An accurate and fair assessment of the efficiency and impact of scientific work is, despite a lot of recent research effort, still an open problem. The measurement of quality and success of individual scientists and research groups can be approached from many different directions, none of which is universal. A reason for this is inherently different behavior of different scientists within the global research community. A complex evaluation of ones publication activities requires a careful consideration of a wide variety of factors. The well-known H-index is one of the most used bibliometric indices. Despite its many imperfections, its simplicity and ease of interpretation make it a popular scientometric method. This short paper uses the ideas behind the H-index to analyze communities of authors who cite publishing scientists. A new author evaluation measure named aH-index is proposed, and intuitive interpretations of its properties and semantics are presented. Preliminary experiments with authors with high H-index active in the area of computer science are presented to demonstrate the properties of the proposed measure.
The complicated relationship between the scientist and his or her co-authors is one of the problems of the . Hirsch proposes in @cite_4 a new version of the that takes into account the effect of multiple co-authors and solves a well-known problem with the so-called Hirsch core. A similar problem is solved and a new variant of the is introduced by in @cite_1 . In @cite_7 , apply social network analysis on ego co-authorship network. They show that the highest can be achieved by working with many co-authors.
@cite_1 @cite_4 @cite_7
2049086518 1608828583 2024296872 1973800825 2109480754 2005207065 2145845082 2136000463 2162010993 2130978632 1671906456 2382843593 2129364433 2132322078 1991638834 2029099433 2109154616 2949528350 2129028998 1987380777
In this study, we propose and validate social networks based theoretical model for exploring scholars' collaboration (co-authorship) network properties associated with their citation-based research performance (i.e., g-index). Using structural holes theory, we focus on how a scholar's egocentric network properties of density, efficiency and constraint within the network associate with their scholarly performance. For our analysis, we use publication data of high impact factor journals in the field of ''Information Science & Library Science'' between 2000 and 2009, extracted from Scopus. The resulting database contained 4837 publications reflecting the contributions of 8069 authors. Results from our data analysis suggest that research performance of scholars' is significantly correlated with scholars' ego-network measures. In particular, scholars with more co-authors and those who exhibit higher levels of betweenness centrality (i.e., the extent to which a co-author is between another pair of co-authors) perform better in terms of research (i.e., higher g-index). Furthermore, scholars with efficient collaboration networks who maintain a strong co-authorship relationship with one primary co-author within a group of linked co-authors (i.e., co-authors that have joint publications) perform better than those researchers with many relationships to the same group of linked co-authors. This article introduces a suite of approaches and measures to study the impact of co-authorship teams based on the number of publications and their citations on a local and global scale. In particular, we present a novel weighted graph representation that encodes coupled author-paper networks as a weighted co-authorship graph. This weighted graph representation is applied to a dataset that captures the emergence of a new field of science and comprises 614 articles published by 1036 unique authors between 1974 and 2004. To characterize the properties and evolution of this field, we first use four different measures of centrality to identify the impact of authors. A global statistical analysis is performed to characterize the distribution of paper production and paper citations and its correlation with the co-authorship team size. The size of co-authorship clusters over time is examined. Finally, a novel local, author-centered measure based on entropy is applied to determine the global evolution of the field and the identification of the contribution of a single author's impact across all of its co-authorship relations. A visualization of the growth of the weighted co-author network, and the results obtained from the statistical analysis indicate a drift toward a more cooperative, global collaboration process as the main drive in the production of scientific knowledge. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 10: 57–67, 2005 The objective of this work was to test the relationship between characteristics of an author's network of coauthors to identify which enhance the h-index. We randomly selected a sample of 238 authors from the Web of Science, calculated their h-index as well as the h-index of all co-authors from their h-index articles, and calculated an adjacency matrix where the relation between co-authors is the number of articles they published together. Our model was highly predictive of the variability in the h-index (R 2 = 0.69). Most of the variance was explained by number of co-authors. Other significant variables were those associated with highly productive co-authors. Contrary to our hypothesis, network structure as measured by components was not predictive. This analysis suggests that the highest h-index will be achieved by working with many co-authors, at least some with high h-indexes themselves. Little improvement in h-index is to be gained by structuring a co-author network to maintain separate research communities. Abstract The article introduces a new Hirsch-type index for a scientist. This so-called pure h-index, denoted by