| Title |
Towards a Methodology for Validation of Centrality Measures in Complex Networks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0090283 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Komal Batool, Muaz A. Niazi |
| Abstract |
Living systems are associated with Social networks - networks made up of nodes, some of which may be more important in various aspects as compared to others. While different quantitative measures labeled as "centralities" have previously been used in the network analysis community to find out influential nodes in a network, it is debatable how valid the centrality measures actually are. In other words, the research question that remains unanswered is: how exactly do these measures perform in the real world? So, as an example, if a centrality of a particular node identifies it to be important, is the node actually important? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 16% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Turkey | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 58% |
| Scientists | 6 | 32% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 154 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 25% |
| Researcher | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Professor | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 26 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Engineering | 12 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 47 | 29% |
| Unknown | 38 | 23% |