Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027402883 = product of:
  0.08220865 = sum of:
    0.08220865 = product of:
      0.1644173 = sum of:
        0.1644173 = weight(_text_:networks in 5297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1644173 = score(doc=5297,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.22247115 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047034867 = queryNorm
            0.73905 = fieldWeight in 5297, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Several studies have found that collaboration networks are scale-free, proposing that such networks can be modeled by specific network evolution mechanisms like preferential attachment. This study argues that collaboration networks can look more or less scale-free depending on the methods for resolving author name ambiguity in bibliographic data. Analyzing networks constructed from multiple datasets containing 3.4 M ~ 9.6 M publication records, this study shows that collaboration networks in which author names are disambiguated by the commonly used heuristic, i.e., forename-initial-based name matching, tend to produce degree distributions better fitted to power-law slopes with the typical scaling parameter (2 < a < 3) than networks disambiguated by more accurate algorithm-based methods. Such tendency is observed across collaboration networks generated under various conditions such as cumulative years, 5- and 1-year sliding windows, and random sampling, and through simulation, found to arise due mainly to artefactual entities created by inaccurate disambiguation. This cautionary study calls for special attention from scholars analyzing network data in which entities such as people, organization, and gene can be merged or split by improper disambiguation.

0.016780771 = product of:
  0.050342314 = sum of:
    0.050342314 = product of:
      0.10068463 = sum of:
        0.10068463 = weight(_text_:networks in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10068463 = score(doc=2346,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22247115 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047034867 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.016780771 = product of:
  0.050342314 = sum of:
    0.050342314 = product of:
      0.10068463 = sum of:
        0.10068463 = weight(_text_:networks in 2936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10068463 = score(doc=2936,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22247115 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047034867 = queryNorm
            0.45257387 = fieldWeight in 2936, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scholars have often relied on name initials to resolve name ambiguities in large-scale coauthorship network research. This approach bears the risk of incorrectly merging or splitting author identities. The use of initial-based disambiguation has been justified by the assumption that such errors would not affect research findings too much. This paper tests that assumption by analyzing coauthorship networks from five academic fields-biology, computer science, nanoscience, neuroscience, and physics-and an interdisciplinary journal, PNAS. Name instances in data sets of this study were disambiguated based on heuristics gained from previous algorithmic disambiguation solutions. We use disambiguated data as a proxy of ground-truth to test the performance of three types of initial-based disambiguation. Our results show that initial-based disambiguation can misrepresent statistical properties of coauthorship networks: It deflates the number of unique authors, number of components, average shortest paths, clustering coefficient, and assortativity, while it inflates average productivity, density, average coauthor number per author, and largest component size. Also, on average, more than half of top 10 productive or collaborative authors drop off the lists. Asian names were found to account for the majority of misidentification by initial-based disambiguation due to their common surname and given name initials.

0.0063725756 = product of:
  0.019117726 = sum of:
    0.019117726 = product of:
      0.038235452 = sum of:
        0.038235452 = weight(_text_:22 in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038235452 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1647081 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047034867 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:54:15