Tie strength distribution in scientific collaboration networks
Ke, Q. & Ahn, Y.-Y.
Phys. Rev. E, 90(3) 032804 (2014) [pdf]
Evaluating visual and statistical exploration of scientific literature networks.
Gove, R.; Dunne, C.; Shneiderman, B.; Klavans, J. & Dorr, B. J.
Costagliola, G.; Ko, A. J.; Cypher, A.; Nichols, J.; Scaffidi, C.; Kelleher, C. & Myers, B. A., ed., 'VL/HCC', IEEE, 217-224 (2011) [pdf]
Academic Publication Management with PUMA – Collect, Organize and Share Publications
Benz, D.; Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Stumme, G.; Halle, A.; Gerlach Sanches Lima, A.; Steenweg, H. & Stefani, S.
Lalmas, M.; Jose, J.; Rauber, A.; Sebastiani, F. & Frommholz, I., ed., 'Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries', 6273(), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 417-420 (2010) [pdf]
The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.
The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index
Larsen, P. O. & von Ins, M.
Scientometrics, 84(3) 575-603 (2010) [pdf]
The growth rate of scientific publication has been studied from 1907 to 2007 using available data from a number of literature databases, including Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Traditional scientific publishing, that is publication in peer-reviewed journals, is still increasing although there are big differences between fields. There are no indications that the growth rate has decreased in the last 50 years. At the same time publication using new channels, for example conference proceedings, open archives and home pages, is growing fast. The growth rate for SCI up to 2007 is smaller than for comparable databases. This means that SCI was covering a decreasing part of the traditional scientific literature. There are also clear indications that the coverage by SCI is especially low in some of the scientific areas with the highest growth rate, including computer science and engineering sciences. The role of conference proceedings, open access archives and publications published on the net is increasing, especially in scientific fields with high growth rates, but this has only partially been reflected in the databases. The new publication channels challenge the use of the big databases in measurements of scientific productivity or output and of the growth rate of science. Because of the declining coverage and this challenge it is problematic that SCI has been used and is used as the dominant source for science indicators based on publication and citation numbers. The limited data available for social sciences show that the growth rate in SSCI was remarkably low and indicate that the coverage by SSCI was declining over time. National Science Indicators from Thomson Reuters is based solely on SCI, SSCI and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Therefore the declining coverage of the citation databases problematizes the use of this source.
Ranking scientific publications using a model of network traffic
Walker, D.; Xie, H.; Yan, K.-K. & Maslov, S.
Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007(06) P06010 (2007) [pdf]
To account for strong ageing characteristics of citation networks, we modify the PageRank algorithm by initially distributing random surfers exponentially with age, in favour of more recent publications. The output of this algorithm, which we call CiteRank, is interpreted as approximate traffic to individual publications in a simple model of how researchers find new information. We optimize parameters of our algorithm to achieve the best performance. The results are compared for two rather different citation networks: all American Physical Society publications between 1893 and 2003 and the set of high-energy physics theory (hep-th) preprints. Despite major differences between these two networks, we find that their optimal parameters for the CiteRank algorithm are remarkably similar. The advantages and performance of CiteRank over more conventional methods of ranking publications are discussed.
Summarizing Scientific Articles - Experiments with Relevance and Rhetorical Status
Teufel, S. & Moens, M.
Computational Linguistics, 28() 2002 (2002) [pdf]
this paper we argue that scientific articles require a different summarization strategy than, for instance, news articles. We propose a strategy which concentrates on the rhetorical status of statements in the article: Material for summaries is selected in such a way that summaries can highlight the new contribution of the source paper and situate it with respect to earlier work. We provide a gold standard for summaries of this kind consisting of a substantial corpus of conference articles in computational linguistics with human judgements of rhetorical status and relevance. We present several experiments measuring our judges' agreement on these annotations. We also present an algorithm which, on the basis of the annotated training material, selects content and classifies it into a fixed set of seven rhetorical categories. The output of this extraction and classification system can be viewed as a single-document summary in its own right; alternatively, it can be used to generate task-oriented and user-tailored summaries designed to give users an overview of a scientific field.
Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results
Newman, M. E. J.
Phys. Rev. E, 64(1) 016131 (2001) [pdf]
Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents
Small, H.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4) 265-269 (1973) [pdf]
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.