论文标题
在随后的时间段内作者级指标之间的关联
Associations between author-level metrics in subsequent time periods
论文作者
论文摘要
了解作者的动态与预测和量化科学的表现有关。尽管最近和未来的引文数量之间的关系是众所周知的,但作者级的学术指标之间的许多关系仍然未知。在这种情况下,我们对从随后的时期提取的作者级指标进行了分析,重点是可见性,生产力和跨学科性。首先,我们研究了作者控制的指标(例如参考多样性和生产力)如何影响其可见性和引文多样性。我们还探讨了作者跨学科和引文计数之间的关系。物理论文一部分的分析表明,作者的生产力与大多数作者的未来可见性之间没有很强的相关性。对于那些出版物数量较低的人发现了较高的强正相关性。我们还发现,在作者级计算的参考多样性可能会影响作者的未来可见性。对影响未来跨学科的指标的分析表明,生产力可能仅对低生产力作者起作用。我们还发现,参考多样性和跨学科性之间存在惊人的正相关性,这表明各种引用行为的增加可能与作者跨学科性的未来增加有关。最后,发现跨学科性和可见性是正相关的:对于生产率较低的作者,观察到显着的正相关性。
Understanding the dynamics of authors is relevant to predict and quantify performance in science. While the relationship between recent and future citation counts is well-known, many relationships between scholarly metrics at the author-level remain unknown. In this context, we performed an analysis of author-level metrics extracted from subsequent periods, focusing on visibility, productivity and interdisciplinarity. First, we investigated how metrics controlled by the authors (such as references diversity and productivity) affect their visibility and citation diversity. We also explore the relation between authors' interdisciplinarity and citation counts. The analysis in a subset of Physics papers revealed that there is no strong correlation between authors' productivity and future visibility for most of the authors. A higher fraction of strong positive correlations though was found for those with a lower number of publications. We also found that reference diversity computed at the author-level may impact positively authors' future visibility. The analysis of metrics impacting future interdisciplinarity suggests that productivity may play a role only for low productivity authors. We also found a surprisingly strong positive correlation between references diversity and interdisciplinarity, suggesting that an increase in diverse citing behavior may be related to a future increase in authors interdisciplinarity. Finally, interdisciplinarity and visibility were found to be moderated positively associated: significant positive correlations were observed for 30% of authors with lower productivity.