Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

COCOON CORE: CO-author REcommendations Based on Betweenness Centrality and Interest Similarity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning

Abstract

When researchers are to write a new article, they often seek co-authors who are knowledgeable on the article’s subject. However, they also strive for acceptance of their article. Based on this otherwise intuitive process, the current article presents the COCOON CORE tool that recommends candidate co-authors based on like-mindedness and power. Like-mindedness ensures that co-authors share a common ground, which is necessary for seamless cooperation. Powerful co-authors foster adoption of an article’s research idea by the community. Two experiments were conducted, one focusing on the perceived quality of the recommendations that COCOON CORE generates and one focusing on the usability of COCOON CORE. Results indicate that participants perceive the recommendations moderately positively. Particularly, they value the recommendations that focus fully on finding influential peers and the recommendation in which they themselves can adjust the balance between finding influential peers and like-minded peers. Also, the usability of COCOON CORE is perceived to be moderately good.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(46):16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Egghe L (2006) Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 1(2006):1–31

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Linton JD, Tierney R, Walsh ST (2011) Publish or perish: how are research and reputation related? Ser Rev 37(4):244–257. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gardner WL, Lowe KB, Moss TW, Mahoney KT, Cogliser CC (2011) Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: a review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009. Leadersh Q 21(6):922–958. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feuer MJ, Towne L, Shavelson RJ (2002) Scientific culture and educational research. Educ Res 31(8):4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031008004

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lambiotte R, Panzarasa P (2009) Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. J Informetr 3(3):180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Leydesdorff L, Wagner CS (2008) International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. J Informetr 2(4):317–325. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotter JP (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business, p 208

    Google Scholar 

  9. Abbasi A, Altmann J, Hossain L (2011) Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: a correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. J Informetr 5(4):594–607. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Franceschini F, Maisano D (2010) The Hirsch spectrum: a novel tool for analyzing scientific journals. J Informetr 4(1):64–73. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim H, Yoon JW, Crowcroft J (2012) Network analysis of temporal trends in scholarly research productivity. J Informetr 6(1):97–110. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 22(8):2623–2628. doi:10.1096/fj.08-107938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harzing A, van der Wal R (2008) Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:61–73. doi:10.3354/esep00076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sie RLL, Drachsler H, Bitter-Rijpkema M, Sloep PB (2012) To whom and why should i connect? Co-author recommendation based on powerful and similar peers. IJTEL 1(2):121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brandes U (1994) A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J Math Sociol 25:163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Science 37(3):422–447

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page CH (eds) Freedom and control in modern society, Van Nostrand, New York, NY, 18:18–66, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=23415760

    Google Scholar 

  20. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stahl G (2005) Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. J Comput Assist Learn 21(2):79–90. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00115.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Lora Aroyo from the VU University Amsterdam for her insightful comments during the design and implementation phases of COCOON CORE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. D.L.Hudigstraat 64, 1019 TR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rory L. L. Sie

  2. Open Universiteit Nederland, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, Netherlands

    Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema & Peter B. Sloep

  3. Dandelion Group BV, Hoogstraat 53b, 3011 PG, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Bart Jan van Engelen

Authors
  1. Rory L. L. Sie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bart Jan van Engelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter B. Sloep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rory L. L. Sie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agro-Know, Athens, Greece

    Nikos Manouselis

  2. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Welten Institute – Research Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Hendrik Drachsler

  3. Department of Computer Science, VUB & KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Katrien Verbert

  4. aDeNu Research Group, Artificial Intelligence Department, Computer Science School, UNED, Madrid, Spain

    Olga C. Santos

Appendices

Appendix A: Questions Regarding Quality of Recommendations

  1. 1a.

    Individual Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for influence is set to 100?

  2. 1b.

    Individual Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for interest similarity is set to 100?

  3. 1c.

    Individual Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if you control the sliders yourself?

  4. 2a.

    Default User Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for influence is set to 100?

  5. 2b.

    Default User Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if the slider for interest similarity is set to 100?

  6. 2c.

    Default User Recommendation: How do you value the recommendation that is generated if you control the sliders yourself?

Appendix B: SUS Questionnaire

  1. 1.

    I think that I would like to use this system frequently.

  2. 2.

    I found the system unnecessarily complex.

  3. 3.

    I thought the system was easy to use.

  4. 4.

    I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.

  5. 5.

    I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.

  6. 6.

    I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.

  7. 7.

    I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.

  8. 8.

    I found the system very cumbersome to use.

  9. 9.

    I felt very confident using the system.

  10. 10.

    I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sie, R.L.L., van Engelen, B.J., Bitter-Rijpkema, M., Sloep, P.B. (2014). COCOON CORE: CO-author REcommendations Based on Betweenness Centrality and Interest Similarity. In: Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., Santos, O. (eds) Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0530-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0530-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0529-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0530-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation