Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

3rd International Conference on Recent Trends in Computing 2015 (ICRTC-2015)

Key Author Analysis in Research Professionals Relationship

Network Using Citation indices and Centrality
Anand Biharia,, Manoj Kumar Pandiab,
a Department
b Department

of CSE, Silicon Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

of MCA, Silicon Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Abstract
In social network analysis, the importance of an actor can be found by using the centrality metrics. There are many centrality
metrics available e.g. degree, closeness, betweenness, eigenvector etc. In research community authors forms a social network,
which is called Research Professionals Collaboration Network. This is similar to social network where each author is an actor and
an article written together by some authors establishes collaboration between them. Each author acquires a certain value based on
the citation of their articles. There are many citation indices are available such as citation count, h-index, g-index, i10-index etc.
To analyze the Research Professionals collaboration Network and for finding the key author, the citation indices can be used. In
this paper, we compare and combine both social network analysis metrics and the citation indices to get better result in finding the
key author.
c 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of 3rd International Conference on Recent Trends in Computing 2015
(ICRTC-2015).
Keywords: Social Network; Researcher Relationship; Centrality; citation count; h-index; g-index; i10-index;

1. Introduction
A research professionals relationship network is a set of researchers which has connection in pair to represent their
relationship. Two researchers are considered in a relationship if they have published articles in journal, conference
and publish & edit books together. In such type of network, a researcher is called as node or vertex and the
connection is an edge. Research professionals are dedicated to the advancement of the knowledge and practice of
professions through developing, supporting, regulating and promoting professional standards for technical and ethical
competence. Research professionals relationship network is represented by undirected weighted graph. This network
represents only the collaboration of research professionals and no where related to how many papers published by
each of these authors. Research professionals relationship network is a type of social network. Dierent type of

Corresponding author. Mob.: +919835842013.

Corresponding author. Mob.: +919338845287.
E-mail address: csanandk@gmail.com

E-mail address: manoj.pandia@gmail.com

c 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
1877-0509
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of 3rd International Conference on Recent Trends in Computing 2015 (ICRTC-2015).

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

social network analysis metrics and citation indices are available for finding key actors in the network. In this paper
we use dierent type of social network analysis metrics and citation indices for finding key author in the research
professionals relationship network.

2. Social Network Analysis (Methodology)

Social Network Analysis (SNA) views social relationships in terms of network theory, consisting of nodes, representing individual actors within the network, and ties which represent relationships between the individuals, such as
friendship, kinship, organizations and sexual relationships 1,3,4 . These networks are often depicted in a social network
diagram, where nodes are represented as points and ties are represented as lines. Social network analysis 7,14,29 is
the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and
other connected information/knowledge entities. The nodes in the network are the people and groups while the links
show relationships or flows between the nodes. SNA provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis of human
relationships 8,9 .
In general, the benefit of analyzing social networks is that it can help people to understand how to share professional
knowledge in an ecient way and to evaluate the performance of individuals, groups, or the entire social network 3 .

3. Social network analysis metrics and citation indices for key author analysis
Key or prominent actors are those that are linked or involved with other actors extensively. In the context of an
organization, a person with extensive contacts (links) or communications with many other people in the organization
is considered more important than a person with relatively fewer contacts.
Thus, several types of social network analysis metrics and citation indices are defined to find key actor in the social network. Here, we discuss degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, eigenvector centrality,
frequency, citation count, h-index, g-index and i10-index.
Degree Centrality: Degree centrality of a node refers to the number of edges that are adjacent to this node 1,2,4 .
Degree centrality represents the simplest instantiation of the notion of centrality since it measures only how many
connection tie authors to their immediate neighbors in the network 7,10 . Therefore important nodes usually have high
degree. Degree centrality is an indicator of an actors communication activity. The normalized degree centrality is
defined as the number of links of an actor divided by the maximal possible number 21,27,32 . The normalized degree
centrality di of node i is given as
di =

d(i)
n1

(1)

Closeness Centrality:Closeness measures how close an individual is to all other individual in a network, directly
or indirectly 1,3 . This metric can only be used in the connected network which means every node has at least one path
to the other 11,13,24 . The closeness centrality Cc (n) of a node n is defined as the reciprocal of the average shortest path
length and is computed as follows:

Cc (n) =

1
avg(L(n, m))

(2)

where L(n,m) is the length of the shortest path between two nodes n and m. The closeness centrality of each node is
a number between 0 and 1. Closeness centrality is a measure of how fast information spreads from a given node to
other reachable node in the network.
Betweenness Centrality:Betweenness centrality is an indicator of an actors potential control of communication
within the network 1,2,7 . Betweenness centrality is defined as the ratio of the number of shortest paths (between all
pairs of nodes) that pass through a given node divided by the total number of shortest paths. The betweenness central-

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

ity Cb (n) of a node n is computed as follows

Cb (n) =

st (n)
st
s,n,t

(3)

where s and t are nodes in the network dierent from n, st denotes the number of shortest paths from s to t, and
st(n) is the number of shortest paths from s to t that n lies on 4,23 .
The betweenness value for each node n is normalized by dividing by the number of node pair excluding n: (N-1)(N2)/2, where N is the total number of nodes in the connected component that n belongs to. Thus, the betweenness
centrality of each node is a number between 0 and 1 25,26,32 .
Eigenvector Centrality :Eigenvector centrality is a measure of the influence of a node in a network. Eigenvector
centrality is extension of degree centrality 12 . In degree centrality, degree centrality of a node is simply count the
total no of nodes that are adjacent to that node, but in eigenvector centrality, not only consider the total no of adjacent
nodes also consider the importance of the adjacent node. In eigenvector centrality, all connections are not equal.
In general, connections with influence person will lend a person more influence than connection with less influence
persons. In eigenvector centrality not only the connections are important also the score (eigenvector centrality) of
the connected node. Eigenvector centrality is calculated by assessing how well connected an individuals to the parts
of the network with the greatest connectivity 15 . Individuals with high eigenvector scores have many connections,
and their connections have many connections, and their connections have many connections out to the end of the
network. Eigenvector centrality is simply dominant of Eigenvector of the adjacency matrix. Philip Bonacich proposed
eigenvector centrality in 1987 and Googles PageRank is a variant of it 16,19 .
Eigenvector centrality based on adjacency matrix : For a given graph G:=(V,E) with |V| number of vertices. Let A
= (av,t ) be the adjacency matrix of a graph G is the square matrix with rows and columns labeled by the vertices and
edges 16,20
i.e
{
1, if vertex v is linked to vertex t,
av,t =
(4)
0, otherwise
If we denote the centrality score of vertex v by Xv , then we can allow for this eect by making Xv proportional to
the average of the centralities of vs network neighbors:
Xv =

1
1
av,t Xt
Xt =
tM(v)
tG

(5)

Where M(v) is a set of the neighbors of v and is a constant. With a small rearrangement this can be written in
vector notation as the Eigenvector equation
AX = X

(6)

Hence we see that X is a eigenvector of the adjacency matrix of A with eigenvalue and must be the largest
eigenvalue (using the Perron-Frobenius theorem) of adjacency matrix A and X is the corresponding eigenvector 16,20 .
The gist of the eigenvector centrality is to compute the centrality of node as a function of the centralities of its
neighbors 16 .
Eigenvector and Eigenvalue : An Eigenvector of a square matrix A is a non-zero vector v that when the matrix is
multiplied by v, yields a constant multiple of v, the multiplier being commonly denoted by . That is
Av = v

(7)

The number is called eigenvalue of A corresponding to v.

High eigenvector centrality individuals, however, cannot necessarily perform the roles of high closeness and betweenness. They do not always have the greatest local influence and may have limited brokering potential.

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

Frequency: Frequency of an author is the total number of publication.

Citation count: A citation can represent many types of links, such as links between authors, publication, journals and
conferences. When a researcher refers to another authors works in their own publication work, they cite it. A citation
index is a compilation of all the cited references form articles published during a particular year or period. A citation
index allows determining the researcher impact of publication ac-cording to the number of times it has been cited by
other researchers. Self citation is not included in such citation count. However, using citation count alone to judge the
quality of research contributions can be unfair to some researchers 35,39 .
H-index: A popular method to measure the centrality of academic papers. H-index = number of your papers h that
have been cited at least h times 36,38 . The use of h-index aims at identifying researchers with more papers and relevant
impact over a period of time. For any general set of papers one can arrange these papers in decreasing order of the
number of citations they received. The h-index is then the largest rank h = r such that the paper on this rank (and
hence also all papers on rank 1 to h) has h or more citations 34,35 , . Hence the papers on ranks h + 1, h + 2, have not
more than h citations.
G-index: The g-index is introduced as an improvement of the h-index of Hirsh to measure the global citation performance of a set of articles and eort to give some weightage to the highly cited paper 37 . This set is ranked in
decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the
top g articles received (together) at least g2 citations. The g-index of an author is greater or equal to h-index (g >= h)
34,36
.
I10-index: The i10-index indicates the number of academic publication an author has written that have at least 10
citations from other 33 . It is only used by Google scholar.
4. Research Professionals Relationship Network
In recent years, there has been a sharp increasing number of collaboration between research professionals. By
publishing articles in association with other authors, researchers show their knowledge sharing activities, which are
essential for knowledge creation. Most of the research activities are undertaken in the collaborative way because the
research projects are too large for an individual researcher to handle, and also the domain of the project spans across
multiple research areas. So it often needs collaboration from multiple researchers who are working prominently in
those research areas.
An important result of research professionals collaboration is the creation of new scientific/research knowledge,
exchange knowledge, finding new research query, new publications, new invention, more number of articles publication. The product of research professionals relationship is papers. These papers will impact the researchers who are
read these articles, and researchers may found new ideas and express these ideas in an article. It is a cyclic process of
spreading knowledge and innovation in research community.
5. Data collection, Cleansing and Analysis
In the process of publishing articles in journals and conferences, publishing and editing books, knowledge does not
only exist in a particular researchers mind but also kept in the papers. Currently, it is not clear which collaboration
data is useful for evaluating the research community. Although, there is a large set of potential collaboration data
and dierent source, the collaboration of data source is like joined conference organization, joined research proposal
submissions, joined publications, joined conference attendance and teacher-student relationship and the data source is
like IEEE Xplore, Google scholar, DBLP etc. For this analysis, we only considered joined publication as a measure
and the data source is IEEE Xplore. IEEE Xplore provides the facility to search articles using various dimensions
like date, publication type etc. The search result can be downloaded into CSV (Comma Separated Values) format.
We search for articles detail topic wise for the period Jan-2000 to Jan-2014 and export the search result. Exported
search result is in CSV format. The CSV file has 33 fields. The field names are as follows, Document Title,
Authors, Author Aliations, Publication Title, Publication Date, Publication Year, Volume, Issue, Start Page, End
Page, Abstract, ISSN, ISBN, EISBN, DOI, PDF Link, Author Keywords, IEEE Terms, INSPEC Controlled Terms,
INSPEC Non-Controlled Terms, DOE Terms, PACS Terms, MeSH Terms, Article Citation Count, Patent Citation
Count, Reference Count, Copyright Year, Online Date, Date Added To Xplore, Meeting Date, Publisher, Sponsors,

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

Document Identifier. We have filtered the data and select only Document Title, Authors, Publication Title, Article
Citation Count, Publisher and Document Identifier. Authors name of an articles are stored in a single column which
is separated by a ;. Author and its co-author are extracted based on delimiter ; and store each author name in
individual column.
After extraction of authors name we found that some of authors name is unable to read, so data cleaning has
become necessary to clean such type of names by replacing actual name. We omitted the name of authors and
marked each of them a personal number from 1 to 61546.After cleaning of publication data, 26802 publication and
61546 authors were finally available for analysis.We found that a paper has been written by minimum one author and
maximum of 59 authors. Averagely each of these papers is written around two to four authors. In the dataset there are
two papers that were composed by 59 authors which has the most co-published paper and 3230 papers is written by
only one authors which has the least co-published paper. The most prolific writer is Lau, Y.Y., who has published 54
papers. Author Sasaki, M. have maximum number of co-authors is 63 and some of authors work individually or have
one or two co-authors.
6. Generating Relationship Network of Research Professionals
Research professionals relationship network is drawn based on co-author; means an author have connection with
those authors who have published articles in journal and conference together, publish and edit books together, publish
articles in transaction together which can indicate individuals status and the scientific collaboration. Based on the
available publication data of researcher, we can build a network matrix which is representing the relationship between
researchers according to following technique: Lets, there are three papers: P1, P2 and P3. P1 and P2 are conference
paper and P3 is journal. P1 has two authors a1 and a2 and citation is 12, P2 has three authors b1, a3 and b2 and
citation is 2. P3 has five authors c1, a3, b2, c2 and b1 and citation is 11. It shows like this:P1-{a1, a2} P2-{b1, a3, b2}
P3-{c1, a3, b2, c2, b1}
After that we extract author and its co-author which are involved in their research work and calculate the relationship weight according to their total citation count of all papers which is published together. We link the author {a1a2}, {b1- a3, b1 - b2, a3 - b2}, {c1 - a3, c1 - b2, c1 - c2, c1 - b1, a3 - b2, a3 - c2, a3 - b1, b2 - c2, b2 - b1, c2 - b1}
5,7,31,18,30
. Here a node represents researchers and a link between two nodes represents the publication co-authorship
relationship between nodes. After generating a network, we can start the analysis.

Fig. 1. Researcher relationship network an example

7. Key author analysis and result

In this part our aim is to find out key author in the research professionals relationship network. We generate
research professionalsrelationship network based on available publication data and convey the frequency, citation
count, h-index, g-index, i10-index, degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality and eigenvector
centrality. Now, we calculate frequency, citation count, h-index, g-index and i10-index of every researcher and also
calculate normalized degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality and eigenvector centrality by using
python and networkx 17 . After that we export all results in MYSQL database and arrange the authors in descending
order, then select top 10 authors from each measures and combined it and obtain 51 important authors shown in Table
1, in whichthe sequence of the authors are listed firstly by the decreasing order of frequency and then by citation count,
h-index, g-index, i10-index, degree centrality, betweenness centrality and eigenvector centrality of authors. These 51
authors data are available for analysis. After analysis, we found that only three authors Lau,Y.Y( Author id: 16947),
Hirzinger,G.(Author id: 61365) and Gilgenbach, R.M (Author id: 8935) are present in all measure but they do not

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

having high value in all measures. According to frequency Lau, Y.Y is the key author, according to citation count
Candes, E.J (author id: 189)becomes a key author, according to h-index, g-index and i10-index author Giannakis, G.B
(author id: 29358) is the key author, according to degree centrality Hirzinger, G (author id: 61365) is the key author,
according to closeness centrality Wang, Y. (author id: 13513)is the key author, Kim J. (author id: 41078) is the key
author based on betweenness centrality and author Mizuno, T. (author id: 48688) is key author based on eigenvector
centrality.

Table 1. Top 51 Authors By centrality and citation indices in Research professionals relationship network
No. Author
Frequency Citation
hgi10Degree CenCloseness
ID
index index index trality
Centrality
1
16947
54
159
8
12
6
0.0015584245
0.0597302006
2
61365
53
692
15
26
19
0.0017552781
0.0619001330
3
8935
47
152
8
12
7
0.0013287620
0.0597217937
4
56493
45
533
13
23
15
0.0006889877
0.0642255172
5
51188
42
720
17
26
23
0.0005085385
0.0632034440
6
29358
41
2223
23
41
32
0.0006889877
0.0644432554
7
53986
38
247
9
15
8
0.0008694368
0.0631794619
8
19686
34
223
9
14
7
0.0002952804
0.0565234339
9
10748
30
7
1
2
0
0.0005577519
0.0682436522
10
24476
29
354
11
18
12
0.0006397743
0.0588157407
11
51980
28
713
12
26
13
0.0008858413
0.0578717700
12
20117
27
182
6
13
4
0.0011647173
0.0653012831
13
42040
26
518
13
22
15
0.0005085385
0.0642873534
14
36257
24
965
15
24
17
0.0003773028
0.0502485463
15
1949
24
156
6
12
5
0.0010006726
0.0682135710
16
53589
23
978
14
23
16
0.0005577519
0.0589337943
17
21811
23
563
15
23
16
0.0005577519
0.0663969389
18
11373
22
672
8
22
7
0.0005085385
0.0453370786
19
56331
20
1284
15
20
18
0.0003444938
0.0546222400
20
25877
19
1188
12
19
15
0.0004265162
0.0598356220
21
58514
19
339
13
18
15
0.0005249430
0.0648566383
22
13513
16
112
5
10
2
0.0011647173
0.0739435385
23
56899
16
70
6
8
2
0.0013287620
0.0645821540
24
33095
15
201
7
14
7
0.0010334815
0.0718858696
25
46389
15
50
4
7
2
0.0012795485
0.0718250289
26
41078
14
111
4
10
1
0.0014764022
0.0725775985
27
25174
11
25
4
5
0
0.0009678636
0.0704856631
28
3667
10
52
4
7
2
0.0014107843
0.0645067771
29
24461
9
18
3
4
0
0.0007217966
0.0717564614
30
16530
7
89
3
7
2
0.0006561787
0.0703484486
31
27968
7
4
1
2
0
0.0006069653
0.0707822660
32
20621
6
11
2
3
0
0.0010334815
0.0719995838
33
48688
6
10
2
3
0
0.0016404469
0.0628135023
34
5340
5
6
2
2
0
0.0015912335
0.0624567989
35
56856
5
4
1
2
0
0.0015584245
0.0630196426
36
11029
4
2350
3
4
2
0.0001312357
0.0475522970
37
33989
4
55
2
4
2
0.0012795485
0.0721460914
38
36605
4
7
2
2
0
0.0011975262
0.0579120265
39
17849
4
6
2
2
0
0.0011319083
0.0579110066
40
189
3
2426
3
3
3
0.0000492134
0.0431370853
41
17217
3
1878
3
3
2
0.0000656179
0.0404585477
42
25056
3
1877
3
3
2
0.0000328089
0.0372173858
43
17718
3
1493
3
3
3
0.0000820223
0.0534990176
44
1370
3
5
2
2
0
0.0011319083
0.0579110066
45
11735
3
5
2
2
0
0.0011319083
0.0579110066
46
20758
3
5
2
2
0
0.0011319083
0.0579110066
47
22469
3
5
2
2
0
0.0011319083
0.0579110066
48
23930
3
5
2
2
0
0.0011319083
0.0579110066
49
18993
1
2333
1
1
1
0.0000328089
0.0431369438
50
16409
1
1449
1
1
1
0.0000328089
0.0479742511
51
33284
1
1449
1
1
1
0.0000328089
0.0479742511

Betweenness
Centrality
0.0018587107
0.0046731385
0.0013977647
0.0035885079
0.0023709283
0.0048778461
0.0013450811
0.0012528466
0.0006515796
0.0014161240
0.0040615117
0.0070899167
0.0033032907
0.0003132740
0.0098147929
0.0031531625
0.0041624579
0.0008980776
0.0017207479
0.0006995759
0.0006914223
0.0123000916
0.0051525725
0.0118138227
0.0134299745
0.0168249725
0.0067295431
0.0028558503
0.0076363362
0.0027333870
0.0079069144
0.0052392052
0.0013225435
0.0006998918
0.0012480845
0.0003905120
0.0061896466
0.0000201996
0.0000020302
0.0000152403
0.0000457187
0.0000152403
0.0000304795
0.0000020302
0.0000020302
0.0000020302
0.0000020302
0.0000020302
0.0000000000
0.0000000000
0.0000000000

Eigenvector
Centrality
0.0000000013
0.0000000001
0.0000000013
0.0000000001
0.0000000017
0.0000000005
0.0000036042
0.0000000000
0.0000000085
0.0000000001
0.0000000000
0.0000000002
0.0000000033
0.0000000000
0.0000000554
0.0000000058
0.0000000000
0.0000000000
0.0000000000
0.0000000001
0.0000000000
0.0000000871
0.0024905640
0.0000001434
0.0000000004
0.0000000200
0.0000000824
0.0113793075
0.0000000072
0.0000000432
0.0000000425
0.0000000833
0.1334739264
0.1333693085
0.1295166699
0.0000000000
0.0000003761
0.1288715982
0.1284210454
0.0000000000
0.0000000000
0.0000000000
0.0000000002
0.1284210454
0.1284210454
0.1284210454
0.1284210454
0.1284210454
0.0000000000
0.0000000000
0.0000000000

