Cristian Colliander

Document-document similarity approaches and science mapping: experimental comparison of five approaches

This paper treats document–document similarity approaches in the context of science mapping. Five approaches, involving nine methods, are compared experimentally. We compare text-based approaches, the citation-based bibliographic coupling approach, and approaches that combine text-based approaches and bibliographic coupling. Forty-three articles, published in the journal Information Retrieval, are used as test documents. We investigate how well the approaches agree with a ground truth subject classification of the test documents, when the complete linkage method is used, and under two types of similarities, first-order and second-order. The results show that it is possible to achieve a very good approximation of the classification by means of automatic grouping of articles. One text-only method and one combination method, under second-order similarities in both cases, give rise to cluster solutions that to a large extent agree with the classification.

The effects and their stability of field normalization baseline on relative performance with respect to citation impact : a case study of 20 natural science departments

In this paper we study the effects of field normalization baseline on relative performance of 20 natural science departments in terms of citation impact. Impact is studied under three baselines: journal, ISI/Thomson Reuters subject category, and Essential Science Indicators field. For the measurement of citation impact, the indicators item-oriented mean normalized citation rate and Top-5% are employed. The results, which we analyze with respect to stability, show that the choice of normalization baseline matters. We observe that normalization against publishing journal is particular. The rankings of the departments obtained when journal is used as baseline, irrespective of indicator, differ considerably from the rankings obtained when ISI/Thomson Reuters subject category or Essential Science Indicators field is used. Since no substantial differences are observed when the baselines Essential Science Indicators field and ISI/Thomson Reuters subject category are contrasted, one might suggest that people without access to subject category data can perform reasonable normalized citation impact studies by combining normalization against journal with normalization against Essential Science Indicators field.

Field normalized citation rates, field normalized journal impact and Norwegian weights for allocation of university research funds

We compared three different bibliometric evaluation approaches: two citation-based approaches and one based on manual classification of publishing channels into quality levels. Publication data for two universities was used, and we worked with two levels of analysis: article and department. For the article level, we investigated the predictive power of field normalized citation rates and field normalized journal impact with respect to journal level. The results for the article level show that evaluation of journals based on citation impact correlate rather well with manual classification of journals into quality levels. However, the prediction from field normalized citation rates to journal level was only marginally better than random guessing. At the department level, we studied three different indicators in the context of research fund allocation within universities and the extent to which the three indicators produce different distributions of research funds. It turned out that the three distributions of relative indicator values were very similar, which in turn yields that the corresponding distributions of hypothetical research funds would be very similar.

Experimental comparison of first and second-order similarities in a scientometric context

The measurement of similarity between objects plays a role in several scientific areas. In this article, we deal with document–document similarity in a scientometric context. We compare experimentally, using a large dataset, first-order with second-order similarities with respect to the overall quality of partitions of the dataset, where the partitions are obtained on the basis of optimizing weighted modularity. The quality of a partition is defined in terms of textual coherence. The results show that the second-order approach consistently outperforms the first-order approach. Each difference between the two approaches in overall partition quality values is significant at the 0.01 level.

Exploring the relation between referencing practices and citation impact: A large‐scale study based on Web of Science data

In this large‐scale contribution, we deal with the relationship between properties of cited references of Web of Science articles and the field normalized citation rate of these articles. Using nearly 1 million articles, and three classification systems with different levels of granularity, we study the effects of number of cited references, share of references covered by Web of Science, mean age of references and mean citation rate of references on field normalized citation rate. To expose the relationship between the predictor variables and the response variable, we use quantile regression. We found that a higher number of references, a higher share of references to publications within Web of Science and references to more recent publications correlate with citation impact. A correlation was observed even when normalization was done with a finely grained classification system. The predictor variables affected citation impact to a larger extent at higher quantile levels. Regarding the relative importance of the predictor variables, citation impact of the cited references was in general the least important variable. Number of cited references carried most of the importance for both low and medium quantile levels, but this importance was lessened at the highest considered level.