The literature search has always been an important part of an academic research. It greatly helps to improve the quality of the research process and output, and increase the efficiency of the researchers in terms of their novel contribution to science. As the number of published papers increases every year, a manual search becomes more exhaustive even with the help of today's search engines since they are not specialized for this task. In academics, two relevant papers do not always have to share keywords, cite one another, or even be in the same field. Although a well-known paper is usually an easy pray in such a hunt, relevant papers using a different terminology, especially recent ones, are not obvious to the eye. In this work, we propose paper recommendation algorithms by using the citation information among papers. The proposed algorithms are direction aware in the sense that they can be tuned to find either recent or traditional papers. The algorithms require a set of papers as input and recommend a set of related ones. If the user wants to give negative or positive feedback on the suggested paper set, the recommendation is refined. The search process can be easily guided in that sense by relevance feedback. We show that this slight guidance helps the user to reach a desired paper in a more efficient way. We adapt our models and algorithms also for the venue and reviewer recommendation tasks. Accuracy of the models and algorithms is thoroughly evaluated by comparison with multiple baselines and algorithms from the literature in terms of several objectives specific to citation, venue, and reviewer recommendation tasks. All of these algorithms are implemented within a publicly available web-service framework (this http URL) which currently uses the data from DBLP and CiteSeer to construct the proposed citation graph.
There are various citation analysis-based paper recommendation methods depending on a pairwise similarity measure between two papers. Bibliographic coupling, which is one of the earliest works, considers papers having similar citations as related @cite_0 . Another early work, the Cocitation method, considers papers which are cited by the same papers as related @cite_19 . A similar cites cited approach by using collaboration filtering is proposed by McNee et al. @cite_18 . Another method, common citation @math inverse document frequency (CCIDF) also considers only common citations, but by weighting them with respect to their inverse frequencies @cite_16 .
@cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_18 @cite_16
2017562693 2005207065 2163089586 2164259805
In the past several years studies have started to appear comparing the accuracies of various science mapping approaches. These studies primarily compare the cluster solutions resulting from different similarity approaches, and give varying results. In this study we compare the accuracies of cluster solutions of a large corpus of 2,153,769 recent articles from the biomedical literature (2004–2008) using four similarity approaches: co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and a bibliographic coupling-based citation-text hybrid approach. Each of the four approaches can be considered a way to represent the research front in biomedicine, and each is able to successfully cluster over 92p of the corpus. Accuracies are compared using two metrics—within-cluster textual coherence as defined by the Jensen-Shannon divergence, and a concentration measure based on the grant-to-article linkages indexed in MEDLINE. Of the three pure citation-based approaches, bibliographic coupling slightly outperforms co-citation analysis using both accuracy measures; direct citation is the least accurate mapping approach by far. The hybrid approach improves upon the bibliographic coupling results in all respects. We consider the results of this study to be robust given the very large size of the corpus, and the specificity of the accuracy measures used. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 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. To help generate relevant suggestions for researchers, recommendation systems have started to leverage the latent interests in the publication profiles of the researchers themselves. While using such a publication citation network has been shown to enhance performance, the network is often sparse, making recommendation difficult. To alleviate this sparsity, we identify "potential citation papers" through the use of collaborative filtering. Also, as different logical sections of a paper have different significance, as a secondary contribution, we investigate which sections of papers can be leveraged to represent papers effectively. On a scholarly paper recommendation dataset, we show that recommendation accuracy significantly outperforms state-of-the-art recommendation baselines as measured by nDCG and MRR, when we discover potential citation papers using imputed similarities via collaborative filtering and represent candidate papers using both the full text and assigning more weight to the conclusion sections. 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.