Delivering Scientific Influence Analysis as a Service on Research Grants Repository

Lai Tu; Ling Liu; Yanbo Long; Yuming Wang

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Delivering Scientific Influence Analysis as a Service on Research Grants Repository

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A graph-theoretic service computes pair-wise scientific influence scores between institutions from grant records alone, and clusters those scores into collaboration groups the raw data do not make visible.

desk verdict A coherent model on borrowed kernels, but the evaluation metrics as printed undercut the central effectiveness claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08715 v1 pith:DVR6SHJ2 submitted 2019-08-23 cs.SI cs.DLphysics.soc-ph

Yuming Wang , Yanbo Long , Lai Tu , Ling Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SIcs.DLphysics.soc-ph

keywords researchgrantsscientificinfluenceanalysisgraphminingheatdiffusionheterogeneousinformationnetworkco-influencescoreK-medoidsclusteringcollaborationdetection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a graph-theoretic analysis service, GImpact, can turn a raw research-grant database into pair-wise "scientific influence" scores between institutions and that clustering those scores surfaces collaboration groups that the grant records alone do not make visible. It claims that combining a heat-diffusion self-influence score over joint-grant collaborations with co-influence scores routed through discipline and keyword graphs captures both direct and indirect relationships between institutions. The authors evaluate the approach on a real dataset of 2512 institutions over 14 years and report that the resulting clusters have higher density and lower DBI than clusters built from institution-only scores. If this is right, grant repositories could support influence analysis without relying on publication citations.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the multi-hop heat-diffusion influence kernel $e^{{αtH}}$ (Eq. 7), where H is a one-hop influence-spread kernel whose off-diagonal entries are normalized edge weights. On the institution graph this kernel yields the self-influence matrix S0; on each heterogeneous institution-aspect graph, a block version of H encodes institution-institution, aspect-aspect, and cross edges, and the institution-to-aspect part of $e^{{αtH}}$ gives each institution's co-influence pattern vector. The co-influence score between two institutions is the product of the cosine similarity and a length-ratio term of their pattern vectors (Eq. 15), and the overall score is the weighted sum in Eq. (16). This overall score supplies the similarity input to a customized K-medoids clustering algorithm that uses mixed centroid initialization, dynamic assignment, and a max-objective centroid update.

What would settle it

One could test whether the clusters reflect genuine collaboration by comparing them against an independent signal the method never sees, such as co-authored publications or formal partnership agreements between the same institutions, with institution size and geographic distance controlled for. If GImpact's clusters match this external ground truth no better than clusters built from raw joint-grant counts or from a standard community-detection baseline, then the reported density and DBI improvements would not establish that the influence scores capture scientific influence. A simpler test is to shuffle discipline and keyword assignments across grants and re-run the clustering; if clusters barely change, the co-influence terms are not carrying the claimed information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the overall scientific influence score S(m,n) between any two institutions, defined by Eq. (16) as S = S0(α) + Σ ωi Si, integrates three kinds of evidence: direct joint grants, indirect reachability through the institution graph, and the shared or related disciplines and keywords attached to grants. The self-influence term S0 comes from applying a heat-diffusion kernel to the institution graph, and each co-influence term Si is the similarity of the institutions' influence patterns on a discipline or keyword graph. With this score used as a distance metric in a K-medoids clustering algorithm, GImpact claims to "effectively identify the grant-based research collaboration groups" and to offer insight into institution leadership and future collaboration opportunities.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the cluster-quality metrics (density and DBI) computed from the very same pairwise influence score S that the clustering algorithm optimizes are unbiased evidence that the resulting groups are scientifically meaningful, with no external ground truth or independent baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claims hold, research administrators can rank prospective partners by grant-based influence score in a repository where grant records are the only structured data.
The clustering output can reveal research-area-defined groups and identify institutions that lead particular subject areas, purely from funding records.
Because the framework is attribute-generic, the same self-influence and co-influence pipeline can be pointed at individual researchers or departments instead of institutions, as the paper notes.
The hierarchical-discipline optimization, which both supplements and aggregates connections, shows a way to scale influence computation on repositories that have hierarchical taxonomies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A time-stamped generalization is natural: weighting recent joint grants more heavily than older ones could turn the static influence matrix into a time series that tracks the rise and fall of collaboration groups; the paper does not consider temporal weighting.
The symmetric positive score matrix invites cross-validation with spectral or modularity-based clustering; if those methods recover the same groups, the result is unlikely to be an artifact of the specific centroid-update scheme.
If the effectiveness claim holds, grant-based influence scores could be used as a predictive feature for future joint-grant applications or co-authorships, an outcome the paper does not test.
The same heterogeneous influence machinery transfers to other record-based networks, such as patents, clinical trials, or procurement contracts, where an institution-like entity connects to category-like attributes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:1908.08715. The core of the paper is a coherent framework for grant influence analysis: build an institution graph plus discipline and keyword aspect graphs, compute self-influence via heat diffusion and co-influence via a heterogeneous diffusion kernel, combine them with a weighted sum, and cluster with a medoids variant that has some sensible heuristics. The diffusion kernels are explicitly borrowed from [17] and [18], and the new pieces — the grant-specific graph construction, the co-influence pattern similarity Eq. (15), and the integration with a custom clustering objective — are reasonable. The dataset is real and sizable (2512 institutions, 334k grants). So the modeling contribution is useful, and the paper could be a good basis for a research analytics service.

The problem is the evaluation. The two metrics used to support the central claim don't measure what the text says. Eq. (30) defines density as the total number of vertex pairs inside clusters divided by |IE|. That has no collaboration edge predicate; it just grows with cluster sizes. So a clustering that puts all vertices in one giant cluster would score high, which is not "cohesiveness" or "collaboration relationships." Either the equation is misstated or the implementation does something different, but as printed it's not a valid measure. Eq. (32) has a subtler but equally serious issue: σ_j as defined includes the centroid's self-score S(cv_j, cv_j), which is N+1 by Eq. (17). So when you compare Institution-only (N=0, diagonal 1) to Institution+Discipline+Keyword (N=2, diagonal 3), the combined model gets a systematically lower DBI just because of the larger diagonal term. That's a construction artifact, not evidence.

There are also free parameters everywhere: the weights α and ω_i in Table 7 are set independently for each K with no selection rule, λ1 and λ2 in Eq. (27) are never given values, and there's no sensitivity analysis. No external ground truth, no baseline clustering method, no code or data. So the paper's headline claim that GImpact 'can effectively identify' collaboration groups is unsupported by the evidence as presented.

All of this is fixable. Correct the density to count intra-cluster edges, define σ_j excluding the centroid, do a systematic sweep over weights, and add at least one external validation (e.g., known institutional groupings or co-publication data). If the authors do that, the contribution would be solid. As it stands, I'd treat the effectiveness claim as not established.

Who is this for? People working on grant analytics or heterogeneous network clustering will find the modeling ideas useful. I'd bring it to a reading group as a cautionary example of self-referential evaluation, but not as a definitive method. I would not cite it as evidence for the effectiveness of the approach. But it does deserve peer review, because the underlying framework is sound and the evaluation can be repaired. Recommend: send it to review, but flag the metric problems clearly and ask for a reanalysis.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents GImpact, a graph-based framework for analyzing scientific influence in a research grants repository. It constructs an institution collaboration graph plus two aspect graphs (disciplines and keywords), computes self-influence scores by heat diffusion on the institution graph and co-influence scores by heterogeneous heat diffusion on institution-aspect graphs, and combines them into an overall pairwise influence score S = S0(α) + Σωi Si. It then performs K-medoids clustering using these scores as distances, with custom centroid initialization, assignment, and update schemes, and it proposes hierarchical-structure-based optimizations (supplement and aggregate connections). The evaluation uses a Chinese MOE humanities/social science grant dataset (2512 institutions, 334,068 grants, 2005–2018) and reports density and Davies-Bouldin Index (DBI) comparisons across configurations, initialization/assignment/update schemes, and optimization strategies. The paper claims that GImpact can effectively identify grant-based research collaboration groups and provide insight into institutional influence.

Significance. If the effectiveness claim were supported, GImpact would be a useful contribution: it applies a heat-diffusion influence model to grant data, combines direct and indirect collaboration signals across multiple aspect graphs, and introduces practical optimizations for hierarchical disciplines. The problem is timely and the graph-based framework is coherent. However, the current evidence for effectiveness is weak: the two quantitative metrics in Section 6.2 are computed from the same pairwise influence matrix that the clustering algorithm is designed to optimize, and one metric (density, Eq. (30)) as written does not even measure collaboration edges. The case study (Tables 8–13) is illustrative but not a validation. The paper would be significantly strengthened by corrected metrics, external or at least independent validation, and a principled specification of free parameters. Given the soundness of the core model, these issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (5)

[§6.2, Eq. (30)] The density metric as printed counts all pairs of institutions that co-occur in a cluster: the numerator is sum_j |{(iv_m,iv_n) | iv_m, iv_n in I_j}| with no condition (iv_m,iv_n) ∈ IE. This measures cluster-size balance, not collaboration cohesion, so the reported density advantage of the combined model in Figs. 5–9 could be an artifact of uneven cluster sizes. The surrounding text says density should reflect 'current institution collaboration relationships,' so either the equation is misstated or the implementation computes something different; in either case the published result is not reproducible as written. Please correct the formula to count actual collaboration edges within clusters (or justify and rename the metric).
[§6.2, Eqs. (31)–(32)] The DBI calculation is biased across the compared configurations. Eq. (31) defines σ_j as the average S(cv_j, iv_l) over all iv_l in I_j without excluding the centroid, and Eq. (17) sets the diagonal of S to N+1, where N is the number of aspect graphs. Thus each σ_j includes a self-similarity term that grows with N. Comparing 'Institution' (N=0, diagonal=1) against 'Institution+Discipline+Keyword' (N=2, diagonal=3) mixes this construction artifact into the reported DBI improvements in Fig. 5b. Please exclude the diagonal from σ_j or otherwise normalize the configuration-wise comparison.
[§6.1, Table 7] The weights α, ω1, ω2 are set per K with no stated selection rule, and they vary substantially across K (e.g., α ranges from 0.15 to 2.2). Since the overall influence score in Eq. (16) and every downstream clustering result depend on these weights, the effectiveness comparisons across configurations are not interpretable without either a principled selection criterion (e.g., a validation set or sensitivity analysis) or an explicit statement that the reported weights are hand-tuned. Please provide a selection rule and/or a sensitivity analysis.
[§5.2, Eq. (27); §6.5] The supplement coefficients λ1 and λ2 are introduced in Eq. (27) but their values are never given in the experiments. The claim that λ2 should be larger than λ1 is qualitative. Without concrete values (or a procedure for choosing them), the 'Supplement' and 'Aggregation+Supplement' results in Fig. 9 cannot be reproduced. Please report the parameter values and, if they are tuned, describe how they were chosen.
[§6.3–§6.5] The effectiveness claim rests entirely on internal metrics (density and DBI) that are computed from the same pairwise influence matrix S that the GImpact clustering algorithm is designed to maximize. The paper provides no external ground truth, no expert labels, and no baseline clustering method (e.g., Louvain, spectral clustering, or standard K-medoids with adjacency-based distances). The case study in §6.6 is illustrative but does not constitute validation. Please add at least one external or independent check, or a comparison against a non-gradient baseline, so that the claim 'can effectively identify the grant-based research collaboration groups' is not self-confirmatory.

minor comments (5)

[§6.1] The text says 'The associated weights for different K we used in the experiments list at Figure 7.' This should refer to Table 7, not Figure 7.
[Figure 2] Panels (j) and (l) both appear to show the same 'Overall Influence Score' matrix; if they are meant to be different stages or views, the labels should be differentiated.
[Table 5] The row label '# of Discipline' should be '# of Disciplines' for grammatical consistency with the other rows.
[§2.2] The phrase 'combining both quantify (the number of publications) and quality' should read 'quantity'.
[§4.4.1, Eq. (24)] The norm used in ‖s_k − s_j‖ is not specified; please state whether it is Euclidean or another norm.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Effectiveness evidence is partly circular: DBI uses the same S that GImpact optimizes, with Eq.(17)'s diagonal N+1 inflating sigma_j, while density Eq.(30) as printed counts all co-clustered pairs rather than grant edges.

self definitional [Section 3.5 Eq.(17); Section 6.2 Eqs.(31)-(32); Section 6.3 'Model Effectiveness'.]
"S(m,n) = { ..., N+1, m=n } (Eq.17). sigma_j = (1/|I_j|) sum_{iv_l in I_j} S(cv_j, iv_l) (Eq.31). DBI = (1/K) sum_{j=1}^K max_{k!=j} S(cv_j,cv_k)/(sigma_j+sigma_k) (Eq.32). The clustering results with both discipline influence graph and keyword influence graph have a significantly higher value of density and a substantially lower value of DBI."

The DBI used to establish 'effectiveness' is computed from the same influence matrix S that the GImpact clustering objective maximizes (Eq.25 uses S(iv_j, iv_l) to choose assignments/centroids). Eq.17 sets every diagonal entry S(cv_j,cv_j)=N+1, where N is the number of aspect graphs. Eq.31 includes this self-similarity term inside sigma_j, so adding influence graphs (N=2 for Institution+Discipline+Keyword vs N=0 for Institution) inflates sigma_j+sigma_k by construction and mechanically lowers the DBI denominator. The reported DBI advantage is therefore partly an artifact of the metric's definition rather than independent evidence of better collaboration groups.
other [Section 6.2 Eq.(30); Section 6.3 'Model Effectiveness' and Figure 5.]
"density({I_j}_{j=1}^K) = sum_{j=1}^K |{(iv_m,iv_n)|iv_m,iv_n in I_j}| / |IE| (30). Density measures the cohesiveness within clusters. It reflects the consistent between clustering results and current institution collaboration relationships."

As printed, the numerator has no predicate (iv_m,iv_n) in IE, so it counts every pair of institutions that falls into the same cluster, regardless of whether they share any joint grant. Consequently the density value is determined by the cluster-size partition (unbalanced clusters give more co-occurring pairs), not by grant collaboration. The Figure 5 density comparisons that are cited as evidence that GImpact 'can effectively identify the grant-based research collaboration groups' are therefore, under the printed formula, comparisons of a construction artifact rather than of collaboration cohesion. The surrounding text claims the metric reflects 'current institution collaboration relationships,' which Eq.(30) as written does not measure.

full rationale

The derivation of S is not circular: S0 is the heat-diffusion kernel e^{alpha t H} on the institution graph (Eqs.5-8), each Si is a cosine/length similarity between co-influence patterns (Eqs.14-15), and Eq.(16) is an explicit weighted sum. The GImpact clustering algorithm then uses S as a similarity/distance. No external ground truth is provided, but an unsupervised method is not circular merely for being unsupervised. The load-bearing problem is in the validation. The DBI metric of Section 6.2 is built from the same S matrix (Eqs.31-32) and inherits the diagonal N+1 term of Eq.(17), so the reported DBI improvement for the combined model is partly a construction artifact; the density metric Eq.(30) as printed counts all co-clustered pairs rather than joint-grant edges, so Figure 5's density evidence does not establish collaboration cohesion. Section 6.3's conclusion that GImpact 'can effectively identify the grant-based research collaboration groups' therefore rests on metrics that are, in the printed definitions, self-referential or mis-specified. This is a partial circularity of the effectiveness claim, not of the score derivation. The self-citation to [18] (Zhou and Liu) is not load-bearing because the heterogeneous influence equations are restated in the paper. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the method rests on several pre-existing influence-spread models and several hand-set parameters. The free parameters (weights α, ω, t, λ) are not derived and materially affect the reported clustering results. The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities beyond the constructed graphs, so invented_entities is empty.

free parameters (4)

alpha (influence spread coefficient and self-influence weight) = 1 in examples; 0.15 to 2.2 in Table 7
User-specified in Eq. (6); in Eq. (16) it is both the diffusion coefficient and the weight on self-influence. Values differ per K and are not justified.
t (diffusion time) = 1
Set to 1 for all examples and experiments; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
omega_i (co-influence weights) = Varies per K, e.g., 0.7 to 2.1 for discipline, 0.1 to 1.75 for keyword; Table 7
Hand-set per experiment to satisfy α+Σωi=N+1. No criterion for selection; central to Eq. (16).
lambda1, lambda2 (hierarchical supplement coefficients)
Introduced in Eq. (27) for supplementing discipline edges; no numeric values or fitting procedure are given in the paper.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Heat-diffusion matrix exponential e^{αtH} models influence propagation on undirected graphs
Borrowed from [17] in Section 3.1. The paper assumes grant-institution relations propagate influence like heat; no independent validation for grant data.
domain assumption Two disciplines or keywords co-occurring in a grant are directly related with weight equal to the number of shared grants
Definition 3, Section 2.1. This constructs the aspect graphs and determines all co-influence scores.
ad hoc to paper Overall scientific influence is the weighted sum S = S0(α) + Σ ωi Si with α+Σωi = N+1
Eq. (16), Section 3.5. No derivation from data or theory; the constraint only keeps diagonal entries at N+1.
ad hoc to paper The co-influence similarity score in Eq. (15), a cosine similarity multiplied by a magnitude-difference factor, measures institutions' collaboration relationship
Defined in Section 3.4; no empirical or theoretical justification beyond intuition.
ad hoc to paper Discipline hierarchy and keyword-to-discipline mapping justify adding synthetic edges with unknown weights λ1, λ2
Section 5.2, Eq. (27). The coefficients are never specified, making the optimization irreproducible.
domain assumption Density and DBI computed on the same influence scores S used to cluster are valid unbiased quality measures
Section 6.2, Eqs. (30)-(32). This is the weakest load-bearing evaluation assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delivering Scientific Influence Analysis as a Service on Research Grants Repository." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVR6SHJ2

@misc{pith2026190808715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delivering Scientific Influence Analysis as a Service on Research Grants Repository},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVR6SHJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08715}
}

read the original abstract

Research grants have played an important role in seeding and promoting fundamental research projects worldwide. There is a growing demand for developing and delivering scientific influence analysis as a service on research grant repositories. Such analysis can provide insight on how research grants help foster new research collaborations, encourage cross-organizational collaborations, influence new research trends, and identify technical leadership. This paper presents the design and development of a grants-based scientific influence analysis service, coined as GImpact. It takes a graph-theoretic approach to design and develop large scale scientific influence analysis over a large research-grant repository with three original contributions. First, we mine the grant database to identify and extract important features for grants influence analysis and represent such features using graph theoretic models. For example, we extract an institution graph and multiple associated aspect-based collaboration graphs, including a discipline graph and a keyword graph. Second, we introduce self-influence and co-influence algorithms to compute two types of collaboration relationship scores based on the number of grants and the types of grants for institutions. We compute the self-influence scores to reflect the grant based research collaborations among institutions and compute multiple co-influence scores to model the various types of cross-institution collaboration relationships in terms of disciplines and subject areas. Third, we compute the overall scientific influence score for every pair of institutions by introducing a weighted sum of the self-influence score and the multiple co-influence scores and conduct an influence-based clustering analysis. We evaluate GImpact using a real grant database, consisting of 2512 institutions and their grants received over a period of 14 years...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08715 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An Illustration of the workflow of the GImpact Influence Analysis Framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An example fragment of the hierarchical structure of 820/Law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Aggregated Result of Co-influence Patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Different Influence Graph Comparison The clustering results with both discipline influence graph and keyword influence graph have a significantly higher value of density and a substantially lower value of DBI. It indicates that the overall scientific influence score im…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Centroid Initialization Comparison 6.4.2 Vertex Assignment Comparison Figure 7a and Figure 7b show the quality comparison with different vertex assignment schemes discussed above. When K is small, the clustering results with dynamic assignment schema have significantly…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: a and Figure 9b show the quality comparison of different optimization strategies discussed above. As shown in the figure, both supplement and aggregation can increase the density value, the combination of aggregation and supplement will have better results. However, th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[17]

Mining social networks using heat diffusion processes for marketing candidates selection,

H. Ma, H. Yang, M. R. Lyu, and I. King, “Mining social networks using heat diffusion processes for marketing candidates selection,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowl- edge management. ACM, 2008, pp. 233–242

work page 2008
[18]

Social inﬂuence based clustering of hetero- geneous information networks,

Y. Zhou and L. Liu, “Social inﬂuence based clustering of hetero- geneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2013, pp. 338–346

work page 2013
[1]

Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas

E. GARFIELD, “Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas.” Science (New York, NY), vol. 122, no. 3159, pp. 108–111, 1955

work page 1955
[2]

The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,

E. Garﬁeld, “The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,” Jama, vol. 295, no. 1, pp. 90–93, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

An index to quantify an individual’s scientiﬁc research output,

J. E. Hirsch, “An index to quantify an individual’s scientiﬁc research output,” Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences , vol. 102, no. 46, pp. 16 569–16 572, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

Does the h index have predictive power?

——, “Does the h index have predictive power?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 104, no. 49, pp. 19 193–19 198, 2007

work page 2007
[5]

Theory and practise of the g-index,

L. Egghe, “Theory and practise of the g-index,” Scientometrics, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 131–152, 2006

work page 2006
[6]

hg- index: A new index to characterize the scientiﬁc output of re- searchers based on the h-and g-indices,

S. Alonso, F. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “hg- index: A new index to characterize the scientiﬁc output of re- searchers based on the h-and g-indices,” Scientometrics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 391–400, 2009

work page 2009

Show all 24 references

[7]

Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the inﬂuence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers,

K. W. Boyack and K. B ¨orner, “Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the inﬂuence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 447–461, 2003

2003
[8]

The impact of research grant funding on scientiﬁc productivity,

B. A. Jacob and L. Lefgren, “The impact of research grant funding on scientiﬁc productivity,” Journal of public economics , vol. 95, no. 9-10, pp. 1168–1177, 2011

2011
[9]

Finding and evaluating commu- nity structure in networks,

M. E. Newman and M. Girvan, “Finding and evaluating commu- nity structure in networks,” Physical review E , vol. 69, no. 2, p. 026113, 2004

2004
[10]

Community detection in graphs,

S. Fortunato, “Community detection in graphs,” Physics reports , vol. 486, no. 3-5, pp. 75–174, 2010

2010
[11]

Network community detection: A review and visual survey,

B. S. Khan and M. A. Niazi, “Network community detection: A review and visual survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00977, 2017

2017 arXiv
[12]

Inﬂuence and similarity on het- erogeneous networks,

G. Wang, Q. Hu, and P . S. Yu, “Inﬂuence and similarity on het- erogeneous networks,” in Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management . ACM, 2012, pp. 1462–1466

2012
[13]

Scientiﬁc co-authorship social networks: A case study of computer science scenario in india,

