Abstract
Evaluating scientists based on their scientific production is often a controversial topic. Nevertheless, bibliometrics and algorithmic approaches can assist traditional peer review in numerous tasks, such as attributing research grants, deciding scientific committees, or choosing faculty promotions. Traditional bibliometrics focus on individual measures, disregarding the whole data (i.e., the whole network). Here we put forward OTARIOS, a graph-ranking method which combines multiple publication/citation criteria to rank authors. OTARIOS divides the original network in two subnetworks, insiders and outsiders, which is an adequate representation of citation networks with missing information. We evaluate OTARIOS on a set of five real networks, each with publications in distinct areas of Computer Science. When matching a metric’s produced ranking with best papers awards received, we observe that OTARIOS is \({>} 20\%\) more accurate than traditional bibliometrics. We obtain the best results when OTARIOS considers (i) the author’s publication volume and publication recency, (ii) how recently his work is being cited by outsiders, and (iii) how recently his work is being cited by insiders and how individual he his.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
