Advertisement

Citation interactions among computer science fields: a quantitative route to the rise and fall of scientific research

  • Tanmoy Chakraborty
  • Sandipan Sikdar
  • Niloy Ganguly
  • Animesh Mukherjee
Original Article

Abstract

In this work, we propose for the first time a suite of metrics that can be used to perform post-hoc analysis of the temporal communities of a large-scale citation network of the computer science domain. Each community refers to a particular research field in this network, and therefore, they act as natural sub-groupings of this network (i.e., ground-truths). The interactions between these ground-truth communities through citations over the real time naturally unfold the evolutionary landscape of the dynamic research trends in computer science. These interactions are quantified in terms of a metric called inwardness that captures the effect of local citations to express the degree of authoritativeness of a community (research field) at a particular time instance. In particular, we quantify the impact of a field, the influence imparted by one field on the other, the distribution of the “star” papers and authors, the degree of collaboration and seminal publications to characterize such research trends. In addition, we tear the data into three subparts representing the continents of North America, Europe and the rest of the world, and analyze how each of them influences one another as well as the global dynamics. We point to how the results of our analysis correlate with the project funding decisions made by agencies like NSF. We believe that this measurement study with a large real-world data is an important initial step towards understanding the dynamics of cluster-interactions in a temporal environment. Note that this paper, for the first time, systematically outlines a new avenue of research that one can practice post community detection.

Keywords

Community Detection Citation Network Research Trend Funding Decision Influential Paper 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blei DM, Lafferty JD (2006) Dynamic topic models. Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning., International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) ACM, New York, USA, pp 113–120Google Scholar
  2. Booth KS, Lueker GS (1976) Testing for the consecutive ones property, interval graphs, and graph planarity using pq-tree algorithms. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 13(3):335–379CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornholdt S, Jensen MH, Sneppen K (2011) Emergence and decline of scientific paradigms. Phys Rev Lett 106(5):058701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Börner K (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64(3):351–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakraborty T, Kumar S, Reddy MD, Kumar S, Ganguly N, Mukherjee A (2013) Automatic classification and analysis of interdisciplinary fields in computer sciences. In: 2013 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), Washington DC, USA pp 180–187Google Scholar
  6. Chakraborty T, Sikdar S, Tammana V, Ganguly N, Mukherjee A (2013) Computer science fields as ground-truth communities: their impact, rise and fall. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM), Nigara Falls, Canada pp 426–433Google Scholar
  7. Egghe L, Leydesdorff L (2009) The relation between Pearson’s correlation coefficient r and Salton’s cosine measure. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60(5):1027–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franceschet M (2010) A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 83(1):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfield E, Sher IH, Torpie RJ (1964) The use of citation data in writing the history of science. Institute for Scientific Information IncGoogle Scholar
  10. Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci US (PNAS) 99(12):7821–7826CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Guimerà R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308(5722):697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guns R, Rousseau R (2009) Real and rational variants of the h-index and the g-index. J Informetr 3(1):64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirsch JE (2007) Does the h index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci US (PNAS) 104(49), 19,193–19,198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirsch JE (2010) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 85(3):741–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jin B, Liang L, Rousseau R, Egghe L (2007) The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chin Sci Bull 52(6):855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kawamae N, Higashinaka R (2010) Trend detection model. In: Proceedings of WWW ’10, ACM, New York, USA, pp 1129–1130Google Scholar
  17. Kleinberg J (1999) Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J ACM 46(5):604–632CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee K, Palsetia D, Narayanan R, Patwary MMA, Agrawal A, Choudhary AN (2011) Twitter trending topic classification. In: International conference on data mining (ICDM) Workshops, pp 251–258Google Scholar
  20. Leicht EA, Clarkson G, Shedden K (2007) Newman: Large-scale structure of time evolving citation networks. Eur Phys J B 59(1):75–83CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazloumian A, Eom YH, Helbing D, Lozano S, Fortunato S (2011) How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and nobel prizes. PLoS ONE 6(5):e18975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pan RK, Sinha S, Kaski K, Saramäki J (2012) The evolution of interdisciplinarity in physics research. Nature Scientific Reports 2(551)Google Scholar
  23. Pham MC, Klamma R (2010) The structure of the computer science knowledge network. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 17–24Google Scholar
  24. Radicchi F, Castellano C, Cecconi F, Loreto V, Parisi D (2004) Defining and identifying communities in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci US (PNAS) 101(9):2658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Redner S (2005) Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review. Phys Today 58(6):49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaparenko B, Caruana R, Gehrke J, Joachims T (2005) Identifying temporal patterns and key players in document collections. In: IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pp 165–174.Google Scholar
  27. Shi X, Tseng BL, Adamic LA (2009) Information diffusion in computer science citation networks. In: international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), pp 319–322Google Scholar
  28. Shibata N, Kajikawa Y, Takeda Y, Matsushima K (2008) Detecting emerging research fronts based on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications. TECHNOVATION 28(11)Google Scholar
  29. de Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149(3683):510–515Google Scholar
  30. Spiliopoulou M, Ntoutsi I, Theodoridis Y, Schult R (2006) Monic: modeling and monitoring cluster transitions. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD, New York, USA, pp 706–711Google Scholar
  31. Tang J, Zhang J, Yao L, Li J, Zhang L, Su Z (2008) Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In: ACM SIGKDD, pp 990–998Google Scholar
  32. Yang J, Leskovec J (2012) Defining and evaluatingnetwork communities based on ground-truth. In: Proceedings of the ICDM’12, Brussels, Belgium, pp 745–754Google Scholar
  33. Yang J, Leskovec J (2013) Overlapping community detection at scale: a nonnegative matrix factorization approach. In: international conference on web search and data mining (WSDM), pp 587–596Google Scholar
  34. Zhao Q, Bhowmick SS, Zheng X, Yi K (2008) Characterizing and predicting community members from evolutionary and heterogeneous networks. In: ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM), pp 309–318Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanmoy Chakraborty
    • 1
  • Sandipan Sikdar
    • 1
  • Niloy Ganguly
    • 1
  • Animesh Mukherjee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations