Search

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]

This paper presents a preliminary comparison of citation impact between two types of Best Paper Awards recipients: pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers. Two hundred and ninety-nine pairs of pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers from 15 highly prestigious computer science conferences spanning more than two decades were gathered for empirical analysis. Each pair was published in the same proceedings, and their citation information was collected within a 10-year period after their formal publication. A series of pairwise comparisons were performed in order to unbiasedly uncover their differences in citation counts (i.e., a good proxy for citation impact), as well as in citation speed, citation diversity, and citation location distributions (i.e., three characteristic properties of citation impact). The empirical results demonstrate that in computer science, the post-publication peer-selected best papers receive significantly more citations than their pre-publication counterparts, with an estimated probability of up to 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74 ~ 0.83). Meanwhile, they tend to accumulate their citations more quickly in the later (versus earlier) stages—they can scarcely be fast-aging papers, and their accumulated citations tend to cover a broader scope of academic disciplines. Overall, however, the pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers have very similar citation location distributions. Both of them are most frequently cited in the Background sections, followed by the Methods sections, and finally the Results sections. In addition, the citation impact superiority of the post-publication peer-selected best papers remains consistent across different fields of research and over a long period of time, from 1997 to 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science as a whole is organized into broad fields, and as a consequence, research, resources, students, etc., are also classified, assigned, or invited following a similar structure. Some fields have been established for centuries, and some others are just flourishing. Funding, staff, etc., to support fields are offered if there is some activity on it, commonly measured in terms of the number of published scientific papers. How to find them? There exist well-respected listings where scientific journals are ascribed to one or more knowledge fields. Such lists are human-made, but the complexity begins when a field covers more than one area of knowledge. How to discern if a particular paper is devoted to a field not considered in such lists? In this work, we propose a methodology able to classify the universe of papers into two classes; those belonging to the field of interest, and those that do not. This proposed procedure learns from the title and abstract of papers published in monothematic or "pure" journals. Provided that such journals exist, the procedure could be applied to any field of knowledge. We tested the process with Geographic Information Science. The field has contacts with Computer Science, Mathematics, Cartography, and others, a fact which makes the task very difficult. We also tested our procedure and analyzed its results with three different criteria, illustrating its power and capabilities. Interesting findings were found, where our proposed solution reached similar results as human taggers also similar results compared with state-of-the-art related work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decentralization is a pervasive concept found across disciplines, including Economics, Political Science, and Computer Science, where it is used in distinct yet interrelated ways. Here, we develop and publicly release a general pipeline to investigate the scholarly history of the term, analysing 425 , 144 academic publications that refer to (de)centralization. We find that the fraction of papers on the topic has been exponentially increasing since the 1950s. In 2021, 1 author in 154 mentioned (de)centralization in the title or abstract of an article. Using both semantic information and citation patterns, we cluster papers in fields and characterize the knowledge flows between them. Our analysis reveals that the topic has independently emerged in the different fields, with small cross-disciplinary contamination. Moreover, we show how Blockchain has become the most influential field about 10 years ago, while Governance dominated before the 1990s. In summary, our findings provide a quantitative assessment of the evolution of a key yet elusive concept, which has undergone cycles of rise and fall within different fields. Our pipeline offers a powerful tool to analyze the evolution of any scholarly term in the academic literature, providing insights into the interplay between collective and independent discoveries in science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nonsensical computer-generated articles, spotted years after the problem was first seen, could lead to a wave of retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]