The impact of author name disambiguation on knowledge discovery from large-scale scholarly data

In this study, I demonstrate that the choice of disambiguation methods for resolving author name ambiguity can adversely affect our understanding of scholarly collaboration patterns and coauthorship network structures extracted from large-scale scholarly data. By utilizing large-scale bibliometric data, scholars in many fields have gleaned knowledge for use in scholarly evaluation, collaborator recommendations, research policy evaluation, and network-evolution modeling. A common challenge has been that author names in bibliometric data are not properly disambiguated: authors may share the same name (i.e., different authors are sometimes misrepresented to be a single author which can lead to a “merging of identities”). In addition, one author may use name variations (i.e., an author may be represented as two or more different authors which can lead to a “splitting of identities”). When faced with these challenges, most scholars have pre-processed bibliometric data using simple heuristics (e.g., if two author names share the same surname and given name initials, they are presumed to represent the same author identity) and assumed that their findings are robust to errors due to author name ambiguity. I test this long-held assumption in bibliometrics by measuring the impact of author name ambiguity on network properties. I accomplish this under varying conditions, including network size and cumulative time window (from 1991 to 2009) using four large-scale bibliometric datasets that cover: biomedicine, computer science, psychology and neuroscience, and one nation’s entire domestic publication output. For this task, I collate the statistical properties of coauthorship networks constructed from algorithmically disambiguated data (i.e., close to clean data) against those that come from the same networks, but are compromised by misidentified authors via first-initial and all-initials disambiguation methods. In addition, I simulate the levels of merging and splitting incrementally using those empirical datasets. My findings show that initial-based name disambiguation methods can severely distort our understanding of given networks and such distortion gets worse over time. Moreover, the distortion sometimes leads to biased or false knowledge of coauthorship network formation and evolution mechanisms such as preferential attachment generating the power-law distribution of vertex degree and to false validation of theories about the choice of collaborators in scientific research. This may result in ill-informed decisions about research policy and resource allocation. Besides measuring the impact of name ambiguity on network properties, I also test how name ambiguity can be estimated using simple heuristics such as dataset size and how merged author identities can be detected via an author’s ego-network properties to provide a practical guidance for corrective measures. My research calls for further studying the effects of author name ambiguity on coauthorship network properties and is expected to help scholars establish better practices for knowledge discovery from large-scale scholarly data

Scale‐free collaboration networks: An author name disambiguation perspective

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149559/1/asi24158.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149559/2/asi24158_am.pd

Exploring cooperative game mechanisms of scientific coauthorship networks

Scientific coauthorship, generated by collaborations and competitions among researchers, reflects effective organizations of human resources. Researchers, their expected benefits through collaborations, and their cooperative costs constitute the elements of a game. Hence we propose a cooperative game model to explore the evolution mechanisms of scientific coauthorship networks. The model generates geometric hypergraphs, where the costs are modelled by space distances, and the benefits are expressed by node reputations, i. e. geometric zones that depend on node position in space and time. Modelled cooperative strategies conditioned on positive benefit-minus-cost reflect the spatial reciprocity principle in collaborations, and generate high clustering and degree assortativity, two typical features of coauthorship networks. Modelled reputations generate the generalized Poisson parts and fat tails appeared in specific distributions of empirical data, e. g. paper team size distribution. The combined effect of modelled costs and reputations reproduces the transitions emerged in degree distribution, in the correlation between degree and local clustering coefficient, etc. The model provides an example of how individual strategies induce network complexity, as well as an application of game theory to social affiliation networks

Feature analysis of multidisciplinary scientific collaboration patterns based on PNAS

The features of collaboration patterns are often considered to be different from discipline to discipline. Meanwhile, collaborating among disciplines is an obvious feature emerged in modern scientific research, which incubates several interdisciplines. The features of collaborations in and among the disciplines of biological, physical and social sciences are analyzed based on 52,803 papers published in a multidisciplinary journal PNAS during 1999 to 2013. From those data, we found similar transitivity and assortativity of collaboration patterns as well as the identical distribution type of collaborators per author and that of papers per author, namely a mixture of generalized Poisson and power-law distributions. In addition, we found that interdisciplinary research is undertaken by a considerable fraction of authors, not just those with many collaborators or those with many papers. This case study provides a window for understanding aspects of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration patterns

Effect of forename string on author name disambiguation

In author name disambiguation, author forenames are used to decide which name instances are disambiguated together and how much they are likely to refer to the same author. Despite such a crucial role of forenames, their effect on the performance of heuristic (string matching) and algorithmic disambiguation is not well understood. This study assesses the contributions of forenames in author name disambiguation using multiple labeled data sets under varying ratios and lengths of full forenames, reflecting real‐world scenarios in which an author is represented by forename variants (synonym) and some authors share the same forenames (homonym). The results show that increasing the ratios of full forenames substantially improves both heuristic and machine‐learning‐based disambiguation. Performance gains by algorithmic disambiguation are pronounced when many forenames are initialized or homonyms are prevalent. As the ratios of full forenames increase, however, they become marginal compared to those by string matching. Using a small portion of forename strings does not reduce much the performances of both heuristic and algorithmic disambiguation methods compared to using full‐length strings. These findings provide practical suggestions, such as restoring initialized forenames into a full‐string format via record linkage for improved disambiguation performances.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155924/1/asi24298.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155924/2/asi24298_am.pd

Neural network technique with deep structure for improving author homonym and synonym classification in digital libraries

Author name disambiguation (AND), also recognized as name-identification, has long been seen as a challenging issue in bibliographic data. In other words, the same author may appear under separate names, synonyms, or distinct authors may have similar to those referred to as homonyms. Some previous research has proposed AND problem. To the best of our knowledge, no study discussed specifically synonym and homonym, whereas such cases are the core in AND topic. This paper presents the classification of non-homonym-synonym, homonym-synonym, synonym, and homonym cases by using the DBLP computer science bibliography dataset. Based on the DBLP raw data, the classification process is proposed by using deep neural networks (DNNs). In the classification process, the DBLP raw data divided into five features, including name, author, title, venue, and year. Twelve scenarios are designed with a different structure to validate and select the best model of DNNs. Furthermore, this paper is also compared DNNs with other classifiers, such as support vector machine (SVM) and decision tree. The results show DNNs outperform SVM and decision tree methods in all performance metrics. The DNNs performances with three hidden layers as the best model, achieve accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score are 98.85%, 95.95%, 99.26%, 94.80%, and 95.36%, respectively. In the future, DNNs are more performing with the automated feature representation in AND processing