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.
Analysis of the relation between the and the behavior of citing authors (citers) is also suitable for a better understanding how a community of citing authors influences . Brooks study complex citer motivations in @cite_9 . Seven citer motives are analyzed, and more than 70
@cite_9
2169882007 2129028998 2109154616 2029099433 2019972219 1991638834 1608828583 2130978632 2129229917 2024296872 2049086518 2394638270 1914856875 2166463728 2663075978 2518510348 2002642763 1978059262 2164259805 1978868011
There were 20 scholars interviewed about their citation motives in recently published articles. Their 437 citations were scaled along 1 or more of the following 7 citer motives: currency, negative credit, operational information, persuasiveness, positive credit, reader alert, and social consensus. The majority (70.7 ) of the references were attributed to more than 1 motive. Analysis of the clustering of the citer motives showed 3 groupings: (1) persuasiveness, positive credit, currency, and social consensus, (2) negative credit, and (3) reader alert and operational information. Negative credit references were often found to be used with a countervailing positive credit, currency, or social consensus reference. This is considered to be empirical evidence of MacRoberts and MacRoberts' [8] hypothesis that scholars dissemble when giving negative references. © 1986 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 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. 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. 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. This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20 , 50 , and 80 of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 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. 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 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. In this paper we investigate the effect of the context of interaction on the extent to which a contributor's perspective bias is displayed through their lexical choice. We present a series of experiments on political discussion data. Our experiments indicate that (i) when people quote contributors with an opposing view, they tend to quote the words that are less strongly associated with the opposing view. (ii) Nevertheless, in quoting their opponents, the displayed bias of their word distributions shifts towards that of their opponents. (iii) The personal bias of the speaker is displayed most clearly through the words that are not quoted, (iv) although characteristics of the quoted message do have a measurable effect on the words that are included in the contribution. And, finally, (v) posts are influenced by the displayed bias of previous posts in a thread. 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. 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. To reveal information hiding in link space of bibliographical networks, link analysis has been studied from different perspectives in recent years. In this paper, we address a novel problem namely citation prediction, that is: given information about authors, topics, target publication venues as well as time of certain research paper, finding and predicting the citation relationship between a query paper and a set of previous papers. Considering the gigantic size of relevant papers, the loosely connected citation network structure as well as the highly skewed citation relation distribution, citation prediction is more challenging than other link prediction problems which have been studied before. By building a meta-path based prediction model on a topic discriminative search space, we here propose a two-phase citation probability learning approach, in order to predict citation relationship effectively and efficiently. Experiments are performed on real-world dataset with comprehensive measurements, which demonstrate that our framework has substantial advantages over commonly used link prediction approaches in predicting citation relations in bibliographical networks. While the study of the connection between discourse patterns and personal identification is decades old, the study of these patterns using language technologies is relatively recent. In that more recent tradition we frame author age prediction from text as a regression problem. We explore the same task using three very different genres of data simultaneously: blogs, telephone conversations, and online forum posts. We employ a technique from domain adaptation that allows us to train a joint model involving all three corpora together as well as separately and analyze differences in predictive features across joint and corpus-specific aspects of the model. Effective features include both stylistic ones (such as POS patterns) as well as content oriented ones. Using a linear regression model based on shallow text features, we obtain correlations up to 0.74 and mean absolute errors between 4.1 and 6.8 years. When browsing a digital library of research papers, it is natural to ask which authors are most influential in a particular topic. We present a probabilistic model that ranks authors based on their influence in particular areas of scientific research. This model combines several sources of information: citation information between documents as represented by PageRank scores, authorship data gathered through automatic information extraction, and the words in paper abstracts. We compare the performance of a topic model versus a smoothed language model by assessing the number of major award winners in the resulting ranked list of researchers. In this paper, we present the results of a user study on exploratory search activities in a social science digital library. We conducted a user study with 32 participants with a social sciences background—16 postdoctoral researchers and 16 students—who were asked to solve a task on searching related work to a given topic. The exploratory search task was performed in a 10-min time slot. The use of certain search activities is measured and compared to gaze data recorded with an eye tracking device. We use a novel tree graph representation to visualise the users’ search patterns and introduce a way to combine multiple search session trees. The tree graph representation is capable of creating one single tree for multiple users and identifying common search patterns. In addition, the information behaviour of students and postdoctoral researchers is being compared. The results show that search activities on the stratagem level are frequently utilised