Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.031751644 = product of:
  0.047627464 = sum of:
    0.026031785 = weight(_text_:to in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026031785 = score(doc=4188,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.3144084 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.021595677 = product of:
      0.043191355 = sum of:
        0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043191355 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.02174836 = product of:
  0.03262254 = sum of:
    0.014111955 = weight(_text_:to in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014111955 = score(doc=1521,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.17044228 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.018510582 = product of:
      0.037021164 = sum of:
        0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037021164 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = 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)
  0.6666667 = 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

0.00880035 = product of:
  0.026401049 = sum of:
    0.026401049 = weight(_text_:to in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026401049 = score(doc=1202,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.3188683 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008677262 = product of:
  0.026031785 = sum of:
    0.026031785 = weight(_text_:to in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026031785 = score(doc=2792,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.3144084 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.008588262 = product of:
  0.025764786 = sum of:
    0.025764786 = weight(_text_:to in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025764786 = score(doc=4402,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.3111836 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontologies need to be stored, sometimes aligned and their evolution needs to be managed. All these tasks together are called ontology management. Alignment is a central task in ontology re-use. Re-use of existing ontologies often requires considerable effort: the ontologies either need to be integrated, which means that they are merged into one new ontology, or the ontologies can be kept separate. In both cases, the ontologies have to be aligned, which means that they have to be brought into mutual agreement. The problems that underlie the difficulties in integrating and aligning are the mismatches that may exist between separate ontologies. Ontologies can differ at the language level, which can mean that they are represented in a different syntax, or that the expressiveness of the ontology language is dissimilar. Ontologies also can have mismatches at the model level, for example, in the paradigm, or modelling style. Ontology alignment is very relevant in a Semantic Web context. The Semantic Web will provide us with a lot of freely accessible domain specific ontologies. To form a real web of semantics - which will allow computers to combine and infer implicit knowledge - those separate ontologies should be aligned and linked.
Support for evolving ontologies is required in almost all situations where ontologies are used in real-world applications. In those cases, ontologies are often developed by several persons and will continue to evolve over time, because of changes in the real world, adaptations to different tasks, or alignments to other ontologies. To prevent that such changes will invalidate existing usage, a change management methodology is needed. This involves advanced versioning methods for the development and the maintenance of ontologies, but also configuration management, that takes care of the identification, relations and interpretation of ontology versions. All these aspects come together in integrated ontology library systems. When the number of different ontologies is increasing, the task of storing, maintaining and re-organizing them to secure the successful re-use of ontologies is challenging. Ontology library systems can help in the grouping and reorganizing ontologies for further re-use, integration, maintenance, mapping and versioning. Basically, a library system offers various functions for managing, adapting and standardizing groups of ontologies. Such integrated systems are a requirement for the Semantic Web to grow further and scale up. In this chapter, we describe a number of results with respect to the above mentioned areas. We start with a description of the alignment task and show a meta-ontology that is developed to specify the mappings. Then, we discuss the problems that are caused by evolving ontologies and describe two important elements of a change management methodology. Finally, in Section 4.4 we survey existing library systems and formulate a wish-list of features of an ontology library system.

0.008315549 = product of:
  0.024946647 = sum of:
    0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 4176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024946647 = score(doc=4176,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 4176, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4176)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.008315549 = product of:
  0.024946647 = sum of:
    0.024946647 = weight(_text_:to in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024946647 = score(doc=5362,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.30130222 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information from microblogs is gaining increasing attention from researchers interested in analyzing fluctuations in stock markets. Behavioral financial theory draws on social psychology to explain some of the irrational behaviors associated with financial decisions to help explain some of the fluctuations. In this study we argue that social media users who demonstrate an interest in finance can offer insights into ways in which irrational behaviors may affect a stock market. To test this, we analyzed all the data collected over a 3-month period in 2011 from Tencent Weibo (one of the largest microblogging websites in China). We designed a social influence (SI)-based Tencent finance-related moods model to simulate investors' irrational behaviors, and designed a Tencent Moods-based Stock Trend Analysis (TM_STA) model to detect correlations between Tencent moods and the Hushen-300 index (one of the most important financial indexes in China). Experimental results show that the proposed method can help explain the data fluctuation. The findings support the existing behavioral financial theory, and can help to understand short-term rises and falls in a stock market. We use behavioral financial theory to further explain our findings, and to propose a trading model to verify the proposed model.

