The task of expert finding has been getting increasing attention in information retrieval literature. However, the current state-of-the-art is still lacking in principled approaches for combining different sources of evidence in an optimal way. This paper explores the usage of learning to rank methods as a principled approach for combining multiple estimators of expertise, derived from the textual contents, from the graph-structure with the citation patterns for the community of experts, and from profile information about the experts. Experiments made over a dataset of academic publications, for the area of Computer Science, attest for the adequacy of the proposed approaches.
In the Scientometrics community, the evaluation of the scientific output of a scientist has also attracted significant interest due to the importance of obtaining unbiased and fair criteria. Most of the existing methods are based on metrics such as the total number of authored papers or the total number of citations. A comprehensive description of many of these metrics can be found in @cite_4 @cite_26 . Simple and elegant indexes, such as the Hirsch index, calculate how broad the research work of a scientist is, accounting for both productivity and impact. Graph centrality metrics inspired on PageRank, calculated over citation or co-authorship graphs, have also been extensively used @cite_0 . In the context of academic expert search systems, these metrics can easily be used as query-independent estimators of expertise, in much the same way as PageRank is used in the case of Web information retrieval systems.
@cite_0 @cite_26 @cite_4
2040906208 1978868011 1608828583 2029249040
The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded. 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). 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 Scientific literature with rich metadata can be represented as a labeled directed graph. This graph representation enables a number of scientific tasks such as ad hoc retrieval or named entity recognition (NER) to be formulated as typed proximity queries in the graph. One popular proximity measure is called Random Walk with Restart (RWR), and much work has been done on the supervised learning of RWR measures by associating each edge label with a parameter. In this paper, we describe a novel learnable proximity measure which instead uses one weight per edge label sequence: proximity is defined by a weighted combination of simple "path experts", each corresponding to following a particular sequence of labeled edges. Experiments on eight tasks in two subdomains of biology show that the new learning method significantly outperforms the RWR model (both trained and untrained). We also extend the method to support two additional types of experts to model intrinsic properties of entities: query-independent experts, which generalize the PageRank measure, and popular entity experts which allow rankings to be adjusted for particular entities that are especially important.