Paper detail

Simplified Relative Citation Ratio for Static Paper Ranking: UFMG/LATIN at WSDM Cup 2016

Static rankings of papers play a key role in the academic search setting. Many features are commonly used in the literature to produce such rankings, some examples are citation-based metrics, distinct applications of PageRank, among others. More recently, learning to rank techniques have been successfully applied to combine sets of features producing effective results. In this work, we propose the metric S-RCR, which is a simplified version of a metric called Relative Citation Ratio --- both based on the idea of a co-citation network. When compared to the classical version, our simplification S-RCR leads to improved efficiency with a reasonable effectiveness. We use S-RCR to rank over 120 million papers in the Microsoft Academic Graph dataset. By using this single feature, which has no parameters and does not need to be tuned, our team was able to reach the 3rd position in the first phase of the WSDM Cup 2016.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 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.