Towards a Social Trust Based Measure of Scientific Productivity

Quantifying scientific productivity has traditionally been one of the major areas of research. An important component in measuring the scientific productivity of a researcher has been the number and citation count of his publications. However, that citation based measures of scientific productivity are influenced by domain specific factors like the popularity of the research domain, the key topics within the domain, as well as temporal factors like aging, these measures may not suitably reflect the contribution of a researcher uniformly across all domains. In this paper, we introduce social trust on a researcher in a given domain as a measure of his scientific productivity and success. We argue that trust in scientific domain is a social component that indicates the productivity and can influence several parameters like the collaborations of the researchers as well as the citations received by their publications. Unlike citation count of publications, trust is not domain specific and hence can be used uniformly across all domains to measure the scientific productivity.Our proposed measure of trust relies on a trust-based network of authors (nodes), where a link between two nodes is based on social indicators like co-authorship and citation counts. We validate the correctness as well as effectiveness of our proposed approach empirically using the ArnetMiner dataset. Observations indicate that the proposed measure not only mitigates the aging issues prevalent in citation based measures but can also predict the possibility of future success of the researchers in terms of citation count.

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

[2]  Juan E. Iglesias,et al.  Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields , 2006, Scientometrics.

[3]  Roshni Chakraborty,et al.  Analyzing link dynamics in scientific collaboration networks ℄ A social yield based perspective , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM).

[4]  Sune Lehmann,et al.  Measures and Mismeasures of Scientific Quality , 2005 .

[5]  Johannes Hönekopp,et al.  Future publication success in science is better predicted by traditional measures than by the h index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[6]  Jie Tang,et al.  A Combination Approach to Web User Profiling , 2010, TKDD.

[7]  Mônica G. Campiteli,et al.  Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? , 2006, Scientometrics.

[8]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[9]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Author Impact Factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  On the Correlation between Research Performance and Social Network Analysis Measures Applied to Research Collaboration Networks , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]  Eldon Y. Li,et al.  Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective , 2013 .

[13]  Audra E. Kosh,et al.  Linear Algebra and its Applications , 1992 .

[14]  Joydeep Chandra,et al.  Role of Trust in Evolution of Scientific Collaboration Networks , 2014, SocialCom '14.

[15]  Cécile Paris,et al.  A survey of trust in social networks , 2013, CSUR.

[16]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Yannis Manolopoulos,et al.  Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks , 2007, Scientometrics.

[18]  Christina Courtright,et al.  Context in information behavior research , 2007 .

[19]  S. Redner Citation Statistics From More Than a Century of Physical Review , 2004, physics/0407137.

[20]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[21]  Plergiorgio Strata,et al.  Citation analysis , 1995, Nature.

[22]  T. Opthof,et al.  Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. , 1997, Cardiovascular research.

[23]  Mônica G. Campiteli,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research valid across disciplines , 2005 .

[24]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of the Application of H-index, G-index, and A-index in Institutional-Level Research Evaluation , 2010 .

[25]  E. Garfield Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[26]  Chien Hsiang Liao,et al.  How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks , 2011, Scientometrics.

[27]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  Will This Paper Increase Your h-index?: Scientific Impact Prediction , 2014, WSDM.

[28]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Reputation and impact in academic careers , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Linda Butler,et al.  The publishing imperative: the pervasive influence of publication metrics , 2006, Learn. Publ..

[30]  P. Seglen,et al.  Education and debate , 1999, The Ethics of Public Health.

[31]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.