Abstract

BackgroundOptimal ranking of literature importance is vital in overcoming article overload. Existing ranking methods are typically based on raw citation counts, giving a sum of ‘inbound’ links with no consideration of citation importance. PageRank, an algorithm originally developed for ranking webpages at the search engine, Google, could potentially be adapted to bibliometrics to quantify the relative importance weightings of a citation network. This article seeks to validate such an approach on the freely available, PubMed Central open access subset (PMC-OAS) of biomedical literature.ResultsOn-demand cloud computing infrastructure was used to extract a citation network from over 600,000 full-text PMC-OAS articles. PageRanks and citation counts were calculated for each node in this network. PageRank is highly correlated with citation count (R = 0.905, P < 0.01) and we thus validate the former as a surrogate of literature importance. Furthermore, the algorithm can be run in trivial time on cheap, commodity cluster hardware, lowering the barrier of entry for resource-limited open access organisations.ConclusionsPageRank can be trivially computed on commodity cluster hardware and is linearly correlated with citation count. Given its putative benefits in quantifying relative importance, we suggest it may enrich the citation network, thereby overcoming the existing inadequacy of citation counts alone. We thus suggest PageRank as a feasible supplement to, or replacement of, existing bibliometric ranking methods.

Highlights

  • Optimal ranking of literature importance is vital in overcoming article overload

  • PageRank is shown to be a surrogate of literature importance A statistically significant correlation between PageRank and citation count was observed (P < 0.01) with a high correlation coefficient (R = 0.905)

  • Given the current role of citation count as a marker of literature importance, we demonstrate PageRank to be a similar such surrogate due to high degree of correlation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Optimal ranking of literature importance is vital in overcoming article overload. Existing ranking methods are typically based on raw citation counts, giving a sum of ‘inbound’ links with no consideration of citation importance. High citation rates (in addition to journal impact factor and circulation rates) are proposed to be predictive of article quality [2], in turn, scientific importance. Factors such as bias towards review articles and variable bibliographic lengths suggest that such methods are not always optimal [3]. Citation counts give no weighting towards articles of greater importance. A method of objectively weighting literature importance would be highly beneficial

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.