The ACM DL is a comprehensive repository of publications from the entire field of computing. It is hard to predict what shape such an area for user-generated content may take, but it carries interesting potential for input from the community. It is possible, too, that the Author Profile page may evolve to allow interested authors to upload unpublished professional materials to an area available for search and free educational use, but distinct from the ACM Digital Library proper. In particular, authors or members of the community will be able to indicate works in their profile that do not belong there and merge others that do belong but are currently missing.Ī direct search interface for Author Profiles will be built.Īn institutional view of works emerging from their faculty and researchers will be provided along with a relevant set of metrics. Changes are reviewed before they are made available on the live site.ĪCM will expand this edit facility to accommodate more types of data and facilitate ease of community participation with appropriate safeguards. An author's photograph, a Home Page URL, and an email may be added, deleted or edited. The initial release of the Author Edit Screen is open to anyone in the community with an ACM account, but it is limited to personal information. For a definition of ACM's first set of publication statistics, see Bibliometrics With ACM's first cut at author name normalization in place, the distribution of our authors with 1, 2, 3.n publications does not match Lotka's Law precisely, but neither is the distribution curve far off. According to this bibliometric law of scientific productivity, only a very small percentage (~6%) of authors in a field will produce more than 10 articles while the majority (perhaps 60%) will have but a single article published. Bibliometrics: In 1926, Alfred Lotka formulated his power law (known as Lotka's Law) describing the frequency of publication by authors in a given field.ACM is meeting this challenge, continuing to work to improve the automated merges by tweaking the weighting of the evidence in light of experience. Hence it is clear that manual intervention based on human knowledge is required to perfect algorithmic results. With very common family names, typical in Asia, more liberal algorithms result in mistaken merges.Īutomatic normalization of author names is not exact. Many bibliographic records have only author initials. The more conservative the merging algorithms, the more bits of evidence are required before a merge is made, resulting in greater precision but lower recall of works for a given Author Profile. keywords: names in common whose works address the same subject matter as determined from title and keywords, weigh toward being the same person.publication title: names in common whose works are published in same journal weighs toward the two names being the same person.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |