It is popular nowadays to bring techniques from bibliometrics and scientometrics into the world of digital libraries to explore mechanisms which underlie community development. In this paper we use the DBLP data to investigate the author's scientific career, and analyze some of the computer science communities. We compare them in terms of productivity and population stability, and use these features to compare the sets of top-ranked conferences with their lower ranked counterparts.
Yet another branch of investigation aims at evaluation of scientific venues. The first attempts relied heavily on the citation networks @cite_16 @cite_4 . However as citations are not always available in bibliographic databases other approaches have been proposed. @cite_22 criteria for evaluation of program committee members has been developed and successfully applied for ranking conferences recorded in CiteSeer. Yan and Lee @cite_14 suggested recently a way of ranking venues based on the scientific contribution of individual scholars. The method has been evaluated on ACM and DBLP data sets.
@cite_14 @cite_16 @cite_4 @cite_22
2145305331 2099065962 2147032993 2018392915
Ranking of publication venues is often closely related with important issues such as evaluating the contributions of individual scholars research groups, or subscription decision making. The development of large-scale digital libraries and the availability of various meta data provide the possibility of building new measures more efficiently and accurately. In this work, we propose two novel measures for ranking the impacts of academic venues an easy-to-implement seed-based measure that does not use citation analysis, and a realistic browsing-based measure that takes an article reader's behavior into account. Both measures are computationally efficient yet mimic the results of the widely accepted Impact Factor. In particular, our proposal exploits the fact that: (1)in most disciplines, there are "top" venues that most people agree on; and (2) articles that appeared in good venues are more likely to be viewed by readers. Our proposed measures are extensively evaluated on a test case of the Database research community using two real bibliography data sets - ACM and DBLP. Finally, ranks of venues by our proposed measures are compared against the Impact Factor using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and their positive rank order relationship is proved with a statistical significance test. Bibliometrics are important measures for venue quality in digital libraries. Impacts of venues are usually the major consideration for subscription decision-making, and for ranking and recommending high-quality venues and documents. For digital libraries in the Computer Science literature domain, conferences play a major role as an important publication and dissemination outlet. However, with a recent profusion of conferences and rapidly expanding fields, it is increasingly challenging for researchers and librarians to assess the quality of conferences. We propose a set of novel heuristics to automatically discover prestigious (and low-quality) conferences by mining the characteristics of Program Committee members. We examine the proposed cues both in isolation and combination under a classification scheme. Evaluation on a collection of 2,979 conferences and 16,147 PC members shows that our heuristics, when combined, correctly classify about 92 of the conferences, with a low false positive rate of 0.035 and a recall of more than 73 for identifying reputable conferences. Furthermore, we demonstrate empirically that our heuristics can also effectively detect a set of low-quality conferences, with a false positive rate of merely 0.002. We also report our experience of detecting two previously unknown low-quality conferences. Finally, we apply the proposed techniques to the entire quality spectrum by ranking conferences in the collection. Citation analysis is performed to evaluate the impact of scientific collections (journals and conferences), publications and scholar authors. In this paper we investigate alternative methods to provide a generalized approach to rank scientific publications. We use the SCEAS system [12] as a base platform to introduce new methods that can be used for ranking scientific publications. Moreover, we tune our approach along the reasoning of the prizes 'VLDB 10 Year Award' and 'SIGMOD Test of Time Award', which have been awarded in the course of the top two database conferences. Our approach can be used to objectively suggest the publications and the respective authors the are more likely to be awarded in the near future at these conferences. Citation analysis helps in evaluating the impact of scientific collections (journals and conferences), publications and scholar authors. In this paper we examine known algorithms that are currently used for Link Analysis Ranking, and present their weaknesses over specific examples. We also introduce new alternative methods specifically designed for citation graphs. We use the SCEAS system as a base platform to introduce these new methods and perform a generalized comparison of all methods. We also introduce an aggregate function for the generation of author ranking based on publication ranking. Finally, we try to evaluate the rank results based on the prizes of 'VLDB 10 Year Award', 'SIGMOD Test of Time Award' and 'SIGMOD E.F.Codd Innovations Award'.