Giacomo Vaccario

Georges Andres, Giona Casiraghi, Giacomo Vaccario et al.

Positive and negative relations play an essential role in human behavior and shape the communities we live in. Despite their importance, data about signed relations is rare and commonly gathered through surveys. Interaction data is more abundant, for instance, in the form of proximity or communication data. So far, though, it could not be utilized to detect signed relations. In this paper, we show how the underlying signed relations can be extracted with such data. Employing a statistical network approach, we construct networks of signed relations in four communities. We then show that these relations correspond to the ones reported in surveys. Additionally, the inferred relations allow us to study the homophily of individuals with respect to gender, religious beliefs, and financial backgrounds. We evaluate the importance of triads in the signed network to study group cohesion.

Giacomo Vaccario, Luca Verginer

Journal rankings are widely used and are often based on citation data in combination with a network perspective. We argue that some of these network-based rankings can produce misleading results. From a theoretical point of view, we show that the standard network modelling approach of citation data at the journal level (i.e., the projection of paper citations onto journals) introduces fictitious relations among journals. To overcome this problem, we propose a citation path perspective, and empirically show that rankings based on the network and the citation path perspective are very different. Based on our theoretical and empirical analysis, we highlight the limitations of standard network metrics, and propose a method to overcome these limitations and compute journal rankings.

Giacomo Vaccario, Matus Medo, Nicolas Wider et al.

It is widely recognized that citation counts for papers from different fields cannot be directly compared because different scientific fields adopt different citation practices. Citation counts are also strongly biased by paper age since older papers had more time to attract citations. Various procedures aim at suppressing these biases and give rise to new normalized indicators, such as the relative citation count. We use a large citation dataset from Microsoft Academic Graph and a new statistical framework based on the Mahalanobis distance to show that the rankings by well known indicators, including the relative citation count and Google's PageRank score, are significantly biased by paper field and age. We propose a general normalization procedure motivated by the $z$-score which produces much less biased rankings when applied to citation count and PageRank score.