Identifying the Key Reference of a Scientific Publication

Abstract

The most fundamental way to measure the impact of a scientific publication is using the number of citations it received. Though citation count and its variants are widely adopted, they have been pointed out to be poor proxies for a paper’s quality because a citation might result from different reasons. It is thus crucial to quantify the true relevance of the cited papers to the citing paper. There are already some efforts in the literature devoted to addressing this issue, yet a well-accepted method is still lacking, possibly due to the absence of standard ground truth data for comparing different methods. In this paper, we propose a simple method using a local diffusion process on citation networks for identifying the key references for each scientific publication. The effectiveness and of the method are validated in a subset of the American Physical Society data in which the key references are mentioned in the abstract of papers. We further define an effective citation metric for quantifying the actual impact of each paper and its evolution. The effective citation metric additionally reveals the citation preference of research at journal and country levels.

Keywords

Network diffusion / paper abstract / citation network / effective citations

References

[1] Bornmann L, Daniel H. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of documentation, 2008, 64(1): 45-80.

[2] Case DO, Higgins GM. How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2000, 51(7): 635-645.

[3] Clough JR, Gollings J, Loach TV, Evans TS. Transitive reduction of citation networks. Journal of Complex Networks, 2015, 3(2): 189-203.

[4] Conte R, Gilbert N, Bonelli G, Cioffi RC, Deffuant G, Kertesz J, Loreto V, Moat S, Nadal JP, Sanchez A. Manifesto of computational social science. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 2012, 214(1): 325-346.

[5] Elkiss A, Shen S, Fader A, Erkan G, States D, Radev D. Blind men and elephants: What do citation summaries tell us about a research article?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(1): 51-62.

[6] Etzioni O. Artificial intelligence: AI zooms in on highly influential citations. Nature, 2017, 547(7661): 32.

[7] Fiala D, Rousselot F, Ježek K. PageRank for bibliographic networks. Scientometrics, 2008, 76(1): 135-158.

[8] Fiala D. Time-aware PageRank for bibliographic networks. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(3): 370-388.

[9] Garfield E, Merton RK. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities, 1979, New York: Wiley vol 8

[10] Giles CL, Bollacker KD, Lawrence S (1998). CiteSeer: An automatic citation indexing system. Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Digital Libraries: 89–98.

[11] Gualdi S, Yeung CH, Zhang YC. The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physical Review E, 2011, 84(4): 046104.

[12] Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1990, 113(1): 69-76.

[13] Ioannidis JP. A generalized view of self-citation: Direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 2015, 78(1): 7-11.

[14] Lazer D, Pentland AS, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi AL, Brewer D, Christakis N, Contractor N, Fowler J, Gutmann M. Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science, 2009, 323(5915): 721.

[15] Letchford A, Preis T, Moat HS. The advantage of simple paper abstracts. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, 10(1): 1-8.

[16] Ma N, Guan JC, Zhao Y. PageRank for bibliographic networks. Information Processing & Management, 2008, 44(2): 800-810.

[17] Nanba H, Kando N, Okumura M. Classification of research papers using citation links and citation types: Towards automatic review article generation. Advances in Classification Research Online, 2011, 11(1): 117-134.

[18] Newman ME. The first-mover advantage in scientific publication. Europhysics Letters, 2009, 86(6): 68001.

[19] Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T (1999). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Tech. rep., Stanford InfoLab.

[20] Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. Jama, 1990, 281(12): 1110-1111.

[21] Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008, 105(45): 17268-17272.

[22] Radicchi F. In science “there is no bad publicity”: Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 2012, 2: 815.

[23] Stephan P, Veugelers R, Wang J. Blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature, 2017, 544(7651): 411-412.

[24] Valenzuela M, Ha V, Etzioni O (2015). Identifying Meaningful Citations. AAAI Workshop: Scholarly Big Data.

[25] Waltman L, Yan E (2014). PageRank-related methods for analyzing citation networks. Measuring scholarly impact: 83–100.

[26] Wang DS, Song CM, Barabási A. Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.

[27] Watts DJ. A twenty-first century science. Nature, 2009, 445(7127): 489.

[28] Zeng A, Shen ZS, Zhou JL, Wu JS, Fan Y, Wang YG, Stanley HE. The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 2017, 714: 1-73.

[29] Zhu XD, Turney P, Lemire D, Vellino A. Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of Complex Networks, 2015, 66(2): 408-427.