When standard network measures fail to rank journals: A theoretical and empirical analysis
OPEN ACCESS
Loading...
Author / Producer
Date
2022-12-20
Publication Type
Journal Article
ETH Bibliography
yes
Citations
Altmetric
OPEN ACCESS
Data
Rights / License
Abstract
Journal rankings are widely used and are often based on citation data in combination with a network approach. We argue that some of these network-based rankings can produce misleading results. From a theoretical point of view, we show that the standard network modeling approach of citation data at the journal level (i.e., the projection of paper citations onto journals) introduces fictitious relations among journals. To overcome this problem, we propose a citation path approach, and empirically show that rankings based on the network and the citation path approach are very different. Specifically we use MEDLINE, the largest open-access bibliometric data set, listing 24,135 journals, 26,759,399 papers, and 323,356,788 citations. We focus on PageRank, an established and well-known network metric. Based on our theoretical and empirical analysis, we highlight the limitations of standard network metrics and propose a method to overcome them.
Permanent link
Publication status
published
External links
Editor
Book title
Journal / series
Volume
3 (4)
Pages / Article No.
1040 - 1053
Publisher
MIT Press
Event
Edition / version
Methods
Software
Geographic location
Date collected
Date created
Subject
citation network; citation paths; journal rankings; ranking bias; PageRank
Organisational unit
Notes
Funding
Related publications and datasets
Is new version of: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/520230