Abstract
The success of scientific, artistic, and technological works is typically judged by human experts and the public. Recent empirical literature suggests that exceptionally creative works might have distinct patterns of citation. Given the recent availability of large citation and reference networks, we investigate how highly successful works differ from less successful ones in terms of a broad selection of centrality indices. Our experiments show that expert opinion is better emulated than popular judgment even with a single well-chosen index. Our findings further provide insights into otherwise implicit assumptions about indicators of success by evaluating the success of works based on the patterns of references that they receive.
Keywords
- Crowd Assessment
- Centrality Indices
- IMDb Movies
- Python Package Index (PyPI)
- Internet Movie Database (IMDb)
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options







Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Authors of scientific papers can reference their forthcoming work or papers in the same volume. Movies can have anomalous references due to delayed release dates and avid marketing strategies in pre-release stage. Developers can freely change dependencies after publishing their packages, sometimes choosing more recent packages.
References
Bonabeau, E.: Decisions 2.0: the power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 45–52 (2009)
Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)
Burton, R.E., Kebler, R.W.: The “half-life” of some scientific and technical literatures. Am. Doc. 11(1), 18–22 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090110105
Chen, P., Xie, H., Maslov, S., Redner, S.: Finding scientific gems with google’s pagerank algorithm. J. Inf. 1(1), 8–15 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.06.001
Dreber, A., et al.: Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(50), 15343–15347 (2015)
Elberse, A.: Blockbusters: Hit-making, Risk-taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment. Henry Holt and Company, LLC (2013)
Fawcett, T.: An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 27(8), 861–874 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010
Garfield, E.: Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122(3159), 108–111 (1955). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
Garfield, E.: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295(1), 90–93 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
Hahn, R., Tetlock, P.C.: Using information markets to improve public decision making. Harv. J. Law Public Policy 29(1), 213–289 (2005)
Hirsch, J.E.: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102(46), 16569–16572 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A.D., Lautrup, B.E.: Measures for measures. Nature 444(7122), 1003–1004 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/4441003a
Louppe, G., Wehenkel, L., Sutera, A., Geurts, P.: Understanding variable importances in forests of randomized trees. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 431–439 (2013)
Monechi, B., Gravino, P., Servedio, V.D.P., Tria, F., Loreto, V.: Significance and popularity in music production. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4(7) (2017). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170433
Mones, E., Pollner, P., Vicsek, T.: Universal hierarchical behavior of citation networks. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2014(5), P05023 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2014/05/P05023
Moore, D.A., et al.: Confidence calibration in a multiyear geopolitical forecasting competition. Manag. Sci. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2525
Mukherjee, S., Romero, D.M., Jones, B., Uzzi, B.: The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: the hotspot. Sci. Adv. 3(4), e1601315 (2017)
Newman, M.E.: Networks. An introduction. Oxford (2010)
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Tech. rep, Stanford InfoLab (1999)
Price, D.J.D.S.: Networks of scientific papers. Science pp. 510–515 (1965)
Reader, S.M., Morand-Ferron, J., Flynn, E.: Animal and human innovation: novel problems and novel solutions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 371(1690) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0182
Rosen, S.: The economics of superstars. Am. Econ. Rev. 71(5), 845–858 (1981)
Salganik, M.J., Dodds, P.S., Watts, D.: Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(10), 854–856 (2006)
Schilling, M.A.: A “small-world” network model of cognitive insight. Creativity Res. J. 17(2–3), 131–154 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2005.9651475
Spitz, A., Horvát, E.Á.: Measuring long-term impact based on network centrality: unraveling cinematic citations. PloS one 9(10), e108857 (2014)
Thelwall, M., Maflahi, N.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2014)
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., Jones, B.: Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157), 468–472 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474
Wang, D., Song, C., Barabási, A.L.: Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science 342(6154), 127–132 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237825
Wasserman, M., et al.: Correlations between user voting data, budget, and box office for films in the internet movie database. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(4), 858–868 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23213
Wasserman, M., Zeng, X.H.T., Amaral, L.A.N.: Cross-evaluation of metrics to estimate the significance of creative works. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(5), 1281–1286 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412198112
Watts, D.: Everything is Obvious: Once You Know the Answer. Crown Business (2011)
Weitzman, M.: Recombinant growth. Q. J. Econ. 113(2) (1998)
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Roberta Sinatra for valuable discussion and data on Nobel prize winners. Special thanks go to Noshir Contractor and SONIC lab members for supporting the preparation of this manuscript.I.Z. has been partially funded through the Russian academic excellence project “5–100”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zakhlebin, I., Horvát, EÁ. (2018). Network Signatures of Success: Emulating Expert and Crowd Assessment in Science, Art, and Technology. In: Cherifi, C., Cherifi, H., Karsai, M., Musolesi, M. (eds) Complex Networks & Their Applications VI. COMPLEX NETWORKS 2017. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 689. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72150-7_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72150-7_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72149-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72150-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)