A Multidimensional Framework for Characterizing the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications

Yi Bu,Ludo Waltman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4279666

2020-01-01

Abstract:This data set pertains to the following research article: Bu, Y., Waltman, L., & Huang, Y. (2020). A multidimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications. arXiv:1901.09663.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Multidimensional Framework for Characterizing the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications

Yi Bu,Ludo Waltman,Yong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00109

2021-01-01

Quantitative Science Studies

Abstract:The citation impact of a scientific publication is usually seen as a one-dimensional concept. We introduce a multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of a publication. In addition to the level of citation impact, quantified by the number of citations received by a publication, we also conceptualize and operationalize the depth and breadth and the dependence and independence of the citation impact of a publication. The proposed framework distinguishes between publications that have a deep citation impact, typically in a relatively narrow research area, and publications that have a broad citation impact, probably covering a wider area of research. It also makes a distinction between publications that are strongly dependent on earlier work and publications that make a more independent scientific contribution. We use our multi-dimensional citation impact framework to report basic descriptive statistics on the citation impact of highly cited publications in all scientific disciplines. In addition, we present a detailed case study focusing on the field of scientometrics. The proposed citation impact framework provides a more in-depth understanding of the citation impact of a publication than a traditional one-dimensional perspective.
A multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications

Yi Bu,Ludo Waltman,Yong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.09663

2020-11-23

Abstract:The citation impact of a scientific publication is usually seen as a one-dimensional concept. We introduce a multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of a publication. In addition to the level of citation impact, quantified by the number of citations received by a publication, we also conceptualize and operationalize the depth and breadth and the dependence and independence of the citation impact of a publication. The proposed framework distinguishes between publications that have a deep citation impact, typically in a relatively narrow research area, and publications that have a broad citation impact, probably covering a wider area of research. It also makes a distinction between publications that are strongly dependent on earlier work and publications that make a more independent scientific contribution. We use our multi-dimensional citation impact framework to report basic descriptive statistics on the citation impact of highly cited publications in all scientific disciplines. In addition, we present a detailed case study focusing on the field of scientometrics. The proposed citation impact framework provides a more in-depth understanding of the citation impact of a publication than a traditional one-dimensional perspective.

Digital Libraries
A Multidimensional Perspective on the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications

Yi Bu,Ludo Waltman,Yong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00109/v2/response1

2019-01-01

Abstract:The citation impact of scientific publications is usually seen as a one-dimensional concept. We introduce a three-dimensional perspective on the citation impact of publications. In addition to the level of citation impact, quantified by the number of citations received by a publication, we also conceptualize and operationalize the depth and dependence of citation impact. This enables us to make a distinction between publications that have a deep impact concentrated in one specific field of research and publications that have a broad impact scattered over different research fields. It also allows us to distinguish between publications that are strongly dependent on earlier work and publications that make a more independent scientific contribution. We present a large-scale empirical analysis of the level, depth, and dependence of the citation impact of publications. In addition, we report a case study focusing on publications in the field of scientometrics. Our three-dimensional citation impact framework provides a more detailed understanding of the citation impact of a publication than a traditional one-dimensional perspective.
Multidimensional Scholarly Citations: Characterizing and Understanding Scholars' Citation Behaviors

Yunxue Cui,Yongzhen Wang,Xiaozhong Liu,Xianwen Wang,Xuhong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24709

2023-01-01

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract:This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.
Towards transdisciplinary impact of scientific publications: A longitudinal, comprehensive, and large-scale analysis on Microsoft Academic Graph

Yong Huang,Wei Lu,Jialin Liu,Qikai Cheng,Yi Bu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102859

IF: 7.466

2022-01-01

Information Processing & Management

Abstract:This paper studies the transdisciplinary impact of scientific publications with a longitudinal, comprehensive, and large-scale analysis on the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) dataset. More specifically, this paper aims to understand to what extent publications in discipline A have impact on discipline B. To this end, we propose a novel method to characterize the degree to which a publication impacts another discipline instead of its original discipline. We consider the ratio of the number of citations in a certain discipline and that in the original discipline. We also adopt an OLS regression to identify the equation between the ratio and the affinity of discipline pair and find a clear positive relation. This inspires us to categorize a publication's degree of transdisciplinarity by setting up two thresholds, the top 95% and the bottom 95% confident interval curve (of the fitted line). Publications above the top 95% curve is categorized as transdisciplinary ones, those below the bottom 95% curve as domain-specific ones, and those between the two curve as normal publications. This categorization does not require any pre-defined framework for transdisciplinarity and offers an automatic way of definition by data distribution itself. We find that sociology, mathematics, physics, and chemistry account for a great proportion of transdisciplinary publications that influence other domains, and that medicine, biology, economics, and geology have the greatest proportion of domain-specific publications that show impact in the original discipline. Moreover, we observe a negative relation between the number of citations and the proportion of transdisciplinary publications. A longitudinal analysis presents that the proportion of transdisciplinary publications shows a slightly increase trend for years.
The Time Dimension of Science: Connecting the Past to the Future

Yian Yin,Dashun Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.04.002

2017-04-19

Abstract:A central question in science of science concerns how time affects citations. Despite the long-standing interests and its broad impact, we lack systematic answers to this simple yet fundamental question. By reviewing and classifying prior studies for the past 50 years, we find a significant lack of consensus in the literature, primarily due to the coexistence of retrospective and prospective approaches to measuring citation age distributions. These two approaches have been pursued in parallel, lacking any known connections between the two. Here we developed a new theoretical framework that not only allows us to connect the two approaches through precise mathematical relationships, it also helps us reconcile the interplay between temporal decay of citations and the growth of science, helping us uncover new functional forms characterizing citation age distributions. We find retrospective distribution follows a lognormal distribution with exponential cutoff, while prospective distribution is governed by the interplay between a lognormal distribution and the growth in the number of references. Most interestingly, the two approaches can be connected once rescaled by the growth of publications and citations. We further validate our framework using both large-scale citation datasets and analytical models capturing citation dynamics. Together this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the time dimension of science, representing a new empirical and theoretical basis for all future studies in this area.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries,Social and Information Networks
Correlated Impact Dynamics in Science

Jiazhen Liu,Tamang Kunal,Dashun Wang,Chaoming Song

2023-03-07

Abstract:Science progresses by building upon previous discoveries. It is commonly believed that the impact of scientific papers, as measured by citations, is positively correlated with the impact of past discoveries built upon. However, analyzing over 30 million papers and nearly a billion citations across multiple disciplines, we find that there is a long-term positive citation correlation, but a negative short-term correlation. We demonstrate that the key to resolving this paradox lies in a new concept, called "capacity", which captures the amount of originality remaining for a paper. We find there is an intimate link between capacity and impact dynamics that appears universal across the diverse fields we studied. The uncovered capacity measure not only explains the correlated impact dynamics across the sciences but also improves our understanding and predictions of high-impact discoveries.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries
A Data Analytic Approach to Quantifying Scientific Impact

Xuanyu Cao,Yan Chen,K. J. Ray Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.006

IF: 3.7

2016-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:Citation is perhaps the mostly used metric to evaluate the scientific impact of papers. Various measures of the scientific impact of researchers and journals rely heavily on the citations of papers. Furthermore, in many practical applications, people may need to know not only the current citations of a paper, but also a prediction of its future citations. However, the complex heterogeneous temporal patterns of the citation dynamics make the predictions of future citations rather difficult. The existing state-of-the-art approaches used parametric methods that require long period of data and have poor performance on some scientific disciplines. In this paper, we present a simple yet effective and robust data analytic method to predict future citations of papers from a variety of disciplines. With rather short-term (e.g., 3 years after the paper is published) citation data, the proposed approach can give accurate estimate of future citations, outperforming state-of-the-art prediction methods significantly. Extensive experiments confirm the robustness of the proposed approach across various journals of different disciplines.
How wide is the citation impact of scientific publications? A cross-discipline and large-scale analysis

Yi Bu,Wei Lu,Yifei Wu,Hongkan Chen,Yong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102429

IF: 7.466

2021-01-01

Information Processing & Management

Abstract:Although scientometricians have focused on the strength of the citation impact of scientific publications, only a few have paid special attention to the width of the citation impact. In this article, we aim to understand the width by establishing our empirical study on a previously built structure, namely ego-centered citation networks (ECCNs). We remove the direct links to the focal publication and only retain the other edges in the network. Particularly, we examine the number and the size of the connected components of sub-networks of ECCNs in the whole Web of Science database. We find that the number and size of the connected components increase as the number of citations of publications rises, regardless of discipline, and that they are greater in recent publications than in older ones. We also observe that there are some differences in terms of the number/size of the connected components; particularly, the number/size of connected components for publications in Arts and Humanities is more "special" compared with other disciplines, and Natural Sciences tends to have greater values. These details are indicative in terms of the specializations of academia. Moreover, the findings have far-reaching implications on research assessment practices and literature searching.
Features of Scientific Papers and the Relationships with Their Citation Impact

Tian Yu,Guang Yu

2014-01-01

Abstract:It has been proven that several features of scientific papers are relevant to citation impact. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the role of these features and unravel which features have greater influence on citation impact. A feature space is established to describe four types of scientific papers' features: features of a paper itself features of authors, features of published journal, and features of citations. For a group of 676 articles published in 12 journals in the subject category of Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) in 2007, we analyze quantitatively the difference among high-, medium-, and low-cited papers, and capture their influence on citation impact. The results make it clear that among these four feature types, the quality of a paper and the reputation of authors are the most and the least significant factor affecting the citation impact respectively, and a paper itself has greater influence than the published journal. The findings lay the foundation for the citation impact prediction by using the features of scientific papers.
A Comparative Study of Domestic and Cross‐country Impact of Chinese and U.S. Publications in Chemistry

Xiaojing Cai,Xiaozan Lyu,Ping Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.5

2019-01-01

Abstract:ABSTRACTBased on publications in Chemistry in 2015, this paper investigated the citation impact on domestic and foreign scholarly communities of Chinese and US publications, and to what extent does such impact relate to international collaboration and government funding. First‐ or corresponding authorship in international collaboration is defined as dominance and is taken into consideration. Citations to publications are designated as domestic citations (Chinese or US citations), partner citations or other citations according to overlap of countries of citing and cited publications. Significant difference exists in the two countries. Most citations of Chinese publications are from domestic and partner countries, with domestic citations being the mainstay. In contrast, US papers receive more other citations than domestic or partner citations, and citations from partner countries contribute significantly. US papers have higher global impact than those of China. High domestic citation propensity is associated with non‐international collaboration, dominance of focal country in international collaboration, and national funding support. Such phenomenon is more pronounced in Chinese papers. In other words, citation impact of Chinese publications is more limited in domestic community, whereas that of the US is more global.
The relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact-a novel perspective on citation accumulation

Xiaojing Cai,Xiaozan Lyu,Ping Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02475-3

2023-01-01

Abstract:Interdisciplinary research is of significance for creating breakthroughs and facilitating innovations and may achieve higher citation impact, although contrary results still exist. The current study looks into the relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact from a brand-new perspective-the process of citation accumulation-by exploring how interdisciplinarity, as measured by Rao-Stirling and DIV, affects the accumulating process of citations, based on scientific papers published by Chinese or US authors in 2009-2011 in Chemistry. Two metrics are used to measure how long it takes for a paper to reach its citation peak (PEAK_YEAR) and how sustainable the citation impact remains after the peak (SUS). The results show that compared with Rao-Stirling, DIV is more sensitive to the length of the citation window and more closely aligned with the nature of interdisciplinarity. In Chemistry, higher interdisciplinarity is more likely to encounter delayed recognition and greater citation sustainability, which may explain the inconsistency in the relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact. In conclusion, it is necessary to consider the length of the citation window when explaining the relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact. A longer citation window may be a better solution, as an alternative or supplement, in assessing the academic performance of interdisciplinary research.
Citing for High Impact

Xiaolin Shi,Jure Leskovec,Daniel A. McFarland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1004.3351

2010-04-20

Abstract:The question of citation behavior has always intrigued scientists from various disciplines. While general citation patterns have been widely studied in the literature we develop the notion of citation projection graphs by investigating the citations among the publications that a given paper cites. We investigate how patterns of citations vary between various scientific disciplines and how such patterns reflect the scientific impact of the paper. We find that idiosyncratic citation patterns are characteristic for low impact papers; while narrow, discipline-focused citation patterns are common for medium impact papers. Our results show that crossing-community, or bridging citation patters are high risk and high reward since such patterns are characteristic for both low and high impact papers. Last, we observe that recently citation networks are trending toward more bridging and interdisciplinary forms.

Digital Libraries
Predicting Scientific Impact Through Diffusion, Conformity, and Contribution Disentanglement

Zhikai Xue,Guoxiu He,Zhuoren Jiang,Sichen Gu,Yangyang Kang,Star Zhao,Wei Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3627673.3679546

2024-09-02

Abstract:The scientific impact of academic papers is influenced by intricate factors such as dynamic popularity and inherent contribution. Existing models typically rely on static graphs for citation count estimation, failing to differentiate among its sources. In contrast, we propose distinguishing effects derived from various factors and predicting citation increments as estimated potential impacts within the dynamic context. In this research, we introduce a novel model, DPPDCC, which Disentangles the Potential impacts of Papers into Diffusion, Conformity, and Contribution values. It encodes temporal and structural features within dynamic heterogeneous graphs derived from the citation networks and applies various auxiliary tasks for disentanglement. By emphasizing comparative and co-cited/citing information and aggregating snapshots evolutionarily, DPPDCC captures knowledge flow within the citation network. Afterwards, popularity is outlined by contrasting augmented graphs to extract the essence of citation diffusion and predicting citation accumulation bins for quantitative conformity modeling. Orthogonal constraints ensure distinct modeling of each perspective, preserving the contribution value. To gauge generalization across publication times and replicate the realistic dynamic context, we partition data based on specific time points and retain all samples without strict filtering. Extensive experiments on three datasets validate DPPDCC's superiority over baselines for papers published previously, freshly, and immediately, with further analyses confirming its robustness. Our codes and supplementary materials can be found at <a class="link-external link-https" href="https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/DPPDCC" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a>.

Social and Information Networks,Artificial Intelligence
Understanding the Impact of Early Citers on Long-Term Scientific Impact

Mayank Singh,Ajay Jaiswal,Priya Shree,Arindam Pal,Animesh Mukherjee,Pawan Goyal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.03178

2017-05-09

Abstract:This paper explores an interesting new dimension to the challenging problem of predicting long-term scientific impact (LTSI) usually measured by the number of citations accumulated by a paper in the long-term. It is well known that early citations (within 1-2 years after publication) acquired by a paper positively affects its LTSI. However, there is no work that investigates if the set of authors who bring in these early citations to a paper also affect its LTSI. In this paper, we demonstrate for the first time, the impact of these authors whom we call early citers (EC) on the LTSI of a paper. Note that this study of the complex dynamics of EC introduces a brand new paradigm in citation behavior analysis. Using a massive computer science bibliographic dataset we identify two distinct categories of EC - we call those authors who have high overall publication/citation count in the dataset as influential and the rest of the authors as non-influential. We investigate three characteristic properties of EC and present an extensive analysis of how each category correlates with LTSI in terms of these properties. In contrast to popular perception, we find that influential EC negatively affects LTSI possibly owing to attention stealing. To motivate this, we present several representative examples from the dataset. A closer inspection of the collaboration network reveals that this stealing effect is more profound if an EC is nearer to the authors of the paper being investigated. As an intuitive use case, we show that incorporating EC properties in the state-of-the-art supervised citation prediction models leads to high performance margins. At the closing, we present an online portal to visualize EC statistics along with the prediction results for a given query paper.

