Exploring dynamic research interest and academic influence for scientific collaborator recommendation

In many cases, it is time-consuming for researchers to find proper collaborators who can provide researching guidance besides simply collaborating. The Most Beneficial Collaborators (MBCs), who have high academic level and relevant research topics, can genuinely help researchers to enrich their research. However, how can we find the MBCs? In this paper, we propose a most Beneficial Collaborator Recommendation model called BCR. BCR learns on researchers’ publications and associates three academic features: topic distribution of research interest, interest variation with time and researchers’ impact in collaborators network. We run a topic model on researchers’ publications in each year for topic clustering. The generated topic distribution matrix is fixed by a time function to fit the interest dynamic transformation. The academic social impact is also considered to mine the most prolific researchers. Finally, a TopN MBCs recommendation list is generated according to the computed score. Extensive experiments on a dataset with citation network demonstrate that, in comparison to relevant baseline approaches, our BCR performs better in terms of precision, recall, F1 score and the recommendation quality.     

Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research

The literature on publication counting demonstrates the use of various terminologies and methods. In many scientific publications, no information at all is given about the counting methods used. There is a lack of knowledge and agreement about the sort of information provided by the various methods, about the theoretical and technical limitations for the different methods and about the size of the differences obtained by using various methods. The need for precise definitions and terminology has been expressed repeatedly but with no success. Counting methods for publications are defined and analysed with the use of set and measure theory. The analysis depends on definitions of basic units for analysis (three chosen for examination), objects of study (three chosen for examination) and score functions (five chosen for examination). The score functions define five classes of counting methods. However, in a number of cases different combinations of basic units of analysis, objects of study and score functions give identical results. Therefore, the result is the characterization of 19 counting methods, five complete counting methods, five complete-normalized counting methods, two whole counting methods, two whole-normalized counting methods, and five straight counting methods. When scores for objects of study are added, the value obtained can be identical with or higher than the score for the union of the objects of study. Therefore, some classes of counting methods, including the classes of complete, complete-normalized and straight counting methods, are additive, others, including the classes of whole and whole-normalized counting methods, are non-additive. An analysis of the differences between scores obtained by different score functions and therefore the differences obtained by different counting methods is presented. In this analysis we introduce a new kind of objects of study, the class of cumulative-turnout networks for objects of study, containing full information on cooperation. Cumulative-turnout networks are all authors, institutions or countries contributing to the publications of an author, an institute or a country. The analysis leads to an interpretation of the results of score functions and to the definition of new indicators for scientific cooperation. We also define a number of other networks, internal cumulative-turnout networks, external cumulative-turnout networks, underlying networks, internal underlying networks and external underlying networks. The networks open new opportunities for quantitative studies of scientific cooperation.     

Size,age and productivity of scientific and technical research groups

Varied empirical studies show that the average output (measured in various ways) of a scientific or technical research group is directly proportional to its size (also measured in various ways), when the size and output are measured independently. Hence groups of different sizes have the same average output per unit of size. There is no reliable evidence for the existence of a size or a range of sizes for a research group that maximizes output per unit of size. Present theoretical explanations for the proportionality between size and output are largely inadequate or untested. Similarly, among reported results on group age and output, the only consistency so far is that age, measured as years since the founding or first functioning of the group, is uncorrelated with output per capita. Again, there is no evidence for the existence of an age or a range of ages for a research group that is optimal.This paper was prepared for the conference on Generational Dynamics and Innovation in Basic Science, June 1–2, 1989, organized byKarl Urlich Mayer, and held at the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, Schloß Ringberg, Tegernsee, B. R. D. (West Germany). A German translation of this article has been published in theMitteilungen der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Heft 3/90.     

Differences in scientific productivity of research units: Measurement and analysis of output inequality

Three aspects of inequalities in scientific productivity of research units-scientists within RUs, RUs in the full sample and its cross-section, and an aggregate approach, in which components referring to the first two types of inequality were distinguished—was used to analyse the causes underlying unequall productivity. Using inequality measure based on the theory of information (Theil measure) an inverse relationship between volume of productivity and its inequality was empirically found both within research units and among RUs of a given organizational system. Therefore identifying the soruces of variability of output inequalities may be helpful in drawing conclusions regarding to the absolute volumes of scientific productivity of RUs.     

The research productivity of academic psychologists: assessment,trends, and best practice recommendations

Research productivity affects the careers of academic psychologists. Unfortunately, there is a surprising lack of consensus on productivity’s meaning, measurement, and how to compare the productivity of one academic psychologist to another. In the present study, we review academic productivity research within psychology, and using a sample of 673 psychologists, compute six indexes of productivity. Most productivity metrics (publication count, citation count, or some combination of the two) were substantially interrelated and one (Integrated Research Productivity Index) was independent from years in the field. Female psychologists were equally as productive as male psychologists after accounting for years in the field, and pre-tenure psychologists showed steeper change-over-time productivity slopes than post-tenure psychologists. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for the use and measurement of academic research productivity.     

Major factors affecting China's inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity

On the basis of the measured frequency distribution of China"s inter-regional co-authored papers covered by the Chinese Science Citation Database, this paper shows the pattern of China"s inter-regional research collaboration (IRRC), and analyzes how the collaborative pattern was formed. A new method is used to calculate the expected value matrix based on an observed value matrix of IRRC, which is asymmetric and has no diagonal elements. The results fall into three groups. 1) Regional scientific productivity affects both the collaborative preference and ranking of authors" name; 2) geographical proximity is an important factor determining the pattern of IRRC; 3) when using Salton"s measure, regional mean collaborative strength increases as the regional productivity increases, and as the distance between two regions decreases.     

Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system

The literature dedicated to the analysis of the difference in research productivity between the sexes tends to agree in indicating better performance for men. Through bibliometric examination of the entire population of research personnel working in the scientific-technological disciplines of Italian university system, this study confirms the presence of significant differences in productivity between men and women. The differences are, however, smaller than reported in a large part of the literature, confirming an ongoing tendency towards decline, and are also seen as more noticeable for quantitative performance indicators than other indicators. The gap between the sexes shows significant sectorial differences. In spite of the generally better performance of men, there are scientific sectors in which the performance of women does not prove to be inferior.     

Changes of scientific knowledge production and research productivity in a transitional society

The main objective of this paper is to provide an empirical insight into the changes in the basic characteristics of the knowledge production mode and of scientific productivity in the Croatian research system in the transitional period. Empirical analysis is based on the results of two comparable questionnaire studies. The first survey was conducted in 1990 and the sample covered 921 respondents, while the second survey was conducted in 2004 with a sample of 915 respondents. The central characteristics of the knowledge production mode and of productivity confirm an expected duality: the features that accompany the introduction of a competitive system of research funding and evaluation on the one hand, and the anachronistic and newly acquired peculiarity of the research system on the other. Thus, the gap between the improved scientific performance of the researchers and the conditions in which they work has deepened. Scientific productivity still lags behind the productivity of the (developed) countries. Though Croatian researchers publish less, they follow basic global trends in the structure of publications, especially the rise in foreign and co-authored works.     

Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity

The aim of this study is to contribute to the debate on the relationship between scientific mobility and international collaboration. This case study deals with leading Chinese researchers in the field of plant molecular life sciences who returned to their home country. A correlation analysis of their mobility history, publication output, and international co-publication data, shows the relationship between scientific output, levels of international collaboration and various individual characteristics of returned researchers. The outcome of the analysis suggests that while host countries may loose human capital when Chinese scientists return home, the so-called “return brain drain”, they may also gain in terms of scientific linkages within this rapidly emerging and globalizing research field.     

An international comparison of relative contributions to academic productivity

This paper presents a methodology for measuring the improvements in efficiency and adjustments in the scale of R&D (Research & Development) activities. For this purpose, this study decomposes academic productivity growth into components attributable to (1) world academic frontier change, (2) R&D efficiency change, (3) human capital accumulation, and (4) capital accumulation. The world academic frontier at each point in time is constructed using data envelopment analysis (DEA). This study calculates each of the above four components of academic productivity for 27 countries over 1990–2003, and finds that the components which contribute to academic productivity growth vary with the different countries’ characteristics and development stages. Human capital has more weight in terms of the quantity of academic research, and capital accumulation plays a more important role in the citation impact of academic research.     

Diversity of research publications: relation to agricultural productivity and possible implications for STI policy

Technologies may have significant effects on productivity in the agricultural sector as documented in the related literature. However, those impacts vary from country to country. These differences could partially reflect the distinct scientific landscapes, science technology and innovation (STI) policies and approaches to R&D. In order to explain the cross-country volatility of agricultural productivity, we aim to study issues of STI development in the agricultural sector in each country. Among other characteristics of STI in general and the scientific landscape, in particular, we looked at the diversification of research publication between subfields of agricultural science. We estimated the research diversification parameter and studied its relation to economic performance of an agricultural sector. Our main finding shows that R&D funding, if carefully balanced with the diversification of agricultural science, could improve research performance and eventually productivity in an agricultural sector.     

Bibliometric profiles for British academic institutions: An experiment to develop research output indicators

In this paper, we report the results of an exploratory study commissioned by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to produce bibliometric research profiles for academic and related institutions within the UK. The approach adopted is based on the methodology developed by CHI Research whereby publications from a given institution are weighted according to the influence of the journal in which they appear. Although certain technical limitations were encountered with the approach, the study nonetheless yielded potentially useful information on the comparative research output of British universities and polytechnics.The findings and conclusions presented are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the views of their institutions or the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Correspondence concerning the paper should be addressed toMartin at SPRU.     

Collective topical PageRank: a model to evaluate the topic-dependent academic impact of scientific papers

Scientometrics - With the explosive growth of academic writing, it is difficult for researchers to find significant papers in their area of interest. In this paper, we propose a pipeline model,...     

Synergy or separation mode: the relationship between the academic research and the knowledge-transfer activities of Korean academics

What factors influence the relationship between the academic research and the knowledge- transfer activities of academics, in particular in ‘catch-up’ countries like South Korea? To address this research question, after first conducting a critical review of existing theoretical and empirical studies, we put forward a conceptual framework based on the twin concepts of ‘synergy’ and ‘separation’ modes, together with a number of accompanying hypotheses. These hypotheses, along with others that emerged from subsequent interviews, are then tested using various statistical models. After taking into account the specific characteristics of scientific communities in rapidly catching-up counties such as Korea, we find that not only are individual characteristics (such as the gender, age, discipline, and patenting activity) of academics significantly related to the generation of a ‘synergy mode’ (i.e. a positive relationship between academic research and knowledge-transfer activities) among academics, but so too are a number of contextual characteristics (e.g. laboratory size and type of university).     

Distribution of scientific productivity: Ambiguities in the assignment of author rank

Methodological implications of four accounting procedures applied in multiple authorship treatment relating to author productivity distribution were investigated. The emphasis was given to the individual author rank and inequality pattern of data. It was found that similar pattern of inequality holds in three of the four analysed cases, in spite of the fact that significant changes were observed on the individual level. By introducing the concept of dual approach a plausible interpretation of that phenomenon was obtained.Dedicated to the memory of Michael J. Moravcsik     

From triadic closure to conference closure: the role of academic conferences in promoting scientific collaborations

An academic conference is not only a venue for publishing papers but also a nursery room for new scientific encounters. While previous research has investigated scientific collaboration mechanisms based on the triadic closure and focal closure, in this paper, we propose a new collaboration mechanism named conference closure. Conference closure means that scholars involved in a common conference may collaborate with each other in the future. We analyze the extent to which scholars will meet new collaborators from both the individual and community levels by using 22 conferences in the field of data mining extracted from DBLP digital library. Our results demonstrate the existence of conference closure and this phenomenon is more remarkable in conferences with high field rating and large scale attendees. Scholars involved in multiple conferences will encounter more collaborators from the conferences. Another interesting finding is that although most conference attendees are junior scholars with few publications, senior scholars with fruitful publications may gain more collaborations during the conference. Meanwhile, the conference closure still holds if we control the productivity homophily. Our study will shed light on evaluating the impact of a conference from the social function perspective based on the index of conference closure.     

The Annus Mirabilis paper: years of peak productivity in scientific careers

Scientometrics - This paper defines the ‘miraculous year’ as the most productive year in academics’ scientific careers. It tests the hypothesis that annual productivity is...