What Makes a Good Recommendation?

Characterization of Scientific Paper Recommendations
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9848)

Abstract

In this paper we propose several new measures to characterize sets of scientific papers that provide an overview of a scientific topic. We present a study in which experts were asked to name such papers for one of their areas of expertise and apply the measures to characterize the paper selections. The results are compared to the measured values for random paper selections. We find that the expert selected sets of papers can be characterized to have a moderately high diversity, moderately high coverage and each paper in the set has on average a high prototypicality.

References

  1. 1.
    Beel, J., Gipp, B., Langer, S., Breitinger, C.: Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey. Int. J. Digit. Libr., 1–34 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunne, C., Shneiderman, B., Gove, R., Klavans, J., Dorr, B.: Rapid understanding of scientific paper collections: integrating statistics, text analytics, and visualization. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(12), 2351–2369 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones, N.: User perceived qualities and acceptance of recommender systems. Dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (2010). http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/146784
  4. 4.
    Küçüktunç, O., Saule, E., Kaya, K., Çatalyürek, Ü.V.: Result diversification in automatic citation recommendation. In: Proceedings of the iConference Workshop on Computational Scientometrics: Theory and Applications, pp. 1–4 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinert, L., Chounta, I.-A., Hoppe, H.U.: Where to begin? using network analytics for the recommendation of scientific papers. In: Baloian, N., Zorian, Y., Taslakian, P., Shoukouryan, S. (eds.) CRIWG 2015. LNCS, vol. 9334, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., Su, Z.: Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 990–998. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tong, H., He, J., Wen, Z., Konuru, R., Lin, C.Y.: Diversified ranking on large graphs: an optimization viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1028–1036. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vellino, A.: A comparison between usage-based and citation-based methods for recommending scholarly research articles. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 47(1), 1–2 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziegler, C.N., McNee, S.M., Konstan, J.A., Lausen, G.: Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 22–32. ACM (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations