: Mining enriched contextual information of scientific collaboration : a meso perspective (2011) 0.01 
    0.0147669725 = product of:
  0.029533945 = sum of:
    0.029533945 = product of:
      0.11813578 = sum of:
        0.11813578 = weight(_text_:authors in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11813578 = score(doc=4444,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Studying scientific collaboration using coauthorship networks has attracted much attention in recent years. How and in what context two authors collaborate remain among the major questions. Previous studies, however, have focused on either exploring the global topology of coauthorship networks (macro perspective) or ranking the impact of individual authors (micro perspective). Neither of them has provided information on the context of the collaboration between two specific authors, which may potentially imply rich socioeconomic, disciplinary, and institutional information on collaboration. Different from the macro perspective and micro perspective, this article proposes a novel method (meso perspective) to analyze scientific collaboration, in which a contextual subgraph is extracted as the unit of analysis. A contextual subgraph is defined as a small subgraph of a large-scale coauthorship network that captures relationship and context between two coauthors. This method is applied to the field of library and information science. Topological properties of all the subgraphs in four time spans are investigated, including size, average degree, clustering coefficient, and network centralization. Results show that contextual subgprahs capture useful contextual information on two authors' collaboration.
  7. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.012530192 = product of:
  0.025060384 = sum of:
    0.025060384 = product of:
      0.100241534 = sum of:
        0.100241534 = weight(_text_:authors in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100241534 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = 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.
  8. 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 
    0.012530192 = product of:
  0.025060384 = sum of:
    0.025060384 = product of:
      0.100241534 = sum of:
        0.100241534 = weight(_text_:authors in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100241534 = score(doc=274,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = 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.
  9. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.01 
    0.012530192 = product of:
  0.025060384 = sum of:
    0.025060384 = product of:
      0.100241534 = sum of:
        0.100241534 = weight(_text_:authors in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100241534 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.
  10. Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018) 0.01 
    0.012530192 = product of:
  0.025060384 = sum of:
    0.025060384 = product of:
      0.100241534 = sum of:
        0.100241534 = weight(_text_:authors in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.100241534 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.
  11. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.012198481 = product of:
  0.024396962 = sum of:
    0.024396962 = product of:
      0.048793923 = sum of:
        0.048793923 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048793923 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  12. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010) 0.01 
    0.011813577 = product of:
  0.023627155 = sum of:
    0.023627155 = product of:
      0.09450862 = sum of:
        0.09450862 = weight(_text_:authors in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09450862 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = 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.
  13. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.01045584 = product of:
  0.02091168 = sum of:
    0.02091168 = product of:
      0.04182336 = sum of:
        0.04182336 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04182336 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18016386 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
  14. Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.; Liang, X.; Gao, G.; Zhao, Y.: Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of career (2018) 0.01 
    0.010441827 = product of:
  0.020883653 = sum of:
    0.020883653 = product of:
      0.08353461 = sum of:
        0.08353461 = weight(_text_:authors in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08353461 = score(doc=4012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4012, 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=4012)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.
  15. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009) 0.01 
    0.010336881 = product of:
  0.020673761 = sum of:
    0.020673761 = product of:
      0.082695045 = sum of:
        0.082695045 = weight(_text_:authors in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082695045 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = 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.
  16. Ni, C.; Shaw, D.; Lind, S.M.; Ding, Y.: Journal impact and proximity : an assessment using bibliographic features (2013) 0.01 
    0.008860183 = product of:
  0.017720366 = sum of:
    0.017720366 = product of:
      0.07088146 = sum of:
        0.07088146 = weight(_text_:authors in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088146 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 686, 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=686)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full-text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.
  17. Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.: Citation content analysis (CCA) : a framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content (2013) 0.01 
    0.008860183 = product of:
  0.017720366 = sum of:
    0.017720366 = product of:
      0.07088146 = sum of:
        0.07088146 = weight(_text_:authors in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088146 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 975, 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=975)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.
  18. Sugimoto, C.R.; Li, D.; Russell, T.G.; Finlay, S.C.; Ding, Y.: ¬The shifting sands of disciplinary development : analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation (2011) 0.01 
    0.0073834863 = product of:
  0.0147669725 = sum of:
    0.0147669725 = product of:
      0.05906789 = sum of:
        0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05906789 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.
  19. Lu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ahn, Y.-Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, C.; Ma, D.: Co-contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations (2020) 0.01 
    0.0073834863 = product of:
  0.0147669725 = sum of:
    0.0147669725 = product of:
      0.05906789 = sum of:
        0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05906789 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5963, 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=5963)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.

Authors

Years

Themes