Search Results for « Authors »

Ranking scientific authors is an important but challenging task, mostly due to the dynamic nature of the evolving scientific publications. The basic indicators of an author's productivity and impact are still the number of publications and the citation count (leading to the popular metrics such as h-index, g-index etc.). H-index and its popular variants are mostly effective in ranking highly-cited authors, thus fail to resolve ties while ranking medium-cited and low-cited authors who are majority in number. Therefore, these metrics are inefficient to predict the ability of promising young researchers at the beginning of their career. In this paper, we propose $C^3$-index that combines the effect of citations and collaborations of an author in a systematic way using a weighted multi-layered network to rank authors. We conduct our experiments on a massive publication dataset of Computer Science and show that - (i) $C^3$-index is consistent over time, which is one of the fundamental characteristics of a ranking metric, (ii) $C^3$-index is as efficient as h-index and its variants to rank highly-cited authors, (iii) $C^3$-index can act as a conflict resolution metric to break ties in the ranking of medium-cited and low-cited authors, (iv) $C^3$-index can also be used to predict future achievers at the early stage of their career.

The citation potential is a measure of the probability of being cited. Obviously, it is different among fields of science, social science, and humanities because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In the past, the citation potential was studied at journal level considering the average number of references in established groups of journals (for example, the crown indicator is based on the journal subject categories in the Web of Science database). In this paper, some characterizations of the author's scientific research through three different research dimensions are proposed: production (journal papers), impact (journal citations), and reference (bibliographical sources). Then, we propose different measures of the citation potential for authors based on a proportion of these dimensions. An empirical application, in a set of 120 randomly selected highly productive authors from the CSIC Research Centre (Spain) in four subject areas, shows that the ratio between production and impact dimensions is a normalized measure of the citation potential at the level of individual authors. Moreover, this ratio reduces the between-group variance in relation to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of the indicators analysed. Furthermore, it is consistent with the type of journal impact indicator used. A possible application of this result is in the selection and promotion process within interdisciplinary institutions, since it allows comparisons of authors based on their particular scientific research.

Financial agents can turn correct context into an unauthorized effect: a customer-facing commitment, trade, or deployed policy. We present SAGE-Fin, a finance-specific authority-handoff contract that makes the proposed effect, not merely its text, the object of runtime control. SAGE-Fin compiles proposals into typed, adapter-bound candidates; records missing or stale institutional obligations as coverage debt; contracts authority under current market, account, policy, and dialogue state; and requires an exact-artifact receipt whose nominal type matches the consuming response, execution, or policy adapter. Evidence and workflow progress cannot substitute for effect authority, and prior authorization is rechecked after state changes. Across an authored 616-case catalog, five deterministic specifications yield 3,080 outputs; a label-isolated harness obtains 616/616 binary reference-prototype parity, including 3/3 named response-gate fixtures, while 22 tests cover selected paths. These results establish executable conformance, not independent safety accuracy. Separately, SAGE-Fin's response gate processed real customer-facing production requests at a confidential digital-asset platform. An operational team independent of the implementation team reached a strongly positive post-deployment conclusion on practical usefulness and workflow fit, and end-user feedback was also strongly positive. Disclosure permits only the review's independence, stakeholder classes, assessed dimensions, and directional conclusion, so this is qualitative field corroboration rather than an aggregate effect estimate. Three distinct de-identified predecessor failures, with independently confirmed 0/3 interception, ground repeated-emission drift, stale account evidence, and missing escalation state without estimating prevalence or treatment effect.

The light emitted by all galaxies over the history of the Universe produces the extragalactic background light (EBL) at ultraviolet, optical, and infrared wavelengths. The EBL is a source of opacity for $γ$ rays via photon-photon interactions, leaving an imprint in the spectra of distant $γ$-ray sources. We measure this attenuation using {739} active galaxies and one gamma-ray burst detected by the {\it Fermi} Large Area Telescope. This allows us to reconstruct the evolution of the EBL and determine the star-formation history of the Universe over 90\% of cosmic time. Our star-formation history is consistent with independent measurements from galaxy surveys, peaking at redshift $z\sim2$. Upper limits of the EBL at the epoch of re-ionization suggest a turnover in the abundance of faint galaxies at $z\sim 6$.

This paper explores, by using suitable quantitative techniques, to what extent the intellectual proximity among scholarly journals is also a proximity in terms of social communities gathered around the journals. Three fields are considered: statistics, economics and information and library sciences. Co-citation networks (CC) represent the intellectual proximity among journals. The academic communities around the journals are represented by considering the networks of journals generated by authors writing in more than one journal (interlocking authorship: IA), and the networks generated by scholars sitting in the editorial board of more than one journal (interlocking editorship: IE). For comparing the whole structure of the networks, the dissimilarity matrices are considered. The CC, IE and IA networks appear to be correlated for the three fields. The strongest correlations is between CC and IA for the three fields. Lower and similar correlations are obtained for CC and IE, and for IE and IA. The CC, IE and IA networks are then partitioned in communities. Information and library sciences is the field where communities are more easily detectable, while the most difficult field is economics. The degrees of association among the detected communities show that they are not independent. For all the fields, the strongest association is between CC and IA networks; the minimum level of association is between IE and CC. Overall, these results indicate that the intellectual proximity is also a proximity among authors and among editors of the journals. Thus, the three maps of editorial power, intellectual proximity and authors communities tell similar stories.