Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

CYTED-RITOS International Workshop on Groupware

CRIWG 2016: Collaboration and Technology pp 115–130Cite as

What Makes a Good Recommendation?

Characterization of Scientific Paper Recommendations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 685 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 9848))

Abstract

In this paper we propose several new measures to characterize sets of scientific papers that provide an overview of a scientific topic. We present a study in which experts were asked to name such papers for one of their areas of expertise and apply the measures to characterize the paper selections. The results are compared to the measured values for random paper selections. We find that the expert selected sets of papers can be characterized to have a moderately high diversity, moderately high coverage and each paper in the set has on average a high prototypicality.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant No. GRK 2167, Research Training Group “User-Centred Social Media”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Obtainable from https://aminer.org/citation, dataset V7, last seen on March 31 2016.

  2. 2.

    Bonchi, F., Pous, D.: Checking NFA equivalence with bisimulations up to congruence. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices. vol. 48, pp. 457–468. ACM (2013).

  3. 3.

    http://steinert.collide.info/expertstudy2016.html.

References

  1. Beel, J., Gipp, B., Langer, S., Breitinger, C.: Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey. Int. J. Digit. Libr., 1–34 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dunne, C., Shneiderman, B., Gove, R., Klavans, J., Dorr, B.: Rapid understanding of scientific paper collections: integrating statistics, text analytics, and visualization. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(12), 2351–2369 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones, N.: User perceived qualities and acceptance of recommender systems. Dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (2010). http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/146784

  4. Küçüktunç, O., Saule, E., Kaya, K., Çatalyürek, Ü.V.: Result diversification in automatic citation recommendation. In: Proceedings of the iConference Workshop on Computational Scientometrics: Theory and Applications, pp. 1–4 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Steinert, L., Chounta, I.-A., Hoppe, H.U.: Where to begin? using network analytics for the recommendation of scientific papers. In: Baloian, N., Zorian, Y., Taslakian, P., Shoukouryan, S. (eds.) CRIWG 2015. LNCS, vol. 9334, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., Su, Z.: Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 990–998. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tong, H., He, J., Wen, Z., Konuru, R., Lin, C.Y.: Diversified ranking on large graphs: an optimization viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1028–1036. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vellino, A.: A comparison between usage-based and citation-based methods for recommending scholarly research articles. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 47(1), 1–2 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ziegler, C.N., McNee, S.M., Konstan, J.A., Lausen, G.: Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 22–32. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 63, Duisburg, Germany

    Laura Steinert & H. Ulrich Hoppe

Authors
  1. Laura Steinert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Ulrich Hoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Steinert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Science and Technology , Ishikawa, Japan

    Takaya Yuizono

  2. Kyushu University , Fukuoka, Japan

    Hiroaki Ogata

  3. Universität Duisburg-Essen , Duisburg, Germany

    Ulrich Hoppe

  4. University of Saskatchewan , Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

    Julita Vassileva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Steinert, L., Hoppe, H.U. (2016). What Makes a Good Recommendation?. In: Yuizono, T., Ogata, H., Hoppe, U., Vassileva, J. (eds) Collaboration and Technology. CRIWG 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9848. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44799-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44799-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44798-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44799-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation