Many Web platforms rely on user collaboration to generate high-quality content: Wiki, Q&A communities, etc. Understanding and modeling the different collaborative behaviors is therefore critical. However, collaboration patterns are difficult to capture when the relationships between users are not directly observable, since they need to be inferred from the user actions. In this work, we propose a solution to this problem by adopting a systemic view of collaboration. Rather than modeling the users as independent actors in the system, we capture their coordinated actions with embedding methods which can, in turn, identify shared objectives and predict future user actions. To validate our approach, we perform a study on a dataset comprising more than 16M user actions, recorded on the online collaborative sandbox Reddit r place. Participants had access to a drawing canvas where they could change the color of one pixel at every fixed time interval. Users were not grouped in teams nor were given any specific goals, yet they organized themselves into a cohesive social fabric and collaborated to the creation of a multitude of artworks. Our contribution in this paper is multi-fold: i) we perform an in-depth analysis of the Reddit r place collaborative sandbox, extracting insights about its evolution over time; ii) we propose a predictive method that captures the latent structure of the emergent collaborative efforts; and iii) we show that our method provides an interpretable representation of the social structure.
Networks of collaboration between scientists have been studied by Newman @cite_11 . The authors argue that simple unweighted networks are unable to capture the strength of collaboration ties and propose a method to model the strength of collaboration by relying on the number of co-authored papers. The same author has later studied various properties of such networks @cite_11 . @cite_7 have studied collaboration networks from an evolving and self-organizing perspective. Behavioral experiments on the ability to solve problems collaboratively have been conducted by Kearns @cite_26 . Online collaboration with different network topologies has been studied by Suri and Watts @cite_9 . The exploration-exploitation trade-off in a collaborative problem solving task has been discussed by Mason and Watts @cite_19 . Kittur and Kraut @cite_17 studied various types of collaboration taking place between Wikipedia editors and measured the impact on quality of the resulting articles.
@cite_26 @cite_7 @cite_9 @cite_17 @cite_19 @cite_11
2034692547 2021418345 2106114848 2065100127 2122309512 1671906456
The popular h-index used to measure scientific output can be described in terms of a pool of evaluated objects (the papers), a quality function on the evaluated objects (the number of citations received by each paper) and a sentencing line crossing the origin, whose intersection with the graph of the quality function yields the index value (in the h-index this is a line with slope 1). Based on this abstraction, we present a new index, the c-index, in which the evaluated objects are the citations received by an author, a group of authors, a journal, etc., the quality function of a citation is the collaboration distance between the authors of the cited and the citing papers, and the sentencing line can take slopes between 0 and ∞. As a result, the new index counts only those citations which are significant enough, where significance is proportional to collaboration distance. Several advantages of the new c-index with respect to previous proposals are discussed. 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. Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60] 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. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... Wikipedia has grown to be the world largest and busiest free encyclopedia, in which articles are collaboratively written and maintained by volunteers online. Despite its success as a means of knowledge sharing and collaboration, the public has never stopped criticizing the quality of Wikipedia articles edited by non-experts and inexperienced contributors. In this paper, we investigate the problem of assessing the quality of articles in collaborative authoring of Wikipedia. We propose three article quality measurement models that make use of the interaction data between articles and their contributors derived from the article edit history. Our B asic model is designed based on the mutual dependency between article quality and their author authority. The P eer R eview model introduces the review behavior into measuring article quality. Finally, our P rob R eview models extend P eer R eview with partial reviewership of contributors as they edit various portions of the articles. We conduct experiments on a set of well-labeled Wikipedia articles to evaluate the effectiveness of our quality measurement models in resembling human judgement. We study collaboration networks in terms of evolving, self-organizing bipartite graph models. We propose a model of a growing network, which combines preferential edge attachment with the bipartite structure, generic for collaboration networks. The model depends exclusively on basic properties of the network, such as the total number of collaborators and acts of collaboration, the mean size of collaborations, etc. The simplest model defined within this framework already allows us to describe many of the main topological characteristics (degree distribution, clustering coefficient, etc.) of one-mode projections of several real collaboration networks, without parameter fitting. We explain the observed dependence of the local clustering on degree and the degree‐degree correlations in terms of the “aging” of collaborators and their physical impossibility to participate in an unlimited number of collaborations. The structure of scientific collaboration networks is investigated. Two scientists are considered connected if they have authored a paper together and explicit networks of such connections are constructed by using data drawn from a number of databases, including MEDLINE (biomedical research), the Los Alamos e-Print Archive (physics), and NCSTRL (computer science). I show that these collaboration networks form “small worlds,” in which randomly chosen pairs of scientists are typically separated by only a short path of intermediate acquaintances. I further give results for mean and distribution of numbers of collaborators of authors, demonstrate the presence of clustering in the networks, and highlight a number of apparent differences in the patterns of collaboration between the fields studied. Complex problem solving in science, engineering, and business has become a highly collaborative endeavor. Teams of scientists or engineers collaborate on projects using their social networks to gather new ideas and feedback. Here we bridge the literature on team performance and information networks by studying teams’ problem solving abilities as a function of both their within-team networks and their members’ extended networks. We show that, while an assigned team’s performance is strongly correlated with its networks of expressive and instrumental ties, only the strongest ties in both networks have an effect on performance. Both networks of strong ties explain more of the variance than other factors, such as measured or self-evaluated technical competencies, or the personalities of the team members. In fact, the inclusion of the network of strong ties renders these factors non-significant in the statistical analysis. Our results have consequences for the organization of teams of scientists, engineers, and other knowledge workers tackling today’s most complex problems. Using open source Web editing software (e.g., wiki), online community users can now easily edit, review and publish articles collaboratively. While much useful knowledge can be derived from these articles, content users and critics are often concerned about their qualities. In this paper, we develop two models, namely basic model and peer review model, for measuring the qualities of these articles and the authorities of their contributors. We represent collaboratively edited articles and their contributors in a bipartite graph. While the basic model measures an article?s quality using both the authorities of contributors and the amount of contribution from each contributor, the peer review model extends the former by considering the review aspect of article content. We present results of experiments conducted on some Wikipedia pages and their contributors. Our result show that the two models can effectively determine the articles? qualities and contributors? authorities using the collaborative nature of online communities. A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 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. The Internet has fostered an unconventional and powerful style of collaboration: "wiki" web sites, where every visitor has the power to become an editor. In this paper we investigate the dynamics of Wikipedia, a prominent, thriving wiki. We make three contributions. First, we introduce a new exploratory data analysis tool, the history flow visualization, which is effective in revealing patterns within the wiki context and which we believe will be useful in other collaborative situations as well. Second, we discuss several collaboration patterns highlighted by this visualization tool and corroborate them with statistical analysis. Third, we discuss the implications of these patterns for the design and governance of online collaborative social spaces. We focus on the relevance of authorship, the value of community surveillance in ameliorating antisocial behavior, and how authors with competing perspectives negotiate their differences. Collaborative spectrum sensing among secondary users (SUs) in cognitive networks is shown to yield a significant performance improvement. However, there exists an inherent trade off between the gains in terms of probability of detection of the primary user (PU) and the costs in terms of false alarm probability. In this paper, we study the impact of this trade off on the topology and the dynamics of a network of SUs seeking to reduce the interference on the PU through collaborative sensing. Moreover, while existing literature mainly focused on centralized solutions for collaborative sensing, we propose distributed collaboration strategies through game theory. We model the problem as a non-transferable coalitional game, and propose a distributed algorithm for coalition formation through simple merge and split rules. Through the proposed algorithm, SUs can autonomously collaborate and self-organize into disjoint independent coalitions, while maximizing their detection probability taking into account the cooperation costs (in terms of false alarm). We study the stability of the resulting network structure, and show that a maximum number of SUs per formed coalition exists for the proposed utility model. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm allows a reduction of up to 86.6 of the average missing probability per SU (probability of missing the detection of the PU) relative to the non-cooperative case, while maintaining a certain false alarm level. In addition, through simulations, we compare the performance of the proposed distributed solution with respect to an optimal centralized solution that minimizes the average missing probability per SU. Finally, the results also show how the proposed algorithm autonomously adapts the network topology to environmental changes such as mobility. GitHub is the most popular repository for open source code. It has more than 3.5 million users, as the company declared in April 2013, and more than 10 million repositories, as of December 2013. It has a publicly accessible API and, since March 2012, it also publishes a stream of all the events occurring on public projects. Interactions among GitHub users are of a complex nature and take place in different forms. Developers create and fork repositories, push code, approve code pushed by others, bookmark their favorite projects and follow other developers to keep track of their activities. In this paper we present a characterization of GitHub, as both a social network and a collaborative platform. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first quantitative study about the interactions happening on GitHub. We analyze the logs from the service over 18 months (between March 11, 2012 and September 11, 2013), describing 183.54 million events and we obtain information about 2.19 million users and 5.68 million repositories, both growing linearly in time. We show that the distributions of the number of contributors per project, watchers per project and followers per user show a power-law-like shape. We analyze social ties and repository-mediated collaboration patterns, and we observe a remarkably low level of reciprocity of the social connections. We also measure the activity of each user in terms of authored events and we observe that very active users do not necessarily have a large number of followers. Finally, we provide a geographic characterization of the centers of activity and we investigate how distance influences collaboration. With the tremendous amount of research publications, recommending relevant papers to researchers to fulfill their information need becomes a significant problem. The major challenge to be tackled by our work is that given a target paper, how to effectively recommend a set of relevant papers from an existing citation network. In this paper, we propose a novel method to address the problem by incorporating various citation relations for a proper set of papers, which are more relevant but with a very limited size. The proposed method has two unique properties. Firstly, a metric called Local Relation Strength is defined to measure the dependency between cited and citing papers. Secondly, a model called Global Relation Strength is proposed to capture the relevance between two papers in the whole citation graph. We evaluate our proposed model on a real-world publication dataset and conduct an extensive comparison with the state-of-the-art baseline methods. The experimental results demonstrate that our method can have a promising improvement over the state-of-the-art techniques. We study empirically the time evolution of scientific collaboration networks in physics and biology. In these networks, two scientists are considered connected if they have coauthored one or more papers together. We show that the probability of scientists collaborating increases with the number of other collaborators they have in common, and that the probability of a particular scientist acquiring new collaborators increases with the number of his or her past collaborators. These results provide experimental evidence in favor of previously conjectured mechanisms for clustering and power-law degree distributions in networks.