Predicting Citation Impact of Academic Papers Across Research Areas Using Multiple Models and Early Citations

As the volume of scientific literature expands rapidly, accurately gauging and predicting the citation impact of academic papers has become increasingly imperative. Citation counts serve as a widely adopted metric for this purpose. While numerous researchers have explored techniques for projecting papers' citation counts, a prevalent constraint lies in the utilization of a singular model across all papers within a dataset. This universal approach, suitable for small, homogeneous collections, proves less effective for large, heterogeneous collections spanning various research domains, thereby curtailing the practical utility of these methodologies. In this study, we propose a pioneering methodology that deploys multiple models tailored to distinct research domains and integrates early citation data. Our approach encompasses instance-based learning techniques to categorize papers into different research domains and distinct prediction models trained on early citation counts for papers within each domain. We assessed our methodology using two extensive datasets sourced from DBLP and arXiv. Our experimental findings affirm that the proposed classification methodology is both precise and efficient in classifying papers into research domains. Furthermore, the proposed prediction methodology, harnessing multiple domain-specific models and early citations, surpasses four state-of-the-art baseline methods in most instances, substantially enhancing the accuracy of citation impact predictions for diverse collections of academic papers

Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100)

Percentile-based approaches have been proposed as a non-parametric alternative to parametric central-tendency statistics to normalize observed citation counts. Percentiles are based on an ordered set of citation counts in a reference set, whereby the fraction of papers at or below the citation counts of a focal paper is used as an indicator for its relative citation impact in the set. In this study, we pursue two related objectives: (1) although different percentile-based approaches have been developed, an approach is hitherto missing that satisfies a number of criteria such as scaling of the percentile ranks from zero (all other papers perform better) to 100 (all other papers perform worse), and solving the problem with tied citation ranks unambiguously. We introduce a new citation-rank approach having these properties, namely P100. (2) We compare the reliability of P100 empirically with other percentile-based approaches, such as the approaches developed by the SCImago group, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), and Thomson Reuters (InCites), using all papers published in 1980 in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS). How accurately can the different approaches predict the long-term citation impact in 2010 (in year 31) using citation impact measured in previous time windows (years 1 to 30)? The comparison of the approaches shows that the method used by InCites overestimates citation impact (because of using the highest percentile rank when papers are assigned to more than a single subject category) whereas the SCImago indicator shows higher power in predicting the long-term citation impact on the basis of citation rates in early years. Since the results show a disadvantage in this predictive ability for P100 against the other approaches, there is still room for further improvements.Comment: Accepted for publication in the Journal of Informetric

Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References

Influence prediction plays a crucial role in the academic community. The amount of scholars' influence determines whether their work will be accepted by others. Most existing research focuses on predicting one paper's citation count after a period or identifying the most influential papers among the massive candidates, without concentrating on an individual paper's negative or positive impact on its authors. Thus, this study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not, which can provide feedback to the authors before they publish their papers. First, we presented the self-adapted ACC (Average Annual Citation Counts) metric to measure authors' impact yearly based on their annual published papers, paper citation counts, and contributions in each paper. Then, we proposed the RD-GAT (Reference-Depth Graph Attention Network) model to integrate heterogeneous graph information from different depth of references by assigning attention coefficients on them. Experiments on AMiner dataset demonstrated that the proposed ACC metrics could represent the authors influence effectively, and the RD-GAT model is more efficiently on the academic citation network, and have stronger robustness against the overfitting problem compared with the baseline models. By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future

Longitudinal Citation Prediction using Temporal Graph Neural Networks

Citation count prediction is the task of predicting the number of citations a paper has gained after a period of time. Prior work viewed this as a static prediction task. As papers and their citations evolve over time, considering the dynamics of the number of citations a paper will receive would seem logical. Here, we introduce the task of sequence citation prediction, where the goal is to accurately predict the trajectory of the number of citations a scholarly work receives over time. We propose to view papers as a structured network of citations, allowing us to use topological information as a learning signal. Additionally, we learn how this dynamic citation network changes over time and the impact of paper meta-data such as authors, venues and abstracts. To approach the introduced task, we derive a dynamic citation network from Semantic Scholar which spans over 42 years. We present a model which exploits topological and temporal information using graph convolution networks paired with sequence prediction, and compare it against multiple baselines, testing the importance of topological and temporal information and analyzing model performance. Our experiments show that leveraging both the temporal and topological information greatly increases the performance of predicting citation counts over time

Will This Paper Increase Your h-index? Scientific Impact Prediction

Scientific impact plays a central role in the evaluation of the output of scholars, departments, and institutions. A widely used measure of scientific impact is citations, with a growing body of literature focused on predicting the number of citations obtained by any given publication. The effectiveness of such predictions, however, is fundamentally limited by the power-law distribution of citations, whereby publications with few citations are extremely common and publications with many citations are relatively rare. Given this limitation, in this work we instead address a related question asked by many academic researchers in the course of writing a paper, namely: "Will this paper increase my h-index?" Using a real academic dataset with over 1.7 million authors, 2 million papers, and 8 million citation relationships from the premier online academic service ArnetMiner, we formalize a novel scientific impact prediction problem to examine several factors that can drive a paper to increase the primary author's h-index. We find that the researcher's authority on the publication topic and the venue in which the paper is published are crucial factors to the increase of the primary author's h-index, while the topic popularity and the co-authors' h-indices are of surprisingly little relevance. By leveraging relevant factors, we find a greater than 87.5% potential predictability for whether a paper will contribute to an author's h-index within five years. As a further experiment, we generate a self-prediction for this paper, estimating that there is a 76% probability that it will contribute to the h-index of the co-author with the highest current h-index in five years. We conclude that our findings on the quantification of scientific impact can help researchers to expand their influence and more effectively leverage their position of "standing on the shoulders of giants."Comment: Proc. of the 8th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM'15

Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal

The importance of a research article is routinely measured by counting how many times it has been cited. However, treating all citations with equal weight ignores the wide variety of functions that citations perform. We want to automatically identify the subset of references in a bibliography that have a central academic influence on the citing paper. For this purpose, we examine the effectiveness of a variety of features for determining the academic influence of a citation. By asking authors to identify the key references in their own work, we created a data set in which citations were labeled according to their academic influence. Using automatic feature selection with supervised machine learning, we found a model for predicting academic influence that achieves good performance on this data set using only four features. The best features, among those we evaluated, were those based on the number of times a reference is mentioned in the body of a citing paper. The performance of these features inspired us to design an influence-primed h-index (the hip-index). Unlike the conventional h-index, it weights citations by how many times a reference is mentioned. According to our experiments, the hip-index is a better indicator of researcher performance than the conventional h-index