Search

Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review. Conclusions: Unfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 33rd International Workshop On Combinatorial Algorithms (IWOCA 2022) was held at the University of Trier in Germany. This workshop covers a wide range of topics related to combinatorial algorithms. The special issue of the journal Algorithmica contains extended versions of selected papers from IWOCA 2022, which were nominated by the Program Committee and underwent a rigorous reviewing process. The special issue includes nine papers on various topics such as perfect matchings, algorithmic questions, and winner determination algorithms. One paper was chosen as the Best Paper of IWOCA 2022 and another as the Best Student Paper. The special issue is recommended for readers interested in exploring more papers from IWOCA 2022. [Extracted from the article]

Asking questions and making comments in conference Q&A sessions can be challenging for novice academics. Discussants not only try to seek answers or exchange ideas with the presenter but also endeavour to project a positive image of themselves by asking the 'right' questions in the 'right' way. However, many novice academics fear looking foolish because of unfocused and convoluted questions. Surprisingly, little guidance is available for how to formulate Q&A questions. This study attempts to address the gap by investigating the forms, functions and generic moves of 268 turns taken by discussants in 80 computer science conference Q&A sessions. Certain forms (i.e., question and comment) were found to be associated with certain pragmatic functions. This study reveals that different types of question/comment have major moves in common. The study also shows that the more evaluative and face-threatening the question is, the more important it is for the discussant to make the moves of building rapport with the presenter, and contextualising and justifying the main question/statement. The importance of justifying the main question/statement also resonates with the persuasive nature of scientific argumentative discourse. The findings can offer novice academics detailed explanations of the communicative purposes and strategies for this important conference interaction. • The two forms (question & comment) are associated with different functions. • All types of questions/comments were found to share the major generic moves. • Evaluative/critical questions entail building rapport as a move. • Evaluative/critical questions entail justifying the question as a move. • The importance of justification resonates with scientific argumentative discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The number of citations has been widely used to measure the significance of a paper. However, there is a need in introducing another index to determine superiority or inferiority of papers with the same number of citations. We determine superiority or inferiority of papers by using the ranking based on the number of citations and PageRank. Design/methodology/approach: We show the positive linear correlation between Citation Rank (the ranking of the number of citation) and PageRank. On this basis, we identify high-quality, prestige, emerging, and popular papers. Findings: We found that the high-quality papers belong to the subjects of biochemistry and molecular biology, chemistry, and multidisciplinary sciences. The prestige papers correspond to the subjects of computer science, engineering, and information science. The emerging papers are related to biochemistry and molecular biology, as well as those published in the journal "Cell." The popular papers belong to the subject of multidisciplinary sciences. Research limitations: We analyze the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) from 1981 to 2015 to calculate Citation Rank and PageRank within a citation network consisting of 34,666,719 papers and 591,321,826 citations. Practical implications: Our method is applicable to forecast emerging fields of research subjects in science and helps policymakers to consider science policy. Originality/value: We calculated PageRank for a giant citation network which is extremely larger than the citation networks investigated by previous researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate the differences between conference papers and journal papers in the field of computer science based on Bayesian network. This paper investigated the differences between conference papers and journal papers in the field of computer science based on Bayesian network, a knowledge-representative framework that can model relationships among all variables in the network. We defined the variables required for Bayesian networks modeling, calculated the values of each variable based Aminer dataset (a literature data set in the field of computer science), learned the Bayesian network and derived some findings based on network inference. The study found that conferences are more attractive to senior scholars, the academic impact of conference papers is slightly higher than journal papers, and it is uncertain whether conference papers are more innovative than journal papers. The study was limited to the field of computer science and employed Aminer dataset as the sample. Further studies involving more diverse datasets and different fields could provide a more complete picture of the matter. By demonstrating that Bayesian networks can effectively analyze issues in Scientometrics, the study offers valuable insights that may enhance researchers' understanding of the differences between journal and conference in computer science. Academic conferences play a crucial role in facilitating scholarly exchange and knowledge dissemination within the field of computer science. Several studies have been conducted to examine the distinctions between conference papers and journal papers in terms of various factors, such as authors, citations, h-index and others. Those studies were carried out from different (independent) perspectives, lacking a systematic examination of the connections and interactions between multiple perspectives. This paper supplements this deficiency based on Bayesian network modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The current article presents the results of a case study dealing with the historical roots of Eastern European researchers in computer science. Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on an analysis of cited references stemming from a collection of around 80,000 computer science papers by Eastern European researchers published from 1989 to 2014. By using a method called "reference publication year spectroscopy" (RPYS) for historical analyses based on bibliometric data, we analyze around 800,000 references cited in those papers. The study identifies the peak years, including most frequently cited publications (from 1952, 1965 and 1975), and focuses on these outstanding works for the field. The research shows how these influential papers were cited in Eastern Europe and in general, and on which scientific fields they have the most impact. Findings: A noteworthy publication that seems to have a tremendous effect on Eastern European computer science is Zadeh's "Fuzzy sets" article which appeared in Information and Control in 1965. The study demonstrates that computer scientists from Eastern Europe are more conservative in their citation behaviour and tend to refer to older and more established research than their counterparts from the West. Originality/value: Which are the historical roots of researchers working in a particular field or on a specific topic? Are there certain publications – landmark papers – which are important for their research? We guess that these are questions bothering researchers in many fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aims to measure the contributions of Prof. Anurag Kumar, who served as the Director at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bengaluru between August 2014 to July 2020. He has contributed 181 publications during his 36 years of career. He has published his majority of publications 171 (94.48%) in collaboration; most active collaborators with Prof. Anurag Kumar are Altman E. with (17) publications, Kuri Joy (15), Anand (14), and Singh (12). His highest Collaboration Coefficient found is 0.73 in 2013, and the highest Modified Collaboration Coefficient is 1.33 in the year 2018. The highest degree of collaboration observed for Prof. Anurag Kumar was 1.00. The highest Collaborative Index of Prof. Anurag found is 4.75 in the year 2016. His publications received 2595 citations so far, with 14.3 citations for each publication and an average citation of 72.08 per year. He has produced most of his publications in the field of computer science (45.9%). He preferred conference papers as his communication channel, where he published 100 (55.24%) papers out of 181. Prof. Anurag Kumar has contributed the highest (62) publication between 2005-2010, and he has published his first publication at the age of 30. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]