Paper detail

Best of both worlds? Simultaneous evaluation of researchers and their works

This paper explores a dual score system that simultaneously evaluates the relative importance of researchers and their works. It is a modification of the CITEX algorithm recently described in Pal and Ruj (2015). Using available publication data for $m$ author keywords (as a proxy for researchers) and $n$ papers it is possible to construct a $m \times n$ author-paper feature matrix. This is further combined with citation data to construct a HITS-like algorithm that iteratively satisfies two criteria: first, \emph{a good author is cited by good authors}, and second, \emph{a good paper is cited by good authors}. Following Pal and Ruj, the resulting algorithm produces an author eigenscore and a paper eigenscore. The algorithm is tested on 213,530 citable publications listed under Thomson ISI's "\emph{Information Science \& Library Science}" JCR category from 1980--2012.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.