arXiv subjects

Emil Dolmer Alnor

Publications and source records attributed to Emil Dolmer Alnor.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Specialisation and experience of research teams: Which matters more for the impact of their publications?

Scientists' topic choices strongly influence both individual careers and the advancement of the scientific frontier. While a sizeable body of literature shows that specialisation in a few topics benefits individual careers and fosters impactful research, the role of research teams and their experience have been largely overlooked. This paper introduces experience as a concept distinct from specialisation and shifts the level of analysis from the individual to the research team, reflecting the increasingly team-based nature of science. Using novel publication-level measures of team specialisation and team experience applied to nearly 1 million biomedical publications, the study finds that both are positively associated with citation impact. However, the correlation with citation impact is markedly stronger for team experience than for team specialisation. The study demonstrates how science can be examined at the team level and suggests that future research should pay more attention to studying experience.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Measuring the relatedness between scientific publications using controlled vocabularies

Measuring the relatedness between scientific publications is essential in many areas of bibliometrics and science policy. Controlled vocabularies provide a promising basis for measuring relatedness and are widely used in combination with Salton's cosine similarity. The latter is problematic because it only considers exact matches between terms. This article introduces two alternative methods - soft cosine and maximum term similarities - that account for the semantic similarity between non-matching terms. The article compares the accuracy of all three methods using the assignment of publications to topics in the TREC 2006 Genomics Track and the assumption that accurate relatedness measures should assign high relatedness scores to publication pairs within the same topic and low scores to pairs from separate topics. Results show that soft cosine is the most accurate method, while the most widely used version of Salton's cosine is markedly less accurate than the other methods tested. These findings have implications for how controlled vocabularies should be used to measure relatedness.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Measuring publication relatedness using controlled vocabularies

Measuring the relatedness between scientific publications has important applications in many areas of bibliometrics and science policy. Controlled vocabularies provide a promising basis for measuring relatedness because they address issues that arise when using citation or textual similarity to measure relatedness. While several controlled-vocabulary-based relatedness measures have been developed, there exists no comprehensive and direct test of their accuracy and suitability for different types of research questions. This paper reviews existing measures, develops a new measure, and benchmarks the measures using TREC Genomics data as a ground truth of topics. The benchmark test show that the new measure and the measure proposed by Ahlgren et al. (2020) have differing strengths and weaknesses. These results inform a discussion of which method to choose when studying interdisciplinarity, information retrieval, clustering of science, and researcher topic switching.

cs.IR↗