Science models for search: a study on combining scholarly information retrieval and scientometrics

Scientometrics

Volumn 102, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 2323-2345

  Mutschke, Peter ^a   Mayr, Philipp ^a  

^a GESIS LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Betweenness; Bradfordizing; Information retrieval; Network analysis; Science models; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925510570     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1485-2     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics,74, 47–97.
2. Armstrong, T. G., Moffat, A., Webber, W., & Zobel, J. (2009). Improvements that don’t add up: Ad-hoc retrieval results since 1998,. In: Conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 601–610). doi:10.1145/1645953.1646031.
3. Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A,311, 590–614.
4. Bates, M. J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing and Management,26(5), 575–591.
5. Bates, M. J. (2002). Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution. Paper presented at the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS 4).
6. Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structure. Applied Anthropology,7, 16–30.
7. Beaver, D. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics,60(3), 309–408.
8. Bogers, T., & van den Bosch, A. (2006). Authoritative re-ranking in fusing authorship-based subcollection search results. In: Proceedings of the sixth Belgian–Dutch information retrieval workshop (pp. 49–55). DIR-2006 (2006).
9. Bookstein, A. (1990). lnformetric distributions. Part I: Unified overview. JASIS,41(5), 368–375.
10. Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. (2006). A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks,28, 466–484.
11. Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W., & Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emergine global brain: Analysing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity. Special issue on understanding. Complex Systems,10(4), 57–67.
12. Börner, K., & Scharnhorst, A. (2009). Visual conceptualizations and models of science. Journal of Informetrics,3, 161–172.
13. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering,137(3550), 85–86.
14. Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London: Lockwood.
15. Brookes, B. C. (1977). Theory of the Bradford law. Journal of Documentation,33(3), 180–209.
16. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information,22, 191–235.
17. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics,3, 191–209.
18. Cole, M., Liu, J., Belkin, N. J., Bierig, R., Gwizdka, J., Liu, C., Zhang, J., & Zhang, X. (2009). Usefulness as the criterion for evaluation of interactive information retrieval. In Proceedings of the third human computer information retrieval workshop, Washington, DC.
19. De Haan, J. (1997). Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology. Scientometrics,39(2), 197–208.
20. de Price, D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,27, 292–306.
21. Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin,76(5), 378–382.
22. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry,40, 35–41.
23. Freeman, L. C. (1978/79). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks1,(pp. 215–239).
24. Freeman, L. C. (1980). The gatekeeper, pair-dependency and structural centrality. Quality and Quantity,14, 585–592.
25. Friedkin, N. E. (1991). Theoretical foundations for centrality measures. American Journal of Sociology,96, 1478–1504.
26. Fuhr, N., Schaefer, A., Klas, C.-P., & Mutschke, P. (2002). Daffodil: An integrated desktop for supporting high-level search activities in federated digital libraries. In Agosti, M., Thanos, C. (Eds.), Research and advanced technology for digital libraries. 6th European Conference, EDCL 2002. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2458, pp. 597–612). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
27. Garfield, E. (1996). The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 10(17), 13. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/commentaries/tsv10(17)p13y090296.html.
28. Goffman, W., & Warren, K. S. (1969). Dispersion of papers among journals based on a mathematical analysis of two diverse medical literatures. Nature,221(5178), 1205–1207.
29. Greve, W., & Wentura, D. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung: Eine Einführung. Weinheim: PVU/Beltz.
30. Grivel, L., Mutschke, P., & Polanco, X. (1995). Thematic mapping on bibliographic databases by cluster analysis: A description of the SDOC environment with SOLIS. Knowledge Organisation,22, 70–77.
31. He, Z.-L. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. JASIST,60(10), 2151–2164.
32. Hjørland, B., & Nicolaisen, J. (2005). Bradford’s law of scattering: Ambiguities in the concept of “subject”. Paper presented at the 5th international conference on conceptions of library and information science.
33. Ingwersen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn-integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. In W. B. Croft (Ed.), The Kluwer international series on information retrieval. Dordrecht: Springer.
34. Jiang, Y. (2008). Locating active actors in the scientific collaboration communities based on interaction topology analysis. Scientometrics,74(3), 471–482.
35. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33(1), 159–174.
36. Lang, F. R., & Neyer, F. J. (2004). Kooperationsnetzwerke und karrieren an deutschen hochschulen. KfZSS,56(3), 520–538.
37. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics,2(4), 317–325.
38. Lin, J. (2008). Pagerank without hyperlinks: Reranking with PubMed related article networks for biomedical text retrieval. BMC Bioinformatics, 9. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/270.
39. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management,41(2005), 1462–1480.
40. Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,16(12), 317–323.
41. Lu, H., & Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics,81(2), 499–511.
42. Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In A. Scharnhorst, et al. (Eds.), Models of science dynamics. Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 195–232). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
43. Mayr, P. (2009). Re-ranking auf basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in digitalen bibliotheken. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
44. Mayr, P. (2013). Relevance distributions across Bradford zones: Can Bradfordizing improve search? In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & H. Moed (Eds.), 14th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (pp. 1493–1505). Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0357.
45. Mayr, P. (2014). Are topic-specific search term, journal name and author name recommendations relevant for researchers? In 4th European symposium on human–computer interaction and information retrieval. London. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.4440.
46. Mayr, P., Scharnhorst, A., Larsen, B., Schaer, P., & Mutschke, P. (2014). Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval. In M. de Rijke et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th European conference on information retrieval (ECIR 2014) (pp. 798–801). Amsterdam: Springer. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8226.
47. Mutschke, P. (1994). Processing scientific networks in bibliographic databases. In H. H. Bock, et al. (Eds.), Information systems and data analysis. Prospects-foundations-applications. Proceedings 17th annual conference of the GfKl 1993 (pp. 127–133). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
48. Mutschke, P. (2001). Enhancing information retrieval in federated bibliographic data sources using author network based stratagems. In Constantopoulos, P., Sölvberg, I. T. (Eds.), Research and advanced technology for digital libraries: 5th European conference, ECDL 2001, Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2163, pp. 287–299). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
49. Mutschke, P. (2004). Autorennetzwerke: Verfahren der Netzwerkanalyse als Mehrwertdienste für Informationssysteme. Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften. (IZ-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 32). http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/gesis_reihen/iz_arbeitsberichte/ab_32.pdf.
50. Mutschke, P. (2010). Zentralitäts- und Prestigemaße. In R. Häußling & C. Stegbauer (Eds.), Handbuch Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
51. Mutschke, P., Mayr, P., Schaer, P., & Sure, Y. (2011). Science models as value-added services for scholarly information systems. Scientometrics,89(1), 349–364. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0430-x.
52. Mutschke, P., & Quan-Haase, A. (2001). Collaboration and cognitive structures in social science research fields: Towards socio-cognitive analysis in information systems. Scientometrics,52(3), 487–502.
53. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS,98, 404–409.
54. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS,101, 5200–5205.
55. Pontigo, J., & Lancaster, F. W. (1986). Qualitative aspects of the Bradford distribution. Scientometrics,9(1–2), 59–70.
56. Salton, G., Fox, E. A., & Wu, H. (1983). Extended Boolean information retrieval. Communications of the ACM,26(11), 1022–1036.
57. Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,26(6), 321–343.
58. Schaer, P., Mayr, P., & Mutschke, P. (2010). Implications of inter-rater agreement on a student information retrieval evaluation. In Atzmüller, M., Benz, D., Hotho, A., Stumme, G. (Eds.), LWA2010: Lernen, Wissen and Adaptivität; Workshop Proceedings; Kassel, 4–6 Oct 2010. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.1824.pdf.
59. Scharnhorst, A., Börner, K., & van den Besselaar, P. (Eds.). (2012). Models of science dynamics. Encounters between complexity theory and information science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
60. Voorhees, E. M., & Harman, D. K. (Eds.). (2005). TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
61. Wassermann, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. White, H. D. (1981). ‘Bradfordizing’ search output: how it would help online users. Online Review,5(1), 47–54.
63. Worthen, D. B. (1975). The application of Bradford’s law to monographs. Journal of Documentation,31(1), 19–25.
64. Yaltaghian, B., & Chignell, M. (2002). Re-ranking search results using network analysis. A case study with Google. In Proceedings of the 2002 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research.
65. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. JASIST,60(10), 2107–2118.
66. Yin, L., Kretschmer, H., Hannemann, R. A., & Liu, Z. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing and Management,42, 1599–1613.
67. Zhou, D., Orshansky, S. A., Zha, H., & Giles, C. L. (2007). Co-ranking authors and documents in a heterogeneous network. In Proceedings of the 2007 seventh IEEE international conference on data mining (pp 739–744).