IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v66y2015i10p2132-2145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing theories of preferential attachment in random networks of citations

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence Smolinsky
  • Aaron Lercher
  • Andrew McDaniel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher & Andrew McDaniel, 2015. "Testing theories of preferential attachment in random networks of citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2132-2145, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:66:y:2015:i:10:p:2132-2145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/asi.23312
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quentin L. Burrell, 2005. "The use of the generalized Waring process in modelling informetric data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(3), pages 247-270, August.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 381-394, July.
    3. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. S. R. Goldberg & H. Anthony & T. S. Evans, 2015. "Modelling citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1577-1604, December.
    2. Lawrence Smolinsky & Daniel S. Sage & Aaron J. Lercher & Aaron Cao, 2021. "Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3853-3870, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wolfgang Glänzel, 2009. "The multi-dimensionality of journal impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 355-374, February.
    2. Copiello, Sergio, 2019. "Peer and neighborhood effects: Citation analysis using a spatial autoregressive model and pseudo-spatial data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 238-254.
    3. Gangan Prathap, 2014. "Single parameter indices and bibliometric outliers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1781-1787, December.
    4. László Csató & Dóra Gréta Petróczy, 2024. "Bibliometric indices as a measure of performance and competitive balance in the knockout stage of the UEFA Champions League," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 32(4), pages 961-988, December.
    5. L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2019. "Journal ranking should depend on the level of aggregation," Papers 1904.06300, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    6. Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "High-end performance or outlier? Evaluating the tail of scientometric distributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 13-23, October.
    7. Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2010. "On reliability and robustness of scientometrics indicators based on stochastic models. An evidence-based opinion paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 313-319.
    8. Dorte Henriksen, 2018. "What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1395-1421, March.
    9. Quentin L. Burrell, 2007. "Time-dependent aspects of co-concentration in informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(2), pages 161-174, November.
    10. Qurat-ul Ain & Hira Riaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Evaluation of h-index and its citation intensity based variants in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 187-211, April.
    11. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    12. Csató, László, 2019. "Journal ranking should depend on the level of aggregation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    13. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 381-394, July.
    14. Walters, William H., 2014. "Do Article Influence scores overestimate the citation impact of social science journals in subfields that are related to higher-impact natural science disciplines?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 421-430.
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    16. Yue Chen & Zhiqi Wang & Kai Song & Deming Lin & Hildrun Kretschmer, 2021. "Growing with collaboration: footprint of WISE Lab," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6147-6167, July.
    17. Jinshan Wu, 2018. "Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion an," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 621-625, April.
    18. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2014. "An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 449-477.
    19. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    20. Qing Cheng & Xin Lu & Zhong Liu & Jincai Huang, 2015. "Mining research trends with anomaly detection models: the case of social computing research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 453-469, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:66:y:2015:i:10:p:2132-2145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.