0.0081475405 = product of:
  0.02444262 = sum of:
    0.02444262 = weight(_text_:to in 5387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02444262 = score(doc=5387,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.29521468 = fieldWeight in 5387, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5387)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.007839975 = product of:
  0.023519924 = sum of:
    0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 2125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023519924 = score(doc=2125,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 2125, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2125)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Blogs are readily available sources of opinions and sentiments that in turn could influence the opinions of the blog readers. Previous studies have attempted to infer influence from blog features, but they have ignored the possible influence styles that describe the different ways in which influence is exerted. We propose a novel approach to analyzing bloggers' influence styles and using the influence styles as features to improve the performance of influence diffusion detection among linked bloggers. The proposed influence style (INFUSE) model describes bloggers' influence through their engagement style, persuasion style, and persona. Methods used include similarity analysis to detect the creating-sharing aspect of engagement style, subjectivity analysis to measure persuasion style, and sentiment analysis to identify persona style. We further extend the INFUSE model to detect influence diffusion among linked bloggers based on the bloggers' influence styles. The INFUSE model performed well with an average F1 score of 76% compared with the in-degree and sentiment-value baseline approaches. Previous studies have focused on the existence of influence among linked bloggers in detecting influence diffusion, but our INFUSE model is shown to provide a fine-grained description of the manner in which influence is diffused based on the bloggers' influence styles.

0.0076815756 = product of:
  0.023044726 = sum of:
    0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023044726 = score(doc=3705,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0074376534 = product of:
  0.02231296 = sum of:
    0.02231296 = weight(_text_:to in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231296 = score(doc=3290,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.26949292 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.

0.0074376534 = product of:
  0.02231296 = sum of:
    0.02231296 = weight(_text_:to in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231296 = score(doc=162,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.26949292 = fieldWeight in 162, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=162)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Diffusion channels are critical to determining the adoption scale, which leads to the ultimate impact of an innovation. The aim of this study is to develop an integrative understanding of the impact of two diffusion channels (i.e., broadcasting vs. virality) on innovation adoption. Using citations of a series of classic algorithms and the time series of co-authorship as the footprints of their diffusion trajectories, we propose a novel method to analyze the intertwining relationships between broadcasting and virality in the innovation diffusion process. Our findings show that broadcasting and virality have similar diffusion power, but play different roles across diffusion stages. Broadcasting is more powerful in the early stages but may be gradually caught up or even surpassed by virality in the later period. Meanwhile, diffusion speed in virality is significantly faster than broadcasting and members from virality channels tend to adopt the same innovation repetitively.

0.0073336246 = product of:
  0.022000873 = sum of:
    0.022000873 = weight(_text_:to in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022000873 = score(doc=1257,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2657236 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=4012,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=4445,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citations in scientific literature are important both for tracking the historical development of scientific ideas and for forecasting research trends. However, the diffusion mechanisms underlying the citation process remain poorly understood, despite the frequent and longstanding use of citation counts for assessment purposes within the scientific community. Here, we extend the study of citation dynamics to a more general diffusion process to understand how citation growth associates with different diffusion patterns. Using a classic diffusion model, we quantify and illustrate specific diffusion mechanisms which have been proven to exert a significant impact on the growth and decay of citation counts. Experiments reveal a positive relation between the "low p and low q" pattern and high scientific impact. A sharp citation peak produced by rapid change of citation counts, however, has a negative effect on future impact. In addition, we have suggested a simple indicator, saturation level, to roughly estimate an individual article's current stage in the life cycle and its potential to attract future attention. The proposed approach can also be extended to higher levels of aggregation (e.g., individual scientists, journals, institutions), providing further insights into the practice of scientific evaluation.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 6328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=6328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 6328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6328)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=3161,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=4349,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=2337,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0061980444 = product of:
  0.018594133 = sum of:
    0.018594133 = weight(_text_:to in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018594133 = score(doc=5963,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22457743 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.