Who is going to win the next Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Fellowship Award? Evaluating researchers by mining bibliographic data

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 62, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 2456-2470

  Rokach, Lior ^a   Kalech, Meir ^a   Blank, Ido ^a   Stern, Rami ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA; DECISION MAKERS; LEARNING TECHNIQUES; MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES; MACHINE-LEARNING; MEASUREMENT METHODS; PRECISION RATES; PREDICTION METHODS;

DECISION TREES; FORECASTING; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; NEURAL NETWORKS;

RESEARCH;

EID: 80755139683     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21638     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ali, K.M., &, Pazzani, M.J., (1996). Error reduction through learning multiple descriptions. Machine Learning, 24 (3), 173-202. (Pubitemid 126724384)
2. Batista, P., Campiteli, M., &, Kinouchi, O., (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests ? Scientometrics, 68 (1), 179-189. (Pubitemid 44126154)
3. Bornmann, L., &, Daniel, H.D., (2007). What do we know about the h-index ? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (9), 1381-1385.
4. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., &, Daniel, H.D., (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (5), 830-837. (Pubitemid 351456561)
5. Breiman, L., (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45 (1), 5-32. (Pubitemid 32933532)
6. Chawla, N.V., Japkowicz, N., &, Kotcz, A., (2004). Editorial: Special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets. ACM Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining Explorations Newsletter, 6 (1), 1-6.
7. Cohen, W.W., (1995). Fast effective rule induction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 115-123).
8. Egghe, L., (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131-152.
9. Feitelson, D.G., &, Yovel, U., (2004). Predictive ranking of computer scientists using citeseer data. Journal of Documentation, 60, 44-61. (Pubitemid 38317871)
10. Frolik, J., Abdelrahman, M., &, Kandasamy, P., (2001). A confidence-based approach to the self-validation, fusion and reconstruction of quasi-redundant sensor data. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 50 (6), 1761-1769. (Pubitemid 34191789)
11. García, S., Fernández, A., Luengo, J., &, Herrera, F., (2010). Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparisons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: Experimental analysis of power. Information Sciences, 180 (10), 2044-2064.
12. García-Pérez, M.A., (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (10), 388-391.
13. García-Pérez, M.A., (2011). Strange attractors in the Web of Science database. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (1), 214-218.
14. Harzing, A.-W., (2010). The publish or perish book. Melbourne, Australia: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
15. Hirsch, J.E., (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102 (46), 16569-16572. (Pubitemid 41688817)
16. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., &, Croissant, Y., (2009). Testing bibliometric indicators by their prediction of scientists promotions. Scientometrics, 78 (3), 467-479.
17. Jin, B., (2007). The AR-index: Complementing the h-index. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Newsletter, 3, 6.
18. Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., &, Egghe, L., (2007). The R- and AR indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52 (6), 855-863.
19. Kan, M.Y., &, Tan, Y.F., (2008). Record matching in digital library metadata. Communications of the ACM, 51 (2), 91-94. (Pubitemid 351190144)
20. Kira, K., &, Rendell, L.A., (1992). The feature selection problem: Traditional methods and a new algorithm. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 129-134). (Pubitemid 23633599)
21. Koren, Y., (2009). The BellKor solution to the Netflix Grand Prize. Available at
22. Kretschmer, H., (2004). Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the Web. Scientometrics, 60 (3), 409-420. (Pubitemid 38926349)
23. Levine-Clark, M., &, Gil, E.L., (2009). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14 (1), 32-46.
24. Ley, M., &, Reuther, P., (2006). Maintaining an online bibliographical database: The problem of data quality. In Extraction et gestion des connaissances (EGC'2006) (pp. 17-20). Lille, France: Cépaduès- éditions.
25. Li, J., Sanderson, M., Willett, P., Norris, M., &, Oppenheim, C., (2010). Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (4), 554-563.
26. Liu, X., Kaza, S., Zhang, P., &, Chen, H., (2011). Determining inventor status and its effect on knowledge diffusion: A study on nanotechnology literature from China, Russia, and India. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (6), 1166-1176.
27. Meho, L.I., &, Yang, K., (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2105-2125. (Pubitemid 350229712)
28. Mengle, S.S.R., &, Goharian, N., (2009). Ambiguity measure feature-selection algorithm. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (5), 1037-1050.
29. Mitchell, T., (1997). Machine learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
30. Newman, M.E.J., (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98 (2), 404-409. (Pubitemid 32105053)
31. Patterson, D., Snyder, L., &, Ullman, J., (1999). Best practices memo: Evaluating computer scientists and engineers for promotion and tenure. Computing Research News, 11 (4), A-B.
32. Polikar, R., (2006). Ensemble based systems in decision making. IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, 6 (3), 21-45.
33. Rokach, L., (2010). Ensemble-based classifiers. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33 (1), 1-39.
34. Rokach, L., Maimon, O., &, Arbel, R., (2006). Selective voting - Getting more for less in sensor fusion. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 20 (3), 329-350. (Pubitemid 43787334)
35. Ruane, F., &, Tol, R., (2008). Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland. Scientometrics.
36. m modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10 (4), 040201.
37. Setiono, R., &, Liu, H., (1995). Chi2: Feature selection and discretization of numeric attributes. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.
38. Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., &, Manolopoulos, Y., (2007). Generalized hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72, 253-280.
39. Vinkler, P., (2009). The g-index: A new indicator for assessing scientific impact. Journal of Information Science, 35, 602-612.
40. Witten, I.H., &, Frank, E., (2005). Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
41. Zhang, C.-T., (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE, 4 (5), 1-4.
42. Zhang, C.-T., (2010). Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 625-628.