Mutual Influence in Citation and Cooperation Patterns
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22108904 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chenbo Fu (0000-0002-9430-5096, Zhejiang University of Technology), Haogeng Luo (Zhejiang University of Technology), Xuejiao Liang (Zhejiang University of Technology), Yong Ki Min (0000-0002-9387-3921, Beijing Normal University), Qi Xuan (0000-0002-1042-470X, Zhejiang University of Technology), Guanrong Chen (0000-0003-1381-7418, City University of Hong Kong) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 3851-3861 |
| Publication date | 2024-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2329-924X • E-ISSN: 2373-7476 |
| Publisher | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1109/tcss.2023.3325264 |
| OpenAlex | W4388270696 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 77 |
Measuring the influence of scientists and their activities on science and society is important and indeed essential for many studies. Despite the substantial efforts devoted to exploring the influence’s measures and patterns of an individual scientific enterprise, it remains unclear how to quantify the mutual impact of multiple scientific activities. This work quantifies the relationship between the scientists’ interactive activities and their influences with different patterns in the AMiner dataset. Specifically, inflation treatment and field normalization are introduced to process the big data of paper citations as the scientist’s influence, and then the evolution of the influence is investigated for scientific activities in the citation and cooperation patterns through the Hawkes process. The results show that elite scientists have higher individual and interaction influences than ordinary scientists in all patterns found in the study, with permutation tests verifying the significance of the new findings. Moreover, the study compares the patterns found in two largest disciplines, i.e., STEM and Humanities , revealing the higher value of individual influence in STEM than in Humanities . Furthermore, it is found that the opposite trend of STEM and Humanities in the cooperation pattern suggests different cooperation habits of scientists in different disciplines. Overall, this investigation provides a feasible approach to addressing the scientific influence issue and deepening the quantitative understanding of the mutual influence of multiple scientific activities in science and society
Computer Science · Research Data Management Practices · Scientific Computing and Data Management · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
ArnetMiner
The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)
Networks of Scientific Papers
Factors affecting number of citations
An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications
Bias against novelty in science
Reputation and impact in academic careers
Universality of citation distributions
Science of science
Regression-discontinuity analysis
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact
The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor
Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration
Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation
Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science
The science of science
Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
Identification of Important Nodes in Multilayer Heterogeneous Networks Incorporating Multirelational Information
Impact of the reference list features on the number of citations
Analysis of Panel Data
Superstar Extinction
Which Peers Matter? The Relative Impacts of Collaborators, Colleagues, and Competitors
Scientific Productivity and the Reward Structure of Science
Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution
From Sole Investigator to Team Scientist
| Highly cited | No |
|---|