Digital Libraries
Quantifying the Impact of a Teamwork Publication.

Haochuanan Cui,An Zeng,Ying Fan,Zengru Di

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101217

IF: 3.7

2021-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:We are now in the team explosion era, with an increasing number of scholars who choose to work in teams. Collaboration helps scholars increase productivity and the number of citations received. In the literature, there is a series of works aimed at understanding the impact of papers based on career data of individual researchers. A surprising finding is that the impact of the next paper that a researcher publishes is only determined by the intrinsic ability of the researcher and luck. However, this method neglects the effect of teamwork on the impact of papers, which may lead to contradictory predictions of a paper's impact if the predictions are made based on different co-authors. In this paper, we collect 481,768 scientific articles published by the American Physical Society and analyse the collaboration behaviours of 236,884 physicists. We propose a method to quantify the impact of teamwork. Given the information of team members, the study shows good performance in estimating the long-term impact of teamwork publications. This method also reveals the collaboration patterns in the careers of scholars to decode the complexity of collaboration dynamics.
Quantifying a Paper’s Academic Impact by Distinguishing the Unequal Intensities and Contributions of Citations

Mingyang Wang,Jinjin Ren,Shi Li,Guangsheng Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2927016

IF: 3.9

2019-01-01

IEEE Access

Abstract:Citation count is a widely-used indicator for calculating the academic impact of scientific papers, but it is limited because it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. By examining the influence changes in papers’ citation distribution and the cited papers’ unequal contributions to the citing ones, this study aims to distinguish citations and, on this basis, evaluate the academic impact of the papers. Three indices of time-weighted citation count, citation width and citation depth are proposed to distinguish citations and perform the evaluation task. The experimental results show that papers exhibit different influence intensity characteristics in different periods of citation life. Those papers got larger citations in recent years are more influential and more active to gain new citations. The papers show the different scope of influence in their citing environment, although they were originally published in the same journal and the same year. In addition, the different frequency of mentions and the different subject similarities with the citing works suggest that the papers have different importance and usefulness for subsequent research. These results suggest that these three indices do help to distinguish citations and reveal the different intensity and contribution of influences in citations. Finally, the three indices are integrated into the overall evaluation of the academic impact of the paper, and the weight of each index is calculated by the entropy weight method. Quite different overall impacts in the paper are shown due to their different performances in the three indices, even though they have the same total number of citations.
Research on the Framework of Scientific Data Citation Content Analysis for Scientific Data Management

Yuzhuo Chi,Yanfei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2018.01.005

2018-01-01

Abstract:Scientific data is an important strategic resource, and scientific data management has received extensive attention in academic research and practice. Scientific data management pertains to the utilization of scientific data, and the scientific data requirements can be identified through observation and research of the scientific data uses. This paper discusses relevant research on scientific data citation using the academic achievements of citation content analysis as reference. The citation content analysis framework of scientific data was developed, which divided the importance of scientific data based on the citation functions, and the value of the scientific data and its sources was judged according to their importance. The consistency of the framework was tested by quantitative analysis, and 32 English papers in the field of oceanography were selected as samples to analyze the value and source characteristics of the scientific data in oceanography.
Delineating the Citation Impact of Scientific Discoveries

Chaomei Chen,Jian Zhang,Weizhong Zhu,Michael Vogeley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1255175.1255179

2007-01-01

Abstract:Identifying the significance of specific concepts in the diffusion of scientific knowledge is a challenging issue concerning many theoretical and practical areas. We introduce an innovative visual analytic approach to integrate microscopic and macroscopic perspectives of a rapidly growing scientific knowledge domain. Specifically, our approach focuses on statistically unexpected phrases extracted from unstructured text of titles and abstracts at the microscopic level in association with the magnitude and timeliness of their citation impact at the macroscopic level. The H-index, originally defined to measure individual scientists. productivity in terms of their citation profiles, is extended in two ways: 1) to papers and terms as a means of dividing these items into two groups so as to replace the less optimal threshold-based divisions, and 2) to take into account the timeliness of the impact of knowledge diffusion in terms of the timing of citations and publications so that attention is particularly drawn towards potentially significant and timely papers. The selected terms are connected to higher-level performance indicators, such as measures derived from the H-index, in the form of decision trees. A top-down traversal of such decision trees provides an intuitive walkthrough of concepts and phrases that may underline potentially significant but currently still latent scientific discoveries. Timeliness measures can also help to identify institutions that are at the forefront of a research field. We illustrate how widely accessible tools such as Google Earth can be utilized to disseminate such insights. The practical significance for digital libraries and fostering scientific discoveries is demonstrated through the astronomical literature related to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
Mutual Influence in Citation and Cooperation Patterns

Chenbo Fu,Haogeng Luo,Xuejiao Liang,Yong Min,Qi Xuan,Guanrong Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2023.3325264

2023-01-01

IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems

Abstract:Measuring the influence of scientists and their activities on science and society is important and indeed essential for many studies. Despite the substantial efforts devoted to exploring the influence's measures and patterns of an individual scientific enterprise, it remains unclear how to quantify the mutual impact of multiple scientific activities. This work quantifies the relationship between the scientists' interactive activities and their influences with different patterns in the AMiner dataset. Specifically, inflation treatment and field normalization are introduced to process the big data of paper citations as the scientist's influence, and then the evolution of the influence is investigated for scientific activities in the citation and cooperation patterns through the Hawkes process. The results show that elite scientists have higher individual and interaction influences than ordinary scientists in all patterns found in the study, with permutation tests verifying the significance of the new findings. Moreover, the study compares the patterns found in two largest disciplines, i.e., STEM and Humanities, revealing the higher value of individual influence in STEM than in Humanities. Furthermore, it is found that the opposite trend of STEM and Humanities in the cooperation pattern suggests different cooperation habits of scientists in different disciplines. Overall, this investigation provides a feasible approach to addressing the scientific influence issue and deepening the quantitative understanding of the mutual influence of multiple scientific activities in science and society.

A Multidimensional Framework for Characterizing the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications

A Multidimensional Framework for Characterizing the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications

A multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of scientific publications

A Multidimensional Perspective on the Citation Impact of Scientific Publications

Multidimensional Scholarly Citations: Characterizing and Understanding Scholars' Citation Behaviors

Towards transdisciplinary impact of scientific publications: A longitudinal, comprehensive, and large-scale analysis on Microsoft Academic Graph

The Time Dimension of Science: Connecting the Past to the Future

Correlated Impact Dynamics in Science

A Data Analytic Approach to Quantifying Scientific Impact

How wide is the citation impact of scientific publications? A cross-discipline and large-scale analysis

Features of Scientific Papers and the Relationships with Their Citation Impact

A Comparative Study of Domestic and Cross‐country Impact of Chinese and U.S. Publications in Chemistry

The relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact-a novel perspective on citation accumulation

Citing for High Impact

Predicting Scientific Impact Through Diffusion, Conformity, and Contribution Disentanglement

Understanding the Impact of Early Citers on Long-Term Scientific Impact

Quantifying the Impact of a Teamwork Publication.

Quantifying a Paper’s Academic Impact by Distinguishing the Unequal Intensities and Contributions of Citations

Research on the Framework of Scientific Data Citation Content Analysis for Scientific Data Management

Delineating the Citation Impact of Scientific Discoveries

Mutual Influence in Citation and Cooperation Patterns