바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.33 No.2
Citation Share

The Distinct Impact Dimensions of the Prestige Indices in Author Citation Networks

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2016, v.33 no.2, pp.61-76
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061


& (2016). The Distinct Impact Dimensions of the Prestige Indices in Author Citation Networks. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(2), 61-76, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This study aims at proposing three prestige indices—closeness prestige, input domain, and proximity prestige- as useful measures for the impact of a particular node in citation networks. It compares these prestige indices with other impact indices as it is still unknown what dimensions of impact these indices actually measure. The prestige indices enable us to distinguish the most prominent actors in a directed network, similar to the centrality indices in undirected networks. Correlation analysis and principal component analysis were conducted on the author citation network to identify the differentiated implications of the three prestige indices from the existing impact indices. We selected simple citation counting, h-index, PageRank, and the three kinds of centrality indices which assume undirected networks as the existing impact measures for comparison with the three prestige indices. The results indicate that these prestige indices demonstrate distinct impact dimension from the other impact indices. The prestige indices reflect indirect impact while the others direct impact.

keywords
명망성 지표, 영향력 측정, 인용 네트워크, prestige indices, impact measure, citation network

Reference

1.

Bollen, J.. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669-687.

2.

De Nooy, W.. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (27 vols.):Cambridge University Press.

3.

Ding, Y.. (2011). Applying Weighted PageRank to Author Citation Networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 236-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21452.

4.

Ding, Y.. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing & Management, 47(1), 80-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2010.01.002.

5.

Erman, N.. (2009). Citation analysis for e-government research (244-253). Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens.

6.

Fortunato, S.. (2008). Approximating PageRank from in-degree. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4936, 59-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78808-9_6.

7.

González-Pereira, B.. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002.

8.

Knoke, D.. (1983). Applied network analysis:A methodological introduction:Sage.

9.

이재윤. (2006). 계량서지적 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 척도에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 40(3), 191-214.

10.

Leydesdorff, L.. (1998). Theories of citation?. Scientometrics, 43(1), 5-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2279062.

11.

Litvak, N.. (2006). Probabilistic relation between In-Degree and PageRank (-). Proceedings of 4th International Workshop.

12.

Mrvar, A.. (2014). Pajek and Pajek-XXL: Programs for analysis and visualization of very large networks reference manual list of commands with short explanation version 4.0. http://pajek-and-pajekxxl.software.informer.com.

13.

Musial, K.. (2009). User position measures in social networks (-). Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Social Network Mining and Analysis.

14.

Pinski, G.. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12(5), 297-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(76)90048-0.

15.

Redner, S.. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. The European Physical Journal B (EPJ B), 4(2), 131-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100510050359.

16.

Romero, D. M.. (2010). The directed closure process in hybrid social-information networks, with an analysis of link formation on Twitter (138-145). Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.

17.

Sohn, Dong-Won. (2002). Social Network Analysis:Kyoungmoon.

18.

Wasserman, S.. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications:Cambridge University Press.

19.

Yan, E. J.. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107-2118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21128.

20.

Yan, E. J.. (2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1313-1326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22680.

21.

Yan, E. J.. (2011). P-Rank: An indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 467-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21461.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy