Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMapping the impact of papers on various status groups: A new excellence mapping tool based on citation and reader scores
95
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In over five years, Bornmann, Stefaner, de Moya Anegon, and Mutz (2014) and Bornmann, Stefaner, de Moya Anegon, and Mutz (2014, 2015) have published several releases of the www.excellencemapping.net tool revealing (clusters of) excellent institutions worldwide based on citation data. With the new release, a completely revised tool has been published. It is not only based on citation data (bibliometrics), but also Mendeley data (altmetrics). Thus, the institutional impact measurement of the tool has been expanded by focusing on additional status groups besides researchers such as students and librarians. Furthermore, the visualization of the data has been completely updated by improving the operability for the user and including new features such as institutional profile pages. In this paper, we describe the datasets for the current excellencemapping.net tool and the indicators applied. Furthermore, the underlying statistics for the tool and the use of the web application are explained.
rate research
Read More
The web application presented in this paper allows for an analysis to reveal centres of excellence in different fields worldwide using publication and citation data. Only specific aspects of institutional performance are taken into account and other aspects such as teaching performance or societal impact of research are not considered. Based on data gathered from Scopus, field-specific excellence can be identified in institutions where highly-cited papers have been frequently published. The web application combines both a list of institutions ordered by different indicator values and a map with circles visualizing indicator values for geocoded institutions. Compared to the mapping and ranking approaches introduced hitherto, our underlying statistics (multi-level models) are analytically oriented by allowing (1) the estimation of values for the number of excellent papers for an institution which are statistically more appropriate than the observed values; (2) the calculation of confidence intervals as measures of accuracy for the institutional citation impact; (3) the comparison of a single institution with an average institution in a subject area, and (4) the direct comparison of at least two institutions.
Researchers affiliated with multiple institutions are increasingly seen in current scientific environment. In this paper we systematically analyze the multi-affiliated authorship and its effect on citation impact, with focus on the scientific output of research collaboration. By considering the nationality of each institutions, we further differentiate the national multi-affiliated authorship and international multi-affiliated authorship and reveal their different patterns across disciplines and countries. We observe a large share of publications with multi-affiliated authorship (45.6%) in research collaboration, with a larger share of publications containing national multi-affiliated authorship in medicine related and biology related disciplines, and a larger share of publications containing international type in Space Science, Physics and Geosciences. To a country-based view, we distinguish between domestic and foreign multi-affiliated authorship to a specific country. Taking G7 and BRICS countries as samples from different S&T level, we find that the domestic national multi-affiliated authorship relate to more on citation impact for most disciplines of G7 countries, while domestic international multi-affiliated authorships are more positively influential for most BRICS countries.
This paper investigates the impact of institutes and papers over time based on the heterogeneous institution-citation network. A new model, IPRank, is introduced to measure the impact of institution and paper simultaneously. This model utilises the heterogeneous structural measure method to unveil the impact of institution and paper, reflecting the effects of citation, institution, and structural measure. To evaluate the performance, the model first constructs a heterogeneous institution-citation network based on the American Physical Society (APS) dataset. Subsequently, PageRank is used to quantify the impact of institution and paper. Finally, impacts of same institution are merged, and the ranking of institutions and papers is calculated. Experimental results show that the IPRank model better identifies universities that host Nobel Prize laureates, demonstrating that the proposed technique well reflects impactful research.
Quantifying the impact of a scholarly paper is of great significance, yet the effect of geographical distance of cited papers has not been explored. In this paper, we examine 30,596 papers published in Physical Review C, and identify the relationship between citations and geographical distances between author affiliations. Subsequently, a relative citation weight is applied to assess the impact of a scholarly paper. A higher-order weighted quantum PageRank algorithm is also developed to address the behavior of multiple step citation flow. Capturing the citation dynamics with higher-order dependencies reveals the actual impact of papers, including necessary self-citations that are sometimes excluded in prior studies. Quantum PageRank is utilized in this paper to help differentiating nodes whose PageRank values are identical.
We explore the degree to which papers prepublished on arXiv garner more citations, in an attempt to paint a sharper picture of fairness issues related to prepublishing. A papers citation count is estimated using a negative-binomial generalized linear model (GLM) while observing a binary variable which indicates whether the paper has been prepublished. We control for author influence (via the authors h-index at the time of paper writing), publication venue, and overall time that paper has been available on arXiv. Our analysis only includes papers that were eventually accepted for publication at top-tier CS conferences, and were posted on arXiv either before or after the acceptance notification. We observe that papers submitted to arXiv before acceptance have, on average, 65% more citations in the following year compared to papers submitted after. We note that this finding is not causal, and discuss possible next steps.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
