Discover a faster, simpler path to publishing in a high-quality journal. FWCI is a measure based on the number of citations that publications receive. We have also found that the distribution of clustering coefficients Reducing the number of co-authors to 5 or less is not sufficient to understand to what degree the number of other authors in proximity to a given author influences their choices of citations. The graph below shows a clear pattern. Portsmouth is red, other universities in the There’s a significant positive correlation between international collaboration and FWCI, as shown on the graph above and the To explore this in more depth, I focused in on a group of comparators. It shows that there is no single key to understanding why authors of a given specialty may cite authors with whom they, or their co-authors, have previously published. This Outstanding Collaboration Citation recognizes and encourages collaborative problem-solving efforts in the areas of acquisition, access, management, preservation, or archiving of library materials. This begs the question of how the number of level-1 and level-2 co-authors is distributed within each of the specialties. La collaboration militaire française dans la Seconde guerre mondiale. This is verified by randomly removing source papers (up to around 15% of the network in order to maintain its general shape) until the distributions of authors per paper are almost (though not quite) identical in all 8 specialties and using only the first author of references. Wrote the paper: MLW VL YG.For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click Differences between fields and trends over time lie not only in the degree of co-authorship which defines the large-scale topology of the collaboration network, but also in the referencing practices within a given discipline, computed by defining a propensity to cite at a given distance within the collaboration network.
To explore this, I used the SciVal database[1] to investigate the possible correlation between international collaboration[2] and citations. This is the case in astrophysics and astronomy, for instance.
Note that studies of various disciplines have found rates of self-citations among references varying between 10% and 36%, with strong variations between specialties The difference between the NMS and SSH is substantial, and dwarf the differences among SSH specialties shown in For NMS disciplines, we also show the corresponding distribution of references when we limit the set This remarkable stability in the level of self-citations—across specialties and time—distinguishes this practice from that of citing those who have been recent collaborators (not just on the particular paper in question). Second, the analysis needs to be focused on the individual authors, in order to gain insight into their referencing practices and individual social networks.In order to investigate the citation practices of a given scientific specialty in relation to its co-authorship network, we form a set of references For each source article, we examine its set of references and classify them in the following way:These categories are defined as mutually exclusive: if a referenced paper can be placed in more than one category, then it is assigned the one closest to a self-citation.
Bene, Krisztián. More information about Research and Innovation Services is available to staff on our intranet pages.This includes a full list of upcoming staff development events. E-mail. Given the various levels of integration between co-authors, our findings shed light on the question of the availability of ‘arm's length’ expert reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts.Scientific collaborations and citation practices have been an important focus of interest among sociologists of science, seeking to provide insight into science as an inherently social and team-based endeavour. Right: The corresponding co-author network. Since our analysis is performed at the paper level, we can only address the level of small clusters. The social network of scientific collaborators may ‘over-determine’ citation practices: high levels of This is also about symbolic capital associated with collaboration networks: within the science system, publications are the primary means of establishing scientific authority among peers The issue of small-scale structure can only be partially explored through co-author networks. One would expect that the specialty in question covers the majority of peers cited, but such a limit, while defining a ‘closed’ system, would possibly introduce an artefact, particularly for more interdisciplinary specialties such as biochemistry (see For each of the chosen specialties, A) number of papers, B) average number of references per paper, C) average number of authors per paper, D) average number of papers written by each author, E) percentage of identified references within the same specialty, and F) percentage of identified references defined as ‘recent’ (less than 10 years older than the source item).Based on the dataset described in the previous section, we first compute a few basic macroscopic variables which allow us to characterize the growth and structure of the chosen fields. This reduces the effect of skewed distributions while ensuring that the ‘reduced’ network retains sociological meaning. To explore this, I used the SciVal database[1] to investigate the possible correlation between international collaboration[2] and citations.To measure citations, I used the Field Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) metric. Similarly, we can randomly remove papers in a given specialty such that each author in a given interval of time has only 1 paper. There are clear benefits to be had from international collaboration in research. Les Archives De La Collaboration Militaire Française Dans La Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Appropriate collaboration is much like appropriate citation of external sources.
Article A, for example is written by two authors (α and β) and contains three references (whose authors are also denoted by Greek letters). Bene, Krisztián. This suggests that there might be cross-disciplinary norms regarding this practice in science.