, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 1665–1693 | Cite as

Analysis of co-authorship graphs of CORE-ranked software conferences

  • Javier Luis Cánovas IzquierdoEmail author
  • Valerio Cosentino
  • Jordi Cabot


In most areas of computer science (CS), and in the software domain in particular, international conferences are as important as journals as a venue to disseminate research results. This has resulted in the creation of rankings to provide quality assessment of conferences (specially used for academic promotion purposes) like the well-known CORE ranking created by the Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia. In this paper we analyze 102 CORE-ranked conferences in the software area (covering all aspects of software engineering, programming languages, software architectures and the like) included in the DBLP dataset, an online reference for computers science bibliographic information. We define a suite of metrics focusing on the analysis of the co-authorship graph of the conferences, where authors are represented as nodes and co-authorship relationships as edges. Our aim is to first characterize the patterns and structure of the community of researchers in software conferences. We then try to see if these values depend on the quality rank of the conference justifying this way the existence of the different classifications in the CORE-ranking system.


Co-authorship graph DBLP dataset CORE conference ranking Scientometrics Computer science Software engineering 



We would like to thank Claudia Malpica for providing useful feedback on earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Biryukov, M., & Dong, C. (2010). Analysis of computer science communities based on DBLP. ECDL Conference, 6273, 228–235.Google Scholar
  2. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10, 1000.Google Scholar
  3. Dunn, O. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56(293), 52–64.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Elmacioglu, E., & Lee, D. (2005). On six degrees of separation in DBLP-DB and more. ACM SIGMOD Record, 34(2), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franceschet, M. (2010). The role of conference publications in CS. Communications of the ACM, 53(12), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franceschet, M. (2011). Collaboration in computer science: A network science approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1992–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freyne, J., Coyle, L., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2010). Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(11), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hassan, A.E., & Holt, R.C. (2004). The Small World of Software Reverse EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. Hollander, M., Douglas, W., & Chicken, E. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). NewYork: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang, J., Zhuang, Z., Li, J., & Giles, C. L. (2008). Collaboration over time: Characterizing and modeling network evolution. In WSDM Conference, pp. 107–116Google Scholar
  11. Konietschke, H., Hothorn, L., & Brunner, E. (2012). Rank-based multiple test procedures and simultaneous confidence intervals. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 6, 738–759.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. McKerlich, R., Ives, C., & McGreal, R. (2012). The large-scale structure of journal citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 837–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newman, M. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review, 64(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  14. Newman, M. E. J. (2000). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review, 64, 17.Google Scholar
  15. Rahm, E. (2008). Comparing the scientific impact of conference and journal publications in computer science. Information Services and Use, 28, 127–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sarigöl, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., & Schweitzer, F. (2014). Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tool, graphs and metric results used in the study (2016).
  18. Vardi, M. Y. (2009). Conferences versus journals in computing research. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A., & Mens, T. (2013). A historical dataset of software engineering conferences. In MSR conference, pp. 373–376Google Scholar
  20. Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A., Mens, T., van den Brand, M. G., Pek, E., Van Den Brand, M. G. J., et al. (2014). How healthy are software engineering conferences. Science of Computer Programming, 89(Part C), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Veselin, G., Zhaochen, G., Serrano, D., Tansey, B., Barbosa, D., & Stroulia, E. (2009). An environment for building, exploring and querying academic social networks. In MEDES conference, p. 42Google Scholar
  22. Wasserman, S., & Hollander, M. (1994). Social network analysis, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biom Bull, 1(6), 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). Discovering author impact: A PageRank perspective. Information Processing & Management, 47(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoshikane, F., & Kageura, K. (2004). Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks. Scientometrics, 60(3), 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmerman, D., & Zumbo, B. (1992). Parametric alternatives to the student t-test under violation of normality and homogeneity of variance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UOCBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.AtlanMod – Inria – EMN – LINANantesFrance
  3. 3.ICREA - UOCBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations