JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Distinct Impact Dimensions of the Prestige Indices in Author Citation Networks
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Distinct Impact Dimensions of the Prestige Indices in Author Citation Networks
Ahn, Hyerim; Park, Ji-Hong;
  PDF(new window)
 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
prestige indices;impact measure;citation network;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669-687. crossref(new window)

2.
De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (27 vols.). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511996368 crossref(new window)

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 crossref(new window)

4.
Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (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 crossref(new window)

5.
Erman, N. (2009). Citation analysis for e-government research. Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government, 244-253.

6.
Fortunato, S., Boguna, M., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (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 crossref(new window)

7.
Gonzalez-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., & Moya-Anegon, F. (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 crossref(new window)

8.
Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 195-222). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

9.
Lee, Jae Yun (2006). Centrality measures for bibliometric network analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 40(3), 191-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/kslis.2006.40.3.191 crossref(new window)

10.
Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2279062 crossref(new window)

11.
Litvak, N., Scheinhardt, W. R. W., & Volkovich, Y. V. (2006). Probabilistic relation between In-Degree and PageRank. Proceedings of 4th International Workshop, Banff, Canada.

12.
Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (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. Retrieved from http://pajek-and-pajekxxl.software.informer.com

13.
Musial, K., Kazienko, P., & Brodka, P. (2009). User position measures in social networks. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Social Network Mining and Analysis, 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1731011.1731017 crossref(new window)

14.
Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (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 crossref(new window)

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 crossref(new window)

16.
Romero, D. M., & Kleinberg, J. M. (2010). The directed closure process in hybrid social-information networks, with an analysis of link formation on Twitter. Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 138-145.

17.
Sohn, Dong-Won (2002). Social Network Analysis. Seoul: Kyoungmoon.

18.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

19.
Yan, E. J., & Ding, Y. (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 crossref(new window)

20.
Yan, E. J., & Ding, Y. (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 crossref(new window)

21.
Yan, E. J., Ding, Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (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 crossref(new window)