hP, takes the actual number of coauthors, and the scientist’s relative position in the byline into account. The transformation from h to hP can also be applied to the R-index, leading to the pure R-index, denoted as RP. This index takes the number of collaborators, possibly the rank in the byline and the actual number of citations into account. The problem of predicting links or interactions between objects in a network, is an important task in network analysis. Along this line, link prediction between co-authors in a co-author network is a frequently studied problem. In most of these studies, authors are considered in a homogeneous network, .e., only one type of objects(author type) and one type of links (co-authorship) exist in the network. However, in a real bibliographic network, there are multiple types of objects ( .g., venues, topics, papers) and multiple types of links among these objects. In this paper, we study the problem of co-author relationship prediction in the heterogeneous bibliographic network, and a new methodology called, .e., meta path-based relationship prediction model, is proposed to solve this problem. First, meta path-based topological features are systematically extracted from the network. Then, a supervised model is used to learn the best weights associated with different topological features in deciding the co-author relationships. We present experiments on a real bibliographic network, the DBLP network, which show that metapath-based heterogeneous topological features can generate more accurate prediction results as compared to homogeneous topological features. In addition, the level of significance of each topological feature can be learned from the model, which is helpful in understanding the mechanism behind the relationship building. A new form of document coupling called co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two documents are cited together. The co-citation frequency of two scientific papers can be determined by comparing lists of citing documents in the Science Citation Index and counting identical entries. Networks of co-cited papers can be generated for specific scientific specialties, and an example is drawn from the literature of particle physics. Co-citation patterns are found to differ significantly from bibliographic coupling patterns, but to agree generally with patterns of direct citation. Clusters of co-cited papers provide a new way to study the specialty structure of science. They may provide a new approach to indexing and to the creation of SDI profiles. The co-authorship network of scientists represents a prototype of complex evolving networks. In addition, it offers one of the most extensive database to date on social networks. By mapping the electronic database containing all relevant journals in mathematics and neuro-science for an 8-year period (1991–98), we infer the dynamic and the structural mechanisms that govern the evolution and topology of this complex system. Three complementary approaches allow us to obtain a detailed characterization. First, empirical measurements allow us to uncover the topological measures that characterize the network at a given moment, as well as the time evolution of these quantities. The results indicate that the network is scale-free, and that the network evolution is governed by preferential attachment, affecting both internal and external links. However, in contrast with most model predictions the average degree increases in time, and the node separation decreases. Second, we propose a simple model that captures the network's time evolution. In some limits the model can be solved analytically, predicting a two-regime scaling in agreement with the measurements. Third, numerical simulations are used to uncover the behavior of quantities that could not be predicted analytically. The combined numerical and analytical results underline the important role internal links play in determining the observed scaling behavior and network topology. The results and methodologies developed in the context of the co-authorship network could be useful for a systematic study of other complex evolving networks as well, such as the world wide web, Internet, or other social networks. Whistleblowers and activists need the ability to communicate without disclosing their identity, as of course do kidnappers and terrorists. Recent advances in the technology of stylometry (the study of authorial style) or "authorship attribution" have made it possible to identify the author with high reliability in a non-confrontational setting. In a confrontational setting, where the author is deliberately masking their identity (i.e. attempting to deceive), the results are much less promising. In this paper, we show that although the specific author may not be identifiable, the intent to deceive and to hide his identity can be. We show this by a reanalysis of the Brennan and Greenstadt (2009) deception corpus and discuss some of the implications of this surprising finding. Recent graph-theoretic approaches have demonstrated remarkable successes for ranking networked entities, but most of their applications are limited to homogeneous networks such as the network of citations between publications. This paper proposes a novel method for co-ranking authors and their publications using several networks: the social network connecting the authors, the citation network connecting the publications, as well as the authorship network that ties the previous two together. The new co-ranking framework is based on coupling two random walks, that separately rank authors and documents following the PageRankparadigm. As a result, improved rankings of documents and their authors depend on each other in a mutually reinforcing way, thus taking advantage of the additional information implicit in the heterogeneous network of authors and documents. Given a large-scale linked document collection, such as a collection of blog posts or a research literature archive, there are two fundamental problems that have generated a lot of interest in the research community. One is to identify a set of high-level topics covered by the documents in the collection; the other is to uncover and analyze the social network of the authors of the documents. So far these problems have been viewed as separate problems and considered independently from each other. In this paper we argue that these two problems are in fact inter-dependent and should be addressed together. We develop a Bayesian hierarchical approach that performs topic modeling and author community discovery in one unified framework. The effectiveness of our model is demonstrated on two blog data sets in different domains and one research paper citation data from CiteSeer. Using data from computer databases of scientific papers in physics, biomedical research, and computer science, we have constructed networks of collaboration between scientists in each of these disciplines. In these networks two scientists are considered connected if they have coauthored one or more papers together. We have studied many statistical properties of our networks, including numbers of papers written by authors, numbers of authors per paper, numbers of collaborators that scientists have, typical distance through the network from one scientist to another, and a variety of measures of connectedness within a network, such as closeness and betweenness. We further argue that simple networks such as these cannot capture the variation in the strength of collaborative ties and propose a measure of this strength based on the number of papers coauthored by pairs of scientists, and the number of other scientists with whom they worked on those papers. Using a selection of our results, we suggest a variety of possible ways to answer the question, "Who is the best connected scientist?" We present insights from a bibliometric analysis and scientific paper publication mining of 551 papers in Requirements Engineering (RE) series of conference (11 years from 2005 to 2015). We study cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of RE re- search by analyzing the cited disciplines in the reference section of each paper. We apply topic modeling on a corpus consisting of 551 abstracts and extract topics as frequently co-occurring and connected terms. We use topic modeling to study the structure and composition of RE research and analyze popular topics in industry as well as research track. Co-authorship in papers is an indicator of collaboration and interaction between scientists as well as institutions and we analyze co-authorship data to in- vestigate university-industry collaboration, internal and external collaborations. We present results on the distribution of the num- ber of co-authors in each paper as well as distribution of authors across world regions. We present our analysis on the public or proprietary dataset as well as the domain of the dataset used in studies published in Requirements Engineering (RE) series of conferences. A critical aspect of malware forensics is authorship analysis. The successful outcome of such analysis is usually determined by the reverse engineer’s skills and by the volume and complexity of the code under analysis. To assist reverse engineers in such a tedious and error-prone task, it is desirable to develop reliable and automated tools for supporting the practice of malware authorship attribution. In a recent work, machine learning was used to rank and select syntax-based features such as n-grams and flow graphs. The experimental results showed that the top ranked features were unique for each author, which was regarded as an evidence that those features capture the author’s programming styles. In this paper, however, we show that the uniqueness of features does not necessarily correspond to authorship. Specifically, our analysis demonstrates that many “unique” features selected using this method are clearly unrelated to the authors’ programming styles, for example, unique IDs or random but unique function names generated by the compiler; furthermore, the overall accuracy is generally unsatisfactory. Motivated by this discovery, we propose a layered Onion Approach for Binary Authorship Attribution called OBA2. The novelty of our approach lies in the three complementary layers: preprocessing, syntax-based attribution, and semantic-based attribution. Experiments show that our method produces results that not only are more accurate but have a meaningful connection to the authors’ styles. a 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of DFRWS. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http: creativecommons.org licenses by-nc-nd 3.0 ). Social life coalesces into communities through cooperation and conflict. As a case in point, Shwed and Bearman (2010) studied consensus and contention in scientific communities. They used a sophisticated modularity method to detect communities on the basis of scientific citations, which they then interpreted as directed positive network ties. They assumed that a lack of citations implies disagreement. Some scientific citations, however, are contentious and should therefore be represented by negative ties, like conflicting relations in general. After expanding the modularity method to incorporate negative ties, we show that a small proportion of negative ties, commonly present in science, is sufficient to significantly alter the community structure. In addition, our research suggests that without distinguishing negative ties, scientific communities actually represent specialized subfields, not contentious groups. Finally, we cast doubt on the assumption that lack of cites would signal disagreement. To show the general importance of discerning negative ties for understanding conflict and its impact on communities, we also analyze a public debate. Authorship analysis by means of textual features is an important task in linguistic studies. We employ complex networks theory to tackle this disputed problem. In this work, we focus on some measurable quantities of word co-occurrence network of each book for authorship characterization. Based on the network features, attribution probability is defined for authorship identification. Furthermore, two scaling exponents, q-parameter and α-exponent, are combined to classify personal writing style with acceptable high resolution power. The q-parameter, generally known as the nonextensivity measure, is calculated for degree distribution and the α-exponent comes from a power law relationship between number of links and number of nodes in the co-occurrence network constructed for different books written by each author. The applicability of the presented method is evaluated in an experiment with thirty six books of five Persian litterateurs. Our results show high accuracy rate in authorship attribution. Citation relationship between scientific publications has been successfully used for scholarly bibliometrics, information retrieval and data mining tasks, and citation-based recommendation algorithms are well documented. While previous studies investigated citation relations from various viewpoints, most of them share the same assumption that, if paper1 cites paper2 (or author1 cites author2), they are connected, regardless of citation importance, sentiment, reason, topic, or motivation. However, this assumption is oversimplified. In this study, we employ an innovative "context-rich heterogeneous network" approach, which paves a new way for citation recommendation task. In the network, we characterize 1) the importance of citation relationships between citing and cited papers, and 2) the topical citation motivation. Unlike earlier studies, the citation information, in this paper, is characterized by citation textual contexts extracted from the full-text citing paper. We also propose algorithm to cope with the situation when large portion of full-text missing information exists in the bibliographic repository. Evaluation results show that, context-rich heterogeneous network can significantly enhance the citation recommendation performance. We propose a new unsupervised learning technique for extracting information from large text collections. We model documents as if they were generated by a two-stage stochastic process. Each author is represented by a probability distribution over topics, and each topic is represented as a probability distribution over words for that topic. The words in a multi-author paper are assumed to be the result of a mixture of each authors' topic mixture. The topic-word and author-topic distributions are learned from data in an unsupervised manner using a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. We apply the methodology to a large corpus of 160,000 abstracts and 85,000 authors from the well-known CiteSeer digital library, and learn a model with 300 topics. We discuss in detail the interpretation of the results discovered by the system including specific topic and author models, ranking of authors by topic and topics by author, significant trends in the computer science literature between 1990 and 2002, parsing of abstracts by topics and authors and detection of unusual papers by specific authors. An online query interface to the model is also discussed that allows interactive exploration of author-topic models for corpora such as CiteSeer. The network of international co-authorship relations has been dominated by certain European nations and the USA, but this network is rapidly expanding at the global level. Between 40 and 50 countries appear in the center of the international network in 2011, and almost all (201) nations are nowadays involved in international collaboration. In this brief communication, we present both a global map with the functionality of a Google Map (zooming, etc.) and network maps based on normalized relations. These maps reveal complementary aspects of the network. International collaboration in the generation of knowledge claims (that is, the context of discovery) changes the structural layering of the sciences. Previously, validation was at the global level and discovery more dependent on local contexts. This changing relationship between the geographical and intellectual dimensions of the sciences also has implications for national science policies. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. Statistical authorship attribution has a long history, culminating in the use of modern machine learning classification methods. Nevertheless, most of this work suffers from the limitation of assuming a small closed set of candidate authors and essentially unlimited training text for each. Real-life authorship attribution problems, however, typically fall short of this ideal. Thus, following detailed discussion of previous work, three scenarios are considered here for which solutions to the basic attribution problem are inadequate. In the first variant, the profiling problem, there is no candidate set at all; in this case, the challenge is to provide as much demographic or psychological information as possible about the author. In the second variant, the needle-in-a-haystack problem, there are many thousands of candidates for each of whom we might have a very limited writing sample. In the third variant, the verification problem, there is no closed candidate set but there is one suspect; in this case, the challenge is to determine if the suspect is or is not the author. For each variant, it is shown how machine learning methods can be adapted to handle the special challenges of that variant. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.