T. Arif, R. Ali, and M. Asger, “Scientiﬁc co-authorship social networks: A case study of computer science scenario in india,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 52, no. 12, 2012

2012
[14]

Learning to measure inﬂuence in a scientiﬁc social network,

S. Bergsma, R. L. Mandryk, and G. McCalla, “Learning to measure inﬂuence in a scientiﬁc social network,” in Canadian Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence. Springer, 2014, pp. 35–46

2014
[15]

Measuring the social inﬂuences of scientist groups based on multiple types of collabora- tion relations,

J. Jiang, P . Shi, B. An, J. Yu, and C. Wang, “Measuring the social inﬂuences of scientist groups based on multiple types of collabora- tion relations,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2017

2017
[16]

A new social network analysis-based approach to extracting knowledge patterns about research activities and hubs in a set of countries,

P . L. Giudice, P . Russo, D. Ursino et al. , “A new social network analysis-based approach to extracting knowledge patterns about research activities and hubs in a set of countries,” International Journal of Business Innovation and Research , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 147– 186, 2018

2018
[19]

Kaufman and P

L. Kaufman and P . Rousseeuw, Clustering by means of medoids . North-Holland, 1987

1987
[20]

An efﬁcient approach to clus- tering in large multimedia databases with noise,

A. Hinneburg, D. A. Keim et al. , “An efﬁcient approach to clus- tering in large multimedia databases with noise,” in KDD, vol. 98, 1998, pp. 58–65

1998
[21]

k-means++: The advantages of careful seeding,

D. Arthur and S. Vassilvitskii, “k-means++: The advantages of careful seeding,” in Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2007, pp. 1027–1035

2007
[22]

Introduction to social network methods,

R. A. Hanneman and M. Riddle, “Introduction to social network methods,” 2005

2005
[23]

A cluster separation measure,

D. L. Davies and D. W. Bouldin, “A cluster separation measure,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , no. 2, pp. 224–227, 1979. 17 Yuming Wangreceived his B.S. degree in Com- munication Engineering and Ph.D. degree in In- formation and Communication ...

1979
[2018]

He is currently an Associate Professor in the School of Electronic Information and Com- munications (EIC), HUST, China. He directs the research programs in Chinese University Social Sciences Data Center (CSDC), HUST, examining various aspects of software service systems and da...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

Mining social networks using heat diffusion processes for marketing candidates selection,

H. Ma, H. Yang, M. R. Lyu, and I. King, “Mining social networks using heat diffusion processes for marketing candidates selection,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowl- edge management. ACM, 2008, pp. 233–242

work page 2008

[2] [18]

Social inﬂuence based clustering of hetero- geneous information networks,

Y. Zhou and L. Liu, “Social inﬂuence based clustering of hetero- geneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2013, pp. 338–346

work page 2013

[3] [1]

Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas

E. GARFIELD, “Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas.” Science (New York, NY), vol. 122, no. 3159, pp. 108–111, 1955

work page 1955

[4] [2]

The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,

E. Garﬁeld, “The history and meaning of the journal impact factor,” Jama, vol. 295, no. 1, pp. 90–93, 2006

work page 2006

[5] [3]

An index to quantify an individual’s scientiﬁc research output,

J. E. Hirsch, “An index to quantify an individual’s scientiﬁc research output,” Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences , vol. 102, no. 46, pp. 16 569–16 572, 2005

work page 2005

[6] [4]

Does the h index have predictive power?

——, “Does the h index have predictive power?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 104, no. 49, pp. 19 193–19 198, 2007

work page 2007

[7] [5]

Theory and practise of the g-index,

L. Egghe, “Theory and practise of the g-index,” Scientometrics, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 131–152, 2006

work page 2006

[8] [6]

hg- index: A new index to characterize the scientiﬁc output of re- searchers based on the h-and g-indices,

S. Alonso, F. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “hg- index: A new index to characterize the scientiﬁc output of re- searchers based on the h-and g-indices,” Scientometrics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 391–400, 2009

work page 2009