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

Author with high frequency are key or prominent since they have published more number of papers with the
others. But if an author published more number of papers with less quality or does not have any impact in research
community then we cant say an author is prominent or key in the network. According to citation indices like citation
count, h-index, g-index and i10-index the authors are prominent or key based on citation of their publication but
mostly research work is done in the collaborative way and citation of each publication is equal to all authors means
a paper has been written by 4 authors and citation is 12 then each author uses same citation count for their index
calculation. So we cant say authors having high citation count, h-index, g-index and i10-index value are prominent.
Author with high degree centrality are important since they have more relationship with the others but in this case we
cant say an author having high degree centrality are important because if an author having a connection with more
no of students then the degree centrality is high but their productivity is less. So, degree centrality is not suited for
finding key author in the network. Authors who have a good closeness centrality are also significant means an author
is nearest to average no. of authors. Authors who have a good betweenness centrality are also prominent means an
author is frequently control information flow in the network and an author who have a good Eigenvector centrality is
also prominent in the network means an author have a connection with a high score eigenvector centrality authors.
Closeness and betweenness centrality are useful in information flow network but research professionals relationship
network is a co-authors relationship network. The product of research professionals relationship network is research
articles and the research articles quality is depends on authors of article, if the authors are highly qualified and they
have relation with other high qualified researchers then have a probability to publish a good quality papers. So
eigenvector centrality is more suited for finding key author in the network.
8. Conclusion
In this paper we have investigated the research professionals relationship network and find out the key author in
the network based on dierent social network analysis metrics like normalized degree centrality, closeness centrality,
betweenness centrality, eigenvector centrality and citation indices like frequency, citation count, h-index, g-index and
i10-index. We found that dierent social network analysis metrics and citation indices gives dierent value for each
researcher but some of the author having high value in all h-index, g-index and i10-index. It means a researcher who
is the key author in network based on degree centrality; he/she is not guarantee to prominent based on other centrality
and citation indices but some of the authors is present in all measure in top 10. So, we can say that these authors
are key author in research professionals relationship network but they dont have high value in all measures. If we
compare citation indices and all centrality measures, eigenvector centrality is more suited for finding key author in the
network because the eigenvector centrality of nodes is depends on the neighbors node eigenvector centrality. If the
neighbors eigenvector centrality is high then have a probability to gain high eigenvector centrality value of a node. A
node having high eigenvector centrality than other is called key node in the network.
References
1. Liu, Bing. Web data mining.2007;Springer.
2. Kas, Miray and Carley, L Richard and Carley, Kathleen M. Monitoring social centrality for peer-to-peer network protection.IEEE Communications Magazine; vol. 51,no. 12, p. 155 - 161. 2013.
3. Abbasi, Alireza and Altmann, Jorn. On the correlation between research performance and social network analysis measures applied to research
collaboration networks. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2011 ; p. 1-10, 2011,IEEE.
4. Friedl, Dipl-Math Bettina and Heidemann, Julia and others. A critical review of centrality measures in social networks. Business & Information
Systems Engineering; vol 2,no. 6, p. 371-385. 2010,Springer.
5. Wang, Bing and J. Yang. To form a smaller world in the research realm of hierarchical decision models. Proc. PICMET11; 2011,PICMET.
6. Wang, Bing and Yao, Xiaotian. To form a smaller world in the research realm of hierarchical decision models. International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE; p. 1784-1788, 2011,IEEE.
7. Liu, Xiaoming and Bollen, Johan and Nelson, Michael L and Van de Sompel. Herbert, Co-authorship networks in the digital library research
community. Information processing & management; vol. 41, no. 6, p. 1462-1480, 2005, Elsevier.
8. Tang, Jie and Zhang, Duo and Yao, Limin. Social network extraction of academic researchers. Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data
Mining, 2007. ICDM 2007.; p. 292-301, 2007, IEEE.
9. Said, Yasmin H and Wegman, Edward J and Sharabati, Walid K and Rigsby, John T. RETRACTED: Social networks of author-coauthor
relationships. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis; vol. 52, no. 4, p. 2177-2184, 2008, Elsevier.
10. Umadevi, V. Automatic Co-authorship Network Extraction and Discovery of Central Authors. International Journal of Computer Applications;
vol. 74, no. 4,p. 1-6, 2013, Citeseer.

Anand Bihari & Manoj Kumar Pandia / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000000

