Analysis of co-authorship graphs of CORE-ranked software conferences

In most areas of computer science (CS), and in the software domain in particular, international conferences are as important as journals as a venue to disseminate research results. This has resulted in the creation of rankings to provide quality assessment of conferences (specially used for academic promotion purposes) like the well-known CORE ranking created by the Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia. In this paper we analyze 102 CORE-ranked conferences in the software area (covering all aspects of software engineering, programming languages, software architectures and the like) included in the DBLP dataset, an online reference for computers science bibliographic information. We define a suite of metrics focusing on the analysis of the co-authorship graph of the conferences, where authors are represented as nodes and co-authorship relationships as edges. Our aim is to first characterize the patterns and structure of the community of researchers in software conferences. We then try to see if these values depend on the quality rank of the conference justifying this way the existence of the different classifications in the CORE-ranking system.

[1]  Ingo Scholtes,et al.  Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks , 2014, EPJ Data Science.

[2]  Padraig Cunningham,et al.  Relative status of journal and conference publications in computer science , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[3]  O. J. Dunn.  Multiple Comparisons among Means , 1961 .

[4]  Richard C. Holt,et al.  The small world of software reverse engineering , 2004, 11th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering.

[5]  Dongwon Lee,et al.  On six degrees of separation in DBLP-DB and more , 2005, SGMD.

[6]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  Collaboration in computer science: a network science approach. Part II , 2011, ArXiv.

[7]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  The large-scale structure of journal citation networks , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[9]  Kyo Kageura,et al.  Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: The growth and change of networks , 2004, Scientometrics.

[10]  Tom Mens,et al.  A historical dataset of software engineering conferences , 2013, 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR).

[11]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Comparing the scientific impact of conference and journal publications in computer science , 2008, Inf. Serv. Use.

[12]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  The financial meltdown and computing , 2009, CACM.

[13]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[14]  Cailing Dong,et al.  Analysis of Computer Science Communities Based on DBLP , 2010, ECDL.

[15]  C. Borror.  Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 2nd, Ed. , 2001 .

[16]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of community hierarchies in large networks , 2008, ArXiv.

[17]  Tom Mens,et al.  How healthy are software engineering conferences? , 2014, Sci. Comput. Program..

[18]  Harold O. Wyckoff,et al.  The Spatial Asymmetry of Cerenkov Radiation as a Function of Electron Energy , 1943 .

[19]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Collaboration over time: characterizing and modeling network evolution , 2008, WSDM '08.

[20]  Douglas A. Wolfe,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Methods , 1973 .

[21]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  Conferences vs. journals in computing research , 2009, CACM.

[22]  M E Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[23]  Bruno D. Zumbo,et al.  Parametric Alternatives to the Student T Test under Violation of Normality and Homogeneity of Variance , 1992 .

[24]  Ying Ding,et al.  Discovering author impact: A PageRank perspective , 2010, Inf. Process. Manag..

[25]  Eleni Stroulia,et al.  An environment for building, exploring and querying academic social networks , 2009, MEDES.

[26]  M. Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[27]  F. Wilcoxon.  Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[28]  Massimo Franceschet,et al.  The role of conference publications in CS , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[29]  Edgar Brunner,et al.  Rank-based multiple test procedures and simultaneous confidence intervals , 2012 .

[30]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .