Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Ding, Y."
  1. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.05 
    0.050362572 = product of:
  0.07554386 = sum of:
    0.009060195 = weight(_text_:in in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009060195 = score(doc=1521,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.06648366 = sum of:
      0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024024425 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1820-1833
  2. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.03 
    0.029724685 = product of:
  0.089174055 = sum of:
    0.089174055 = sum of:
      0.03963828 = weight(_text_:science in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03963828 = score(doc=4188,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.049535774 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049535774 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245
  3. Ding, Y.: ¬A review of ontologies with the Semantic Web in view (2001) 0.03 
    0.02865137 = product of:
  0.042977054 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.028028497 = product of:
      0.056056995 = sum of:
        0.056056995 = weight(_text_:science in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056056995 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 27(2001) no.?, S.377-384
  4. Xu, H.; Bu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhang, C.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Y.; Meyer, E.; Salas, E.; Ding, Y.: Team power dynamics and team impact : new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power (2022) 0.03 
    0.02637447 = product of:
  0.039561704 = sum of:
    0.013077264 = weight(_text_:in in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013077264 = score(doc=663,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.026484441 = product of:
      0.052968882 = sum of:
        0.052968882 = weight(_text_:science in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052968882 = score(doc=663,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1489-1505
  5. 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) 0.03 
    0.025676265 = product of:
  0.038514398 = sum of:
    0.018494045 = weight(_text_:in in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018494045 = score(doc=4143,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
    0.020020355 = product of:
      0.04004071 = sum of:
        0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04004071 = score(doc=4143,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4143, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.185-204
  6. Milojevic, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: ¬The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science : analysis of article title words (2011) 0.02 
    0.02276361 = product of:
  0.034145415 = sum of:
    0.014125061 = weight(_text_:in in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125061 = score(doc=4608,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
    0.020020355 = product of:
      0.04004071 = sum of:
        0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04004071 = score(doc=4608,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1933-1953
  7. Li, R.; Chambers, T.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Meng, L.: Patent citation analysis : calculating science linkage based on citing motivation (2014) 0.02 
    0.022689736 = product of:
  0.034034602 = sum of:
    0.007550162 = weight(_text_:in in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007550162 = score(doc=1257,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
    0.026484441 = product of:
      0.052968882 = sum of:
        0.052968882 = weight(_text_:science in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052968882 = score(doc=1257,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Science linkage is a widely used patent bibliometric indicator to measure patent linkage to scientific research based on the frequency of citations to scientific papers within the patent. Science linkage is also regarded as noisy because the subject of patent citation behavior varies from inventors/applicants to examiners. In order to identify and ultimately reduce this noise, we analyzed the different citing motivations of examiners and inventors/applicants. We built 4 hypotheses based upon our study of patent law, the unique economic nature of a patent, and a patent citation's market effect. To test our hypotheses, we conducted an expert survey based on our science linkage calculation in the domain of catalyst from U.S. patent data (2006-2009) over 3 types of citations: self-citation by inventor/applicant, non-self-citation by inventor/applicant, and citation by examiner. According to our results, evaluated by domain experts, we conclude that the non-self-citation by inventor/applicant is quite noisy and cannot indicate science linkage and that self-citation by inventor/applicant, although limited, is more appropriate for understanding science linkage.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1007-1017
  8. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009) 0.02 
    0.021843314 = product of:
  0.03276497 = sum of:
    0.012945832 = weight(_text_:in in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012945832 = score(doc=3083,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.01981914 = product of:
      0.03963828 = sum of:
        0.03963828 = weight(_text_:science in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03963828 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2107-2118
  9. 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 
    0.021787036 = product of:
  0.032680552 = sum of:
    0.015692718 = weight(_text_:in in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015692718 = score(doc=2337,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=2337,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2643-2656
  10. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010) 0.02 
    0.020794988 = product of:
  0.03119248 = sum of:
    0.008542033 = weight(_text_:in in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008542033 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
    0.022650447 = product of:
      0.045300893 = sum of:
        0.045300893 = weight(_text_:science in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045300893 = score(doc=3705,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1635-1643
  11. Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Liang, X.; Murray, D.S.: Understanding persistent scientific collaboration (2018) 0.02 
    0.020115227 = product of:
  0.03017284 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 4176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=4176,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4176, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4176)
    0.014156529 = product of:
      0.028313057 = sum of:
        0.028313057 = weight(_text_:science in 4176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028313057 = score(doc=4176,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4176, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Common sense suggests that persistence is key to success. In academia, successful researchers have been found more likely to be persistent in publishing, but little attention has been given to how persistence in maintaining collaborative relationships affects career success. This paper proposes a new bibliometric understanding of persistence that considers the prominent role of collaboration in contemporary science. Using this perspective, we analyze the relationship between persistent collaboration and publication quality along several dimensions: degree of transdisciplinarity, difference in coauthor's scientific age and their scientific impact, and research-team size. Contrary to traditional wisdom, our results show that persistent scientific collaboration does not always result in high-quality papers. We find that the most persistent transdisciplinary collaboration tends to output high-impact publications, and that those coauthors with diverse scientific impact or scientific ages benefit from persistent collaboration more than homogeneous compositions. We also find that researchers persistently working in large groups tend to publish lower-impact papers. These results contradict the colloquial understanding of collaboration in academia and paint a more nuanced picture of how persistent scientific collaboration relates to success, a picture that can provide valuable insights to researchers, funding agencies, policy makers, and mentor-mentee program directors. Moreover, the methodology in this study showcases a feasible approach to measure persistent collaboration.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.438-448
  12. Ni, C.; Shaw, D.; Lind, S.M.; Ding, Y.: Journal impact and proximity : an assessment using bibliographic features (2013) 0.02 
    0.019910641 = product of:
  0.02986596 = sum of:
    0.009060195 = weight(_text_:in in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009060195 = score(doc=686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
    0.020805765 = product of:
      0.04161153 = sum of:
        0.04161153 = weight(_text_:science in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04161153 = score(doc=686,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.802-817
  13. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011) 0.02 
    0.019867256 = product of:
  0.029800884 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=4349,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.467-477
  14. Huang, Y.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Lu, W.: From zero to one : a perspective on citing (2019) 0.02 
    0.019867256 = product of:
  0.029800884 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 5387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=5387,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5387, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5387)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 5387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=5387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 5387, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article investigates the lengths of time that publications with different numbers of citations take to receive their first citation (the beginning stage), and then compares the lengths of time to receive two or more citations after receiving the first citation (the accumulative stage) in the field of computer science. We find that in the beginning stage, that is, from zero to one citation, high-, medium-, and low-cited publications do not obviously exhibit different lengths of time. However, in the accumulative stage, that is, from one to N citations, highly cited publications begin to receive citations much more rapidly than medium- and low-cited publications. Moreover, as N increases, the difference in receiving new citations among high-, medium-, and low-cited publications increases quite significantly.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.10, S.1098-1107
  15. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.02 
    0.018469956 = product of:
  0.027704932 = sum of:
    0.015692718 = weight(_text_:in in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015692718 = score(doc=3161,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2229-2243
  16. Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018) 0.02 
    0.018469956 = product of:
  0.027704932 = sum of:
    0.015692718 = weight(_text_:in in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015692718 = score(doc=4011,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.72-86
  17. 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) 0.02 
    0.018469956 = product of:
  0.027704932 = sum of:
    0.015692718 = weight(_text_:in in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015692718 = score(doc=5219,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.462-475
  18. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.02 
    0.017558426 = product of:
  0.026337638 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=1202,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.012012213 = product of:
      0.024024425 = sum of:
        0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024425 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.352-371
  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) 0.02 
    0.017396256 = product of:
  0.026094384 = sum of:
    0.011937855 = weight(_text_:in in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011937855 = score(doc=5963,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
    0.014156529 = product of:
      0.028313057 = sum of:
        0.028313057 = weight(_text_:science in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028313057 = score(doc=5963,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.10, S.1162-1178
  20. Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.: Citation content analysis (CCA) : a framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content (2013) 0.02 
    0.017365353 = product of:
  0.026048029 = sum of:
    0.009060195 = weight(_text_:in in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009060195 = score(doc=975,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=975,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1490-1503

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 44
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes