IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i9d10.1007_s11192-021-04072-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysing the evolution of computer science events leveraging a scholarly knowledge graph: a scientometrics study of top-ranked events in the past decade

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur Lackner

    (University of Bonn)

  • Said Fathalla

    (University of Bonn
    University of Alexandria)

  • Mojtaba Nayyeri

    (University of Bonn
    Nature-Inspired Machine Intelligence, Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI))

  • Andreas Behrend

    (TH Köln)

  • Rainer Manthey

    (University of Bonn)

  • Sören Auer

    (University of Hannover
    TIB Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology)

  • Jens Lehmann

    (University of Bonn
    Fraunhofer IAIS)

  • Sahar Vahdati

    (Nature-Inspired Machine Intelligence, Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI))

Abstract

The publish or perish culture of scholarly communication results in quality and relevance to be are subordinate to quantity. Scientific events such as conferences play an important role in scholarly communication and knowledge exchange. Researchers in many fields, such as computer science, often need to search for events to publish their research results, establish connections for collaborations with other researchers and stay up to date with recent works. Researchers need to have a meta-research understanding of the quality of scientific events to publish in high-quality venues. However, there are many diverse and complex criteria to be explored for the evaluation of events. Thus, finding events with quality-related criteria becomes a time-consuming task for researchers and often results in an experience-based subjective evaluation. OpenResearch.org is a crowd-sourcing platform that provides features to explore previous and upcoming events of computer science, based on a knowledge graph. In this paper, we devise an ontology representing scientific events metadata. Furthermore, we introduce an analytical study of the evolution of Computer Science events leveraging the OpenResearch.org knowledge graph. We identify common characteristics of these events, formalize them, and combine them as a group of metrics. These metrics can be used by potential authors to identify high-quality events. On top of the improved ontology, we analyzed the metadata of renowned conferences in various computer science communities, such as VLDB, ISWC, ESWC, WIMS, and SEMANTiCS, in order to inspect their potential as event metrics.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur Lackner & Said Fathalla & Mojtaba Nayyeri & Andreas Behrend & Rainer Manthey & Sören Auer & Jens Lehmann & Sahar Vahdati, 2021. "Analysing the evolution of computer science events leveraging a scholarly knowledge graph: a scientometrics study of top-ranked events in the past decade," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8129-8151, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04072-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04072-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04072-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04072-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa & Milene Selbach Silveira & Isabela Gasparini, 2017. "What publications metadata tell us about the evolution of a scientific community: the case of the Brazilian human–computer interaction conference series," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 275-300, January.
    2. Jason Priem, 2013. "Beyond the paper," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 437-440, March.
    3. Laurent Issertial & Hiroshi Tsuji, 2015. "Information Extraction for Call for Paper," International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS), IGI Global, vol. 6(4), pages 35-49, October.
    4. Singh, Mayank & Chakraborty, Tanmoy & Mukherjee, Animesh & Goyal, Pawan, 2016. "Is this conference a top-tier? ConfAssist: An assistive conflict resolution framework for conference categorization," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1005-1022.
    5. Said Fathalla & Sahar Vahdati & Christoph Lange & Sören Auer, 2020. "Scholarly event characteristics in four fields of science: a metrics-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 677-705, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kurubaran Ganasegeran & Chee Peng Hor & Mohd Fadzly Amar Jamil & Purnima Devi Suppiah & Juliana Mohd Noor & Norshahida Abdul Hamid & Deik Roy Chuan & Mohd Rizal Abdul Manaf & Alan Swee Hock Ch’ng & Ir, 2021. "Mapping the Scientific Landscape of Diabetes Research in Malaysia (2000–2018): A Systematic Scientometrics Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Sahar Vahdati & Said Fathalla & Christoph Lange & Andreas Behrend & Aysegul Say & Zeynep Say & Sören Auer, 2021. "A comprehensive quality assessment framework for scientific events," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 641-682, January.
    3. Zehra Taşkın, 2021. "Forecasting the future of library and information science and its sub-fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1527-1551, February.
    4. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predictive power of conference-related factors on citation rates of conference papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 281-304, January.
    5. Haunschild, Robin & Bornmann, Lutz, 2016. "Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 62-73.
    6. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    7. Cornelius J. König & Clemens B. Fell & Linus Kellnhofer & Gabriel Schui, 2015. "Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1931-1952, December.
    8. Xiancheng Li & Wenge Rong & Haoran Shi & Jie Tang & Zhang Xiong, 2018. "The impact of conference ranking systems in computer science: a comparative regression analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 879-907, August.
    9. Said Fathalla & Sahar Vahdati & Christoph Lange & Sören Auer, 2020. "Scholarly event characteristics in four fields of science: a metrics-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 677-705, May.
    10. Frode Eika Sandnes, 2021. "A bibliometric study of human–computer interaction research activity in the Nordic-Baltic Eight countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4733-4767, June.
    11. Richard Wellen, 2013. "Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    12. Yu, Houqiang & Xu, Shenmeng & Xiao, Tingting & Hemminger, Brad M. & Yang, Siluo, 2017. "Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 466-482.
    13. Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Markus Schaffner & Benno Torgler & Stephen Whyte, 2014. "Do the best scholars attract the highest speaking fees? An exploration of internal and external influence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 793-817, October.
    14. Alhoori, Hamed & Furuta, Richard, 2017. "Recommendation of scholarly venues based on dynamic user interests," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 553-563.
    15. Zeng, Tong & Wu, Longfeng & Bratt, Sarah & Acuna, Daniel E., 2020. "Assigning credit to scientific datasets using article citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04072-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.