by both user groups. The most heavily used search activities were keyword search, followed by browsing through references and citations, and author searching. The eye tracking results showed an intense examination of documents metadata, especially on the level of citations and references. When comparing the group of students and postdoctoral researchers, we found significant differences regarding gaze data on the area of the journal name of the seed document. In general, we found a tendency of the postdoctoral researchers to examine the metadata records more intensively with regard to dwell time and the number of fixations. By creating combined session trees and deriving subtrees from those, we were able to identify common patterns like economic (explorative) and exhaustive (navigational) behaviour. Our results show that participants utilised multiple search strategies starting from the seed document, which means that they examined different paths to find related publications. We propose a new task in the field of computational argumentation in which we investigate qualitative properties of Web arguments, namely their convincingness. We cast the problem as relation classification, where a pair of arguments having the same stance to the same prompt is judged. We annotate a large datasets of 16k pairs of arguments over 32 topics and investigate whether the relation “A is more convincing than B” exhibits properties of total ordering; these findings are used as global constraints for cleaning the crowdsourced data. We propose two tasks: (1) predicting which argument from an argument pair is more convincing and (2) ranking all arguments to the topic based on their convincingness. We experiment with feature-rich SVM and bidirectional LSTM and obtain 0.76-0.78 accuracy and 0.35-0.40 Spearman’s correlation in a cross-topic evaluation. We release the newly created corpus UKPConvArg1 and the experimental software under open licenses. Automatic recommendation of citations for a manuscript is highly valuable for scholarly activities since it can substantially improve the efficiency and quality of literature search. The prior techniques placed a considerable burden on users, who were required to provide a representative bibliography or to mark passages where citations are needed. In this paper we present a system that considerably reduces this burden: a user simply inputs a query manuscript (without a bibliography) and our system automatically finds locations where citations are needed. We show that naive approaches do not work well due to massive noise in the document corpus. We produce a successful approach by carefully examining the relevance between segments in a query manuscript and the representative segments extracted from a document corpus. An extensive empirical evaluation using the CiteSeerX data set shows that our approach is effective. Scientists continue to find challenges in the ever increasing amount of information that has been produced on a world wide scale, during the last decades. When writing a paper, an author searches for the most relevant citations that started or were the foundation of a particular topic, which would very likely explain the thinking or algorithms that are employed. The search is usually done using specific keywords submitted to literature search engines such as Google Scholar and CiteSeer. However, finding relevant citations is distinctive from producing articles that are only topically similar to an author's proposal. In this paper, we address the problem of citation recommendation using a singular value decomposition approach. The models are trained and evaluated on the Citeseer digital library. The results of our experiments show that the proposed approach achieves significant success when compared with collaborative filtering methods on the citation recommendation task. Citation recommendation is an interesting but challenging research problem. Most existing studies assume that all papers adopt the same criterion and follow the same behavioral pattern in deciding relevance and authority of a paper. However, in reality, papers have distinct citation behavioral patterns when looking for different references, depending on paper content, authors and target venues. In this study, we investigate the problem in the context of heterogeneous bibliographic networks and propose a novel cluster-based citation recommendation framework, called ClusCite, which explores the principle that citations tend to be softly clustered into interest groups based on multiple types of relationships in the network. Therefore, we predict each query's citations based on related interest groups, each having its own model for paper authority and relevance. Specifically, we learn group memberships for objects and the significance of relevance features for each interest group, while also propagating relative authority between objects, by solving a joint optimization problem. Experiments on both DBLP and PubMed datasets demonstrate the power of the proposed approach, with 17.68 improvement in Recall@50 and 9.57 growth in MRR over the best performing baseline. An analysis of three major problems in the application of bibliometric research performance indicators is made in three separate sections. In the first section, the influence of field-dependent citation practices is analysed. The results indicate that rankings of publications from different fields, based on citation counts, can be affected seriously by differences between citation characteristics in those fields. If certain assumptions hold, one should expect high (short term) citation levels in Biochemistry, Celbiology and Biophysics. Medium citation levels are to be expected in Experimental and Molecular Physics, Physical and Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology and Plant Physiology, and low citation levels in Mathematics, Taxonomy, Pharmacognosy and Inorganic Solid State Chemistry. In the second section time-dependent factors are studied. It is shown that trend-analyses of output and impact based on bibliometric scores can be disturbed by changes in theSCI-database and in publication and citation practices. One of the disturbing factors is shown to be the inclusion of so called Books into theSCI data-base in 1977. Finally, in the third section a case is presented which illustrates the consequences of operating on incomplete bibliometric data in the evaluation of scientific performance. A completeness percentage of 99 for publication data is proposed as a standard in evaluations of the performance of small university research groups).