Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 643–656 | Cite as

Sections-based bibliographic coupling for research paper recommendation

  • Raja HabibEmail author
  • Muhammad Tanvir Afzal
Article

Abstract

Digital libraries suffer from the problem of information overload due to immense proliferation of research papers in journals and conference papers. This makes it challenging for researchers to access the relevant research papers. Fortunately, research paper recommendation systems offer a solution to this dilemma by filtering all the available information and delivering what is most relevant to the user. Researchers have proposed numerous approaches for research paper recommendation which are based on metadata, content, citation analysis, collaborative filtering, etc. Approaches based on citation analysis, including co-citation and bibliographic coupling, have proven to be significant. Researchers have extended the co-citation approach to include content analysis and citation proximity analysis and this has led to improvement in the accuracy of recommendations. However, in co-citation analysis, similarity between papers is discovered based on the frequency of co-cited papers in different research papers that can belong to different areas. Bibliographic coupling, on the other hand, determines the relevance between two papers based on their common references. Therefore, bibliographic coupling has inherited the benefits of recommending relevant papers; however, traditional bibliographic coupling does not consider the citing patterns of common references in different logical sections of the citing papers. Since the use of citation proximity analysis in co-citation has improved the accuracy of paper recommendation, this paper proposes a paper recommendation approach that extends the traditional bibliographic coupling by exploiting the distribution of citations in logical sections in bibliographically coupled papers. Comprehensive automated evaluation utilizing Jensen Shannon Divergence was conducted to evaluate the proposed approach. The results showed significant improvement over traditional bibliographic coupling and content-based research paper recommendation.

Keywords

Paper recommendation Bibliographic coupling Citation proximity analysis Logical sections 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan.

Website: http://www.hec.gov.pk/.

References

  1. Afzal, M. T., Kulathuramaiyer, N., & Maurer, H. A. (2007). Creating links into the future. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 13(9), 1234–1245.Google Scholar
  2. Amami, M., Pasi, G., Stella, F., & Faiz, R. (2016). An lda-based approach to scientific paper recommendation. In International conference on applications of natural language to information systems (pp. 200–210). Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Beel, J., Langer, S., Genzmehr, M., Gipp, B., Breitinger, C., & Nürnberger, A. (2013). Research paper recommender system evaluation: A quantitative literature survey. In Proceedings of the international workshop on reproducibility and replication in recommender systems evaluation, RepSys ’13 (pp. 15–22). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2532508.2532512.
  4. Beel, J., Langer, S., Genzmehr, M., & Nürnberger, A. (2013). Introducing docear’s research paper recommender system. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 459–460). ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Bertin, M., Atanassova, I., Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2013). The distribution of references in scientific papers: An analysis of the IMRAD structure. In Proceedings of the 14th ISSI conference (Vol. 591, p. 603).Google Scholar
  6. Boyack, K. W., van Eck, N. J., Colavizza, G., & Waltman, L. (2018). Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyack, K. W., Small, H., & Klavans, R. (2013). Improving the accuracy of co-citation clustering using full text. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(9), 1759–1767.Google Scholar
  8. Callahan, A., Hockema, S., & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Contextual cocitation: Augmenting cocitation analysis and its applications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1130–1143.Google Scholar
  9. Constantin, A., Pettifer, S., & Voronkov, A. (2013). PDFX: fully-automated PDF-to-xml conversion of scientific literature. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM symposium on Document engineering (pp. 177–180). ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. T. Graham London.Google Scholar
  11. Ding, Y., Liu, X., Guo, C., & Cronin, B. (2013). The distribution of references across texts: Some implications for citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 583–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ding, Y., Zhang, G., Chambers, T., Song, M., Wang, X., & Zhai, C. (2014). Content-based citation analysis: The next generation of citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(9), 1820–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doerfel, S., Jäschke, R., Hotho, A., & Stumme, G. (2012). Leveraging publication metadata and social data into folkrank for scientific publication recommendation. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM RecSys workshop on Recommender systems and the social web (pp. 9–16). ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Elkiss, A., Shen, S., Fader, A., Erkan, G., States, D., & Radev, D. (2008). Blind men and elephants: What do citation summaries tell us about a research article? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
  15. Garfield, E. (2001). From bibliographic coupling to co-citation analysis via algorithmic. Griffith: A citationist’s tribute to Belver C.Google Scholar
  16. Garfield, E., et al. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  17. Gipp, B., & Beel, J. (2009). Citation proximity analysis (cpa): a new approach for identifying related work based on co-citation analysis. In ISSI09: 12th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 571–575).Google Scholar
  18. Golshan, B., Lappas, T., & Terzi, E. (2012). Sofia search: a tool for automating related-work search. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (pp. 621–624). ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Habib, R., & Afzal, M. T. (2017). Paper recommendation using citation proximity in bibliographic coupling. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 25(4), 2708–2718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of pearson’s and spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30(2), 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hengl, T., & Gould, M. (2002). Rules of thumb for writing research articles. Enschede, September.Google Scholar
  22. Hristakeva, M., Kershaw, D., Rossetti, M., Knoth, P., Pettit, B., Vargas, S., & Jack, K. (2017). Building recommender systems for scholarly information. In Proceedings of the 1st workshop on scholarly web mining (pp. 25–32). ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 14(1), 10–25.Google Scholar
  24. Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PloS ONE, 9(5), e93949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, J., Lee, K., & Kim, J. G. (2013). Personalized academic research paper recommendation system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.5457.
  26. Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2012). The proximity of co-citation. Scientometrics, 91(2), 495–511.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2013). The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, X.Y., & Chien, B.C. (2017). Applying citation network analysis on recommendation of research paper collection. In Proceedings of the 4th multidisciplinary international social networks conference on ZZZ (p. 30). ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Maričić, S., Spaventi, J., Pavičić, L., & Pifat-Mrzljak, G. (1998). Citation context versus the frequency counts of citation histories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 49(6), 530–540.Google Scholar
  30. McCain, K., & Turner, K. (1989). Citation context analysis and aging patterns of journal articles in molecular genetics. Scientometrics, 17(1–2), 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McNee, S. M., Albert, I., Cosley, D., Gopalkrishnan, P., Lam, S. K., Rashid, A. M., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2002). On the recommending of citations for research papers. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 116–125). ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69–71.Google Scholar
  33. Ratprasartporn, N., & Ozsoyoglu, G. (2007). Finding related papers in literature digital libraries. Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries pp. 271–284.Google Scholar
  34. Sahijwani, H., & Dasgupta, S. (2017). User profile based research paper recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.07757.
  35. Shahid, A., Afzal, M., & Qadir, M. (2011). Discovering semantic relatedness between scientific articles through citation frequency. Australian Journal of Basic Applied Sciences, 5, 1599–1604.Google Scholar
  36. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 24(4), 265–269.Google Scholar
  37. Small, H. G. (1976). Structural dynamics of scientific literature. International Classification, 3(2), 67–74.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106.Google Scholar
  39. Sugiyama, K., & Kan, M. Y. (2013). Exploiting potential citation papers in scholarly paper recommendation. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 153–162). ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Teufel, S. (2009). Citations and sentiment. In Workshop on text mining for scholarly communications and repositories, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  41. Voos, H., & Dagaev, K. S. (1976). Are all citations equal? or, did we op. cit. your idem? Journal of Academic Librarianship 1(6), 19–21.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Li, Y., Wang, D., Ma, Y., Zhou, T., & Lu, J. (2016). A data cleaning method for citeseer dataset. In International conference on web information systems engineering (pp. 35–49). Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Capital University of Science and TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations