2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1878-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution and structure of scientific co-publishing network in Korea between 1948–2011

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Co-authorship analysis is an approach to weight the countries based on their co-authoring in publication and demonstrate them in a network structure [27]. In previous co-authoring network studies, the Gini index was used as a measure of the distribution in productivity and network structure [28][29][30]. In our study, the Gini index is here applied to calculate the equilibrium degree in international collaborative research.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Co-authorship analysis is an approach to weight the countries based on their co-authoring in publication and demonstrate them in a network structure [27]. In previous co-authoring network studies, the Gini index was used as a measure of the distribution in productivity and network structure [28][29][30]. In our study, the Gini index is here applied to calculate the equilibrium degree in international collaborative research.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the application of the curriculum model, it is not possible to make absolute and simplistic, but also to consider relevant factors such as curriculum objectives, youth development level, subject nature, training conditions, and teacher possibility, so as to achieve the expected results. Regardless of the curriculum model adopted, copying and imitation are not advocated [18,19]. Curriculum has a model, but there is no fixed model.…”
Section: Advocate Diversification Of Sports Curriculum Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One critical feature of scholarly publication data is the accuracy of entity resolution in terms of splitting up author names that are shared by multiple people into as many nodes and merging variations in referring to individuals (Fegley & Torvik, 2013;. Our original DBLP and KISTI are already disambiguated (for details on KISTI, see Kim, Tao, Lee, & Diesner, 2016; for details on DBLP, see Reitz & Hoffmann, 2011). For MEDLINE and APS, we obtained algorithmically disambiguated data as outlined below.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%