Where to Begin? Using Network Analytics for the Recommendation of Scientific Papers

  • Laura SteinertEmail author
  • Irene-Angelica Chounta
  • H. Ulrich Hoppe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9334)


This paper proposes a network analytic approach for scientific paper recommendations to researchers and academic learners. The proposed approach makes use of the similarity between citing and cited papers to eliminate irrelevant citations. This is achieved by combining both content-related and network-based similarities. The process of selecting recommendations is inspired by the ways researchers adopt in literature search, i.e. traversing certain paths in a citation network by omitting others. In this paper, we present the application of the newly devised algorithm to provide paper recommendations. To evaluate the results, we conducted a study in which human raters evaluated the paper recommendations and the ratings were compared to the results of other network analytic algorithms (such as Main Path Analysis and Modularity Clustering) and a well known recommendation algorithm (Collaborative Filtering). The evaluation shows that the newly devised algorithm yields good results comparable to those generated by Collaborative Filtering and exceeds those of the other network analytic algorithms.


Edge Weight Citation Network Collaborative Filter Graph Cluster Main Path 
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.


  1. 1.
    Andresen, E.M.: Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 81, 15–20 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batagelj, V.: Efficient algorithms for citation network analysis (2003). arXiv preprint cs/0309023
  3. 3.
    Charles, C.: Analysis of Communication Flow in Online Chats. Master’s thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clauset, A., Newman, M.E., Moore, C.: Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys. Rev. E 70(6), 066111 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, Y., Zhang, G., Chambers, T., Song, M., Wang, X., Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis: the next generation of citation analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(9), 1820–1833 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garfield, E.: Abcs of cluster mapping. 1. most active fields in the life sciences in 1978. Curr. Contents 40, 5–12 (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garfield, E., et al.: Can citation indexing be automated. In: Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation, Symposium Proceedings, pp. 189–192 (1965)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, X., Zha, H., Ding, C.H., Simon, H.D.: Web document clustering using hyperlink structures. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 41(1), 19–45 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hummon, N.P., Doreian, P.: Connectivity in a citation network: the development of dna theory. Soc. Netw. 11(1), 39–63 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, J., Lee, K., Kim, J.G.: Personalized academic research paper recommendation system (2013). arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.5457
  11. 11.
    Liu, J.S., Lu, L.Y.: An integrated approach for main path analysis: development of the hirsch index as an example. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(3), 528–542 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNee, S.M., Albert, I., Cosley, D., Gopalkrishnan, P., Lam, S.K., Rashid, A.M., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, J.: On the recommending of citations for research papers. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 116–125. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mihalcea, R., Tarau, P.: Textrank: bringing order into texts. In: Proceedings of EMNLP, vol. 4, p. 275, Barcelona, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pohl, S., Radlinski, F., Joachims, T.: Recommending related papers based on digital library access records (2007). CoRR abs/0704.2902Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Small, H.: Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24(4), 265–269 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strohman, T., Croft, W.B., Jensen, D.: Recommending citations for academic papers. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 705–706. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugiyama, K., Kan, M.Y.: Scholarly paper recommendation via user’s recent research interests. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 29–38. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., Tidhar, D.: Automatic classification of citation function. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 103–110. Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torres, R., McNee, S.M., Abel, M., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, J.: Enhancing digital libraries with techlens+. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 228–236. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wise, M.J.: Yap 3: improved detection of similarities in computer program and other texts. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 28, pp. 130–134. ACM (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Steinert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irene-Angelica Chounta
    • 1
  • H. Ulrich Hoppe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations