Abstract
When researchers are to write a new article, they often seek co-authors who are knowledgeable on the article’s subject. However, they also strive for acceptance of their article. Based on this otherwise intuitive process, the current article presents the COCOON CORE tool that recommends candidate co-authors based on like-mindedness and power. Like-mindedness ensures that co-authors share a common ground, which is necessary for seamless cooperation. Powerful co-authors foster adoption of an article’s research idea by the community. Two experiments were conducted, one focusing on the perceived quality of the recommendations that COCOON CORE generates and one focusing on the usability of COCOON CORE. Results indicate that participants perceive the recommendations moderately positively. Particularly, they value the recommendations that focus fully on finding influential peers and the recommendation in which they themselves can adjust the balance between finding influential peers and like-minded peers. Also, the usability of COCOON CORE is perceived to be moderately good.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(46):16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 1(2006):1–31
Linton JD, Tierney R, Walsh ST (2011) Publish or perish: how are research and reputation related? Ser Rev 37(4):244–257. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.09.001
Gardner WL, Lowe KB, Moss TW, Mahoney KT, Cogliser CC (2011) Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: a review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009. Leadersh Q 21(6):922–958. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003
Feuer MJ, Towne L, Shavelson RJ (2002) Scientific culture and educational research. Educ Res 31(8):4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031008004
Lambiotte R, Panzarasa P (2009) Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. J Informetr 3(3):180–190
Leydesdorff L, Wagner CS (2008) International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. J Informetr 2(4):317–325. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003
Kotter JP (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business, p 208
Abbasi A, Altmann J, Hossain L (2011) Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: a correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. J Informetr 5(4):594–607. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.007
Franceschini F, Maisano D (2010) The Hirsch spectrum: a novel tool for analyzing scientific journals. J Informetr 4(1):64–73. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.003
Kim H, Yoon JW, Crowcroft J (2012) Network analysis of temporal trends in scholarly research productivity. J Informetr 6(1):97–110. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.006
Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 22(8):2623–2628. doi:10.1096/fj.08-107938
Harzing A, van der Wal R (2008) Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:61–73. doi:10.3354/esep00076
Sie RLL, Drachsler H, Bitter-Rijpkema M, Sloep PB (2012) To whom and why should i connect? Co-author recommendation based on powerful and similar peers. IJTEL 1(2):121–137
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis
Brandes U (1994) A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J Math Sociol 25:163–177
Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41
Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Science 37(3):422–447
Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page CH (eds) Freedom and control in modern society, Van Nostrand, New York, NY, 18:18–66, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=23415760
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Stahl G (2005) Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. J Comput Assist Learn 21(2):79–90. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00115.x
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Lora Aroyo from the VU University Amsterdam for her insightful comments during the design and implementation phases of COCOON CORE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A: Questions Regarding Quality of Recommendations
-
1a.
Individual Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for influence is set to 100?
-
1b.
Individual Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for interest similarity is set to 100?
-
1c.
Individual Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if you control the sliders yourself?
-
2a.
Default User Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for influence is set to 100?
-
2b.
Default User Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for interest similarity is set to 100?
-
2c.
Default User Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if you control the sliders yourself?
Appendix B: SUS Questionnaire
-
1.
I think that I would like to use this system frequently.
-
2.
I found the system unnecessarily complex.
-
3.
I thought the system was easy to use.
-
4.
I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.
-
5.
I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.
-
6.
I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.
-
7.
I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.
-
8.
I found the system very cumbersome to use.
-
9.
I felt very confident using the system.
-
10.
I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sie, R.L.L., van Engelen, B.J., Bitter-Rijpkema, M., Sloep, P.B. (2014). COCOON CORE: CO-author REcommendations Based on Betweenness Centrality and Interest Similarity. In: Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., Santos, O. (eds) Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0530-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0530-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0529-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0530-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)