11. Jin, Jianzhi and Xu, Kaihua and Xiong, Naixue and Liu, Yuhua and Li, Guoqiang. Multi-index evaluation algorithm based on principal
component analysis for node importance in complex networks. Networks, IET; vol. 1, no. 3, p. 108-115, 2012, IET.
12. Spizzirri, Leo. Justification and Application of Eigenvector Centrality.
13. Correa, Carlos D and Crnovrsanin, Tarik and Ma, Kwan-Liu and Keeton, Kimberly. The derivatives of centrality and their applications in
visualizing social networks. 2009, Citeseer.
14. Correa, Carlos and Crnovrsanin, Tarik and Ma, Kwan-Liu. Visual reasoning about social networks using centrality sensitivity; IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics; vol. 18, no. 1,p. 106-120, 2012, IEEE
15. Bonacich, Phillip and Lloyd, Paulette. Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Social Networks; vol. 23, no. 3, p.
191-201, 2001, Elsevier.
16. Newman, Mark EJ. The mathematics of networks. The new palgrave encyclopedia of economics; vol. 2, p. 1-12, 2008, Citeseer.
17. D. A. S. Aric A. Hagberg, P. J. Swart. Exploring network structure, dynamics,and function using networkx. proceedings of the 7th python in
science conference (scipy 2008); 2008.
18. He, Yulan and Cheung Hui, Siu. Mining a web citation database for author co-citation analysis. Information processing & management; vol.
38,no. 4,p. 491-508, 2002, Elsevier
19. Ding, De-wu and He, Xiao-qing. Application of eigenvector centrality in metabolic networks. 2nd International Conference on Computer
Engineering and Technology (ICCET), 2010 ; vol. 1, p. V1-89, 2010,IEEE.
20. Stran, Philip D. Linear algebra in geography: Eigenvectors of networks. Mathematics Magazine;, p. 269 -276, 1980, JSTOR.
21. Deng, Qiuhong and Wang, Zhiping. Degree centrality in scientific collaboration supernetwork. International Conference on Information
Science and Technology (ICIST), 2011 ; p. 259-262, 2011, IEEE.
22. Kato, Yukiya and Ono, Fumie. Node centrality on disjoint multipath routing. 73rd Conference on Vehicular Technology (VTC Spring), 2011
IEEE ; p. 1-5, 2011, IEEE.
23. Estrada, Ernesto and Rodriguez-Velazquez, Juan A. Subgraph centrality in complex networks. Physical Review E; vol. 71, no. 5, p. 056-103,
2005, APS.
24. Borgatti, Stephen P and Everett, Martin G. A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social networks; vol. 28, no. 4, p. 466-484, 2006,
Elsevier.
25. Wang, Gaoxia and Shen, Yi and Luan, Enjie. A measure of centrality based on modularity matrix. Progress in Natural Science; vol. 18, no. 8,
p. 1043-1047, 2008, Elsevier.
26. Gomez, Daniel and Figueira, Jose Rui and Eusebio, Augusto. Modeling centrality measures in social network analysis using bi-criteria network
flow optimization problems. European Journal of Operational Research; vol. 226, no. 2, p. 354-365, 2013, Elsevier.
27. Erkan, Gunes and Radev, Dragomir R. LexRank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. J. Artif. Intell. Res.(JAIR);
vol. 22, no. 1, p. 457-479, 2004.
28. Lohmann, Gabriele and Margulies, Daniel S and Horstmann, Annette and Pleger, Burkhard and Lepsien, Joeran and Goldhahn, Dirk and
Schloegl, Haiko and Stumvoll, Michael and Villringer, Arno and Turner, Robert. Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity
patterns in fMRI data of the human brain. PloS one; vol. 5, no. 4, 2010, Public Library of Science.
29. Wasserman, Stanley. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. vol. 8, 1994, Cambridge university press.
30. Said, YH and Wegman, EJ and Sharabati, WK and Rigsby, JT. Social networks of author-coauthor relationships (Retraction of vol 52, pg
2177, 2008). COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS; vol. 55, no. 12, p. 3386-3386, 2011,ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV PO BOX
211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS.
31. Newman, Mark EJ. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; vol.
101, no. suppl 1, p. 5200-5205, 2004, National Acad Sciences.
32. Borgatti, Stephen Peter. Centrality and AIDS. Connections; vol. 18, no. 1, p. 112-114, 1995.
33. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/opac.jsp
34. Majdi Maabreh and Izzat M.Alsmadi. A Servey of impact and citation indices: Limitations and isssues. International Journal of Advanced
Science and Technology; vol. 40, p. 35-54, 2012.
35. Kumar, M Jagadesh. Evaluating Scientists: Citations, Impact Factor, h-Index, Online Page Hits and What Else?. IETE Technical Review; vol.
26, no. 3, p. 165, 2009, Medknow.
36. Huang, Mu-hsuan and Chi, Pei-shan. A comparative analysis of the application of h-index, g-index, and a-index in institutional-level research
evaluation ; Journal of Library and Information Studies; vol. 8, no. 2, p. 1-10, 2010.
37. Egghe, L.. Theory and practice of the G-index. Scientometrics; vol. 69, no. 1, p. 131-152, 2006.
38. Hirsch, Jorge E. An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United
States of America; vol. 102, no. 46, p. 16569-16572, 2005, National Acad Sciences.
39. Egghe, Leo and Rousseau, Ronald. An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing & Management; vol. 44, no. 2, p. 770-780,
2008, Elsevier.