Does Diversity of Papers Affect Their Citations? Evidence from American Physical Society Journals

Enduri, Murali Krishna; Reddy, I. Vinod; Jolad, Shivakumar

doi:10.1109/sitis.2015.60

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Communities were clubbed into four different size groups. The size range for the group were classified as following Tiny(3-10), Small (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20), Medium (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35) and Large(35+). The dominance of tiny sized community groups indicate that a strong collaboration within small groups in PRA and PRE.…”

Section: Communities In Indian Physics Co-authorship Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure and evolution of Indian physics co-authorship networks

Singh¹,

Jolad²

2019

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We trace the evolution of Indian physics community from 1919-2013 by analyzing the co-authorship network constructed from papers published by authors in India in American Physical Society (APS) journals. We make inferences on India's contribution to different branches of Physics and identify the most influential Indian physicists at different time periods. The relative contribution of India to global physics publication(research) and its variation across subfields of Physics is assessed. We extract the changing collaboration pattern of authors between Indian physicists through various network measures. We study the evolution of Indian physics communities and trace the mean life and stationarity of communities by size in different APS journals. We map the transition of authors between communities of different sizes from 1970-2013, capturing their birth, growth, merger and collapse. We find that Indian-Foreign collaborations are increasing at a faster pace compared to the Indian-Indian. We observe that the degree distribution of Indian collaboration networks follows the power law, with distinct patterns between Physical Review A, B and E, and high energy physics journals Physical Review C and D, and Physical Review Letters. In almost every measure, we observe strong structural differences between low-energy and high-energy physics journals. IntroductionStudy of complex networks has revolutionized our understanding of several complex phenomena observed in the fields such as biology, epidemiology, ecology, neuroscience, sociology and economics 1-4 . Most real world networks are dynamic, as both the representative nodes and the relationship between the nodes keeps changing with time. Analyzing the evolution of such networks helps us to understand the structural and functional relationship between the variables of interest, and their dynamics 5-7 . In the last decade, network science community has studied various emergent phenomena in real world networks like community structure 8, 9 , percolation transitions and cascading failures 10-12 .Sociologists and economists have long realized the importance of social networks in the formation of social groups, political parties, professional bodies, trading networks, movie actors, and scientific communities. Tracing the evolution of such networks help us to understand the dynamics of society, politics, trade, cinema and science. Scientific body of knowledge is formed by communities of scientists working together on problems of common interest. The availability of metadata of papers, authors, references and citations, in scientific journals and archives drove a large body of work on understanding of scientific collaborations and their impact on science itself [13][14][15][16] .Study of scientific collaborations which reflect on the nature and growth of scientific disciplines dates back to the pre-digital era [17][18][19][20] . In recent decades, digitization and documentation of scientific articles has enabled scientific community to build network of scientific collaborations a...

show abstract

Section: Communities In Indian Physics Co-authorship Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure and evolution of Indian physics co-authorship networks

Singh¹,

Jolad²

2019

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their results also showed that although variety and disparity had positive effects on long-term citations, they had negative effects on short-term (3-year) citations, and that although balance had a negative effect on long-term citations, its negative effect was statistically insignificant in the short run. Enduri et al [17] in their study of physics using the Weitzman diversity measure showed that in general high diversity papers receive more citations, but too much diversity can reduce their total citations (again a curvilinear relation).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In principle, it characterises the degree of dissimilarities between the elements of a set and can be used whenever a clear metric distance is defined between elements of a set. Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) codes of papers were used as the set for calculations [17]. This can be computed at the author level as well as by combining all PACS codes of papers published by an author as the set.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research diversification and its relationship with publication counts and impact: A case study based on Australian professors

Jamali

Abbasi

Bornmann

2019

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aims to investigate whether multi/inter-disciplinary research activities are related to research impact and publication counts of scholars. Since researchers with very high levels of multi/inter-disciplinarity might be able to target complex problems, we would expect them to receive more credits than their colleagues with a stronger disciplinary orientation. We analysed Web of Science (WoS) indexed publications of all associate and full professors from a random sample of Australian universities in physics, chemistry and biology (1980–2014). Australian Fields of Research (FoR) codes assigned to journals were used to calculate the diversification of authors’ publications. The number of citations in the first 3 years, number of 10% most frequently cited papers, and citation impact percentile were used for impact assessment. A few indicators were used to measure the diversity including ‘extent of diversification (ED)’ (number of distinct FoR codes divided by the number of publications) and ‘diversification ratio (DR)’ (ratio of the publications falling outside the dominant code to the total number of publications). A total of 47.76% of biologists’ publications, 35.23% of physicists’ publications and 20.36% of chemists’ publications were published in journals assigned to fields other than the Australian associate and full professors’ fields. Publications from biologists had the largest values of diversification. Women (compared with men) and associate professors (compared with full professors) in chemistry, biology and overall were more probably to publish diversely. ED was negatively correlated with output and citation impact. DR also had a negative but weak correlation with the number of publications and 10% most frequently cited paper.

show abstract