What comes first the co-Authorship network or the citation?

Xu, G; He, X; Butler, A

What comes first the co-Authorship network or the citation?

Xu, G

He, X

Butler, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2017, Part F129682
Issue Date:: 2017-07-17

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (1.02 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Xu, G https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4493-6663	en_US
dc.contributor.author	He, X https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1446-9996	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Butler, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7088-3708	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-07-17	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2017, Part F129682	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781450348812	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122212
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 ACM. For many decades citation counting has been used as the way to quantify the nebulous notion of research "quality". Indeed, in conversation the terms "research quality", "impact" or "excellence in research" are simply a reference to a scientific document's citation count. Moreover, the commonly used journal "impact" factors are simply manipulated forms of citation counting. In recent times, the word "impact" has morphed into the new 'mot du jour'. This paper investigates and discusses the association between co-Authorship networks and citations of institutions within an arbitrary, but defined, subject area. The data examined is readily available and the analytical techniques employed are deliberately simple. The simplicity of this analysis is driven by the desire to show that citation counts are not explicitly related to the quality of research but that citations are a result of multifaceted author networks that are inherent in scientific endeavor. The paper presents an argument that the improved ability to conduct effective network analysis and related research shows that the notion of high citations being the same as "research quality" has run its course. Citation performance is more likely to be a result of co-Authorship network dynamics rather than any perceived notion of "quality". Moreover, it is time the folly of citation counting is put to rest and that if one wants know what "impact" one is having that you need look no further than your co-Authorship network and the reach it has across whatever subject area you are interested in. The discussion and results herein highlight that rather than counting citations, the "impact" of research is driven by connections through networks of people.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	ACM International Conference Proceeding Series	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1145/3092090.3092133	en_US
dc.title	What comes first the co-Authorship network or the citation?	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.citation.volume	Part F129682	en_US
utslib.for	0805 Distributed Computing	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Finance Discipline
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - AAI - Advanced Analytics Institute Research Centre
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - QFRC - Quantitative Finance Research Centre
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Students
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	Part F129682	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 ACM. For many decades citation counting has been used as the way to quantify the nebulous notion of research "quality". Indeed, in conversation the terms "research quality", "impact" or "excellence in research" are simply a reference to a scientific document's citation count. Moreover, the commonly used journal "impact" factors are simply manipulated forms of citation counting. In recent times, the word "impact" has morphed into the new 'mot du jour'. This paper investigates and discusses the association between co-Authorship networks and citations of institutions within an arbitrary, but defined, subject area. The data examined is readily available and the analytical techniques employed are deliberately simple. The simplicity of this analysis is driven by the desire to show that citation counts are not explicitly related to the quality of research but that citations are a result of multifaceted author networks that are inherent in scientific endeavor. The paper presents an argument that the improved ability to conduct effective network analysis and related research shows that the notion of high citations being the same as "research quality" has run its course. Citation performance is more likely to be a result of co-Authorship network dynamics rather than any perceived notion of "quality". Moreover, it is time the folly of citation counting is put to rest and that if one wants know what "impact" one is having that you need look no further than your co-Authorship network and the reach it has across whatever subject area you are interested in. The discussion and results herein highlight that rather than counting citations, the "impact" of research is driven by connections through networks of people.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122212