IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i6d10.1007_s11192-022-04397-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of k-means clustering algorithm to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender system

Author

Listed:
  • Narjes Vara

    (Shiraz University
    RICeST)

  • Mahdieh Mirzabeigi

    (Shiraz University)

  • Hajar Sotudeh

    (Shiraz University)

  • Seyed Mostafa Fakhrahmad

    (Shiraz University)

Abstract

This study investigates to evaluate feasibility of k-means clustering algorithm in order to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by RICEST Journal Finder System. More than 15,000 papers published in filed of engineering journals during 2013–2017 were collected from their websites. Their titles, abstracts and keywords were extracted, normalized and processed in order to form the test body. According to the number of papers collected, using Cochran's formula, 400 papers completely relevant to the subject of each journal were randomly and proportionally selected and entered the system as queries in order to receive the journals recommended by the system before and after k-means clustering algorithm and the results were recorded. Finally, effectiveness of the system results was determined at each stage by leave-one-out cross validation method based on precision at K top ranked results. Also, opinions of subject reviewers on relevance of the target journal were investigated through a questionnaire. Results showed that before data clustering, only 40% of target journal was recommended at the first 3 ranks. But after k-means clustering algorithm, in more than 80% of searches, the target journal was retrieved at the first 3 ranks. Also, effectiveness of the recommendations, according to 210 subject reviewers, after k-means clustering algorithm, showed that more than 80% of the recommended journals are completely relevant to the given paper. According to the study results, data clustering can significantly increase effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Narjes Vara & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi & Hajar Sotudeh & Seyed Mostafa Fakhrahmad, 2022. "Application of k-means clustering algorithm to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3237-3252, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04397-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04397-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04397-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04397-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mayra Z Rodriguez & Cesar H Comin & Dalcimar Casanova & Odemir M Bruno & Diego R Amancio & Luciano da F Costa & Francisco A Rodrigues, 2019. "Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-34, January.
    2. Tien T. Nguyen & F. Maxwell Harper & Loren Terveen & Joseph A. Konstan, 2018. "User Personality and User Satisfaction with Recommender Systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 1173-1189, December.
    3. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    4. Zhenquan Lin & Shanci Hou & Jinshan Wu, 2016. "The correlation between editorial delay and the ratio of highly cited papers in Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1457-1464, June.
    5. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    6. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    7. Judit Bar‐Ilan & Kevin Keenoy & Mark Levene & Eti Yaari, 2009. "Presentation bias is significant in determining user preference for search results—A user study," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 135-149, January.
    8. Guo, Xiaolong & Li, Xiaoxiao & Yu, Yugang, 2021. "Publication delay adjusted impact factor: The effect of publication delay of articles on journal impact factor," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammed Azmi Al-Betar & Ammar Kamal Abasi & Ghazi Al-Naymat & Kamran Arshad & Sharif Naser Makhadmeh, 2023. "Optimization of scientific publications clustering with ensemble approach for topic extraction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2819-2877, May.
    2. Yanting Zhang & Zhe Zhu & Wei Ning & Amir M. Fathollahi-Fard, 2022. "An Improved Optimization Algorithm Based on Density Grid for Green Storage Monitoring System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    2. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    3. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Alessandro Checco & Lorenzo Bracciale & Pierpaolo Loreti & Stephen Pinfield & Giuseppe Bianchi, 2021. "AI-assisted peer review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Kuklin, Alexander A. (Куклин, Александр) & Balyakina, Evgeniya A. (Балякина, Евгения), 2017. "Active policy as a key to success for an International Economic Periodical [Активная Политика — Залог Успеха Международного Экономического Журнала]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 160-177, December.
    6. Vivian M Nguyen & Neal R Haddaway & Lee F G Gutowsky & Alexander D M Wilson & Austin J Gallagher & Michael R Donaldson & Neil Hammerschlag & Steven J Cooke, 2015. "How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    8. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    9. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    10. Paul Sebo & Jean Pascal Fournier & Claire Ragot & Pierre-Henri Gorioux & François R. Herrmann & Hubert Maisonneuve, 2019. "Factors associated with publication speed in general medical journals: a retrospective study of bibliometric data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1037-1058, May.
    11. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    12. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    13. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    14. Eirini Delikoura & Dimitrios Kouis, 2021. "Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, March.
    15. Jingda Ding & Dehui Du, 2023. "A study of the correlation between publication delays and measurement indicators of journal articles in the social network environment—based on online data in PLOS," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1711-1743, March.
    16. Katarina Krapež, 2022. "Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, March.
    17. J. Israel Martínez-López & Samantha Barrón-González & Alejandro Martínez López, 2019. "Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, September.
    18. Abbie Griffin & Gloria Barczak, 2020. "Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(1), pages 36-48, June.
    19. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    20. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04397-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.