Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userHierarchical networks of scientific journals
389
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Scientific journals are the repositories of the gradually accumulating knowledge of mankind about the world surrounding us. Just as our knowledge is organised into classes ranging from major disciplines, subjects and fields to increasingly specific topics, journals can also be categorised into groups using various metrics. In addition to the set of topics characteristic for a journal, they can also be ranked regarding their relevance from the point of overall influence. One widespread measure is impact factor, but in the present paper we intend to reconstruct a much more detailed description by studying the hierarchical relations between the journals based on citation data. We use a measure related to the notion of m-reaching centrality and find a network which shows the level of influence of a journal from the point of the direction and efficiency with which information spreads through the network. We can also obtain an alternative network using a suitably modified nested hierarchy extraction method applied to the same data. The results are weakly methodology-dependent and reveal non-trivial relations among journals. The two alternative hierarchies show large similarity with some striking differences, providing together a complex picture of the intricate relations between scientific journals.
rate research
Read More
Recent research has found that select scientists have a disproportional share of highly cited papers. Researchers reasoned that this could not have happened if success in science was random and introduced a hidden parameter Q, or talent, to explain this finding. So, the talented high-Q scientists have many high impact papers. Here I show that an upgrade of an old random citation copying model could also explain this finding. In the new model the probability of citation copying is not the same for all papers but is proportional to the logarithm of the total number of citations to all papers of its author. Numerical simulations of the model give results similar to the empirical findings of the Q-factor article.
Many of the essential features of the evolution of scientific research are imprinted in the structure of citation networks. Connections in these networks imply information about the transfer of knowledge among papers, or in other words, edges describe the impact of papers on other publications. This inherent meaning of the edges infers that citation networks can exhibit hierarchical features, that is typical of networks based on decision-making. In this paper, we investigate the hierarchical structure of citation networks consisting of papers in the same field. We find that the majority of the networks follow a universal trend towards a highly hierarchical state, and i) the various fields display differences only concerning their phase in life (distance from the birth of a field) or ii) the characteristic time according to which they are approaching the stationary state. We also show by a simple argument that the alterations in the behavior are related to and can be understood by the degree of specialization corresponding to the fields. Our results suggest that during the accumulation of knowledge in a given field, some papers are gradually becoming relatively more influential than most of the other papers.
The editorial handling of papers in scientific journals as a human activity process is considered. Using recently proposed approaches of human dynamics theory we examine the probability distributions of random variables reflecting the temporal characteristics of studied processes. The first part of this paper contains our results of analysis of the real data about papers published in scientific journals. The second part is devoted to modeling of time-series connected with editorial work. The purpose of our work is to present new object that can be studied in terms of human dynamics theory and to corroborate the scientometrical application of the results obtained.
Whether a scientific paper is cited is related not only to the influence of its author(s) but also to the journal publishing it. Scientists, either proficient or tender, usually submit their most important work to prestigious journals which receives higher citations than the ordinary. How to model the role of scientific journals in citation dynamics is of great importance. In this paper we address this issue through two folds. One is the intrinsic heterogeneity of a paper determined by the impact factor of the journal publishing it. The other is the mechanism of a paper being cited which depends on its citations and prestige. We develop a model for citation networks via an intrinsic nodal weight function and an intuitive ageing mechanism. The nodes weight is drawn from the distribution of impact factors of journals and the ageing transition is a function of the citation and the prestige. The node-degree distribution of resulting networks shows nonuniversal scaling: the distribution decays exponentially for small degree and has a power-law tail for large degree, hence the dual behaviour. The higher the impact factor of the journal, the larger the tipping point and the smaller the power exponent that are obtained. With the increase of the journal rank, this phenomenon will fade and evolve to pure power laws.
Analyzing a large data set of publications drawn from the most competitive journals in the natural and social sciences we show that research careers exhibit the broad distributions of individual achievement characteristic of systems in which cumulative advantage plays a key role. While most researchers are personally aware of the competition implicit in the publication process, little is known about the levels of inequality at the level of individual researchers. We analyzed both productivity and impact measures for a large set of researchers publishing in high-impact journals. For each researcher cohort we calculated Gini inequality coefficients, with average Gini values around 0.48 for total publications and 0.73 for total citations. For perspective, these observed values are well in excess of the inequality levels observed for personal income in developing countries. Investigating possible sources of this inequality, we identify two potential mechanisms that act at the level of the individual that may play defining roles in the emergence of the broad productivity and impact distributions found in science. First, we show that the average time interval between a researchers successive publications in top journals decreases with each subsequent publication. Second, after controlling for the time dependent features of citation distributions, we compare the citation impact of subsequent publications within a researchers publication record. We find that as researchers continue to publish in top journals, there is more likely to be a decreasing trend in the relative citation impact with each subsequent publication. This pattern highlights the difficulty of repeatedly publishing high-impact research and the intriguing possibility that confirmation bias plays a role in the evaluation of scientific careers.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
