Related papers: Coauthorship and citation networks for statisticia…

Comment on ``Gibbs Sampling, Exponential Families and Orthogonal Polynomials'' [arXiv:0808.3852]

We here describe and present results of a simple neural network that predicts individual researchers' future citation counts based on a variety of data from the researchers' past. For publications available on the open access-server…

It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical…

This paper was withdrawn by arXiv admins because of inappropriate and unverifiable claims of appropriation.

This article examines the relationship between acquaintanceship and coauthorship patterns in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, geographically distributed research center. Two social networks are constructed and compared: a network…

I give a comment on arXiv:1802.01804v3 [hep-ph]

This note is a discussion of the paper "Confidence distribution" by Min-ge Xie and Kesar Singh, to appear in the International Statistical Review.

The annotation of textual information is a fundamental activity in Linguistics and Computational Linguistics. This article presents various observations on annotations. It approaches the topic from several angles including Hypertext,…

Comment on ``Gibbs Sampling, Exponential Families, and Orthogonal Polynomials'' [arXiv:0808.3852]

We comment on Z. D. Zhang's Response [arXiv:0812.2330] to our recent Comment [arXiv:0811.3876] addressing the conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model reported in [arXiv:0705.1045].

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

This is a comment on the preprint arXiv:1809.07771v2 by W. Ji and X.-G. Wen.

This is a comment on [G. Knight and R. Klages, Phys. Rev. E 84, 041135 (2011); also available at arXiv:1107.5293v2 [math-ph]].

We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.

The paper comments on "Quantifying long-term scientific impact". It indicates that there is a mistake of [D. S. Wang , C. Song, A. L. Barabasi, Quantifying long-term scientific impact, Science 342, 127 (2013), arXiv:1306.3293].

This paper examines the proximity of authors to those they cite using degrees of separation in a co-author network, essentially using collaboration networks to expand on the notion of self-citations. While the proportion of direct…

Comment on "Quantifying the Fraction of Missing Information for Hypothesis Testing in Statistical and Genetic Studies" [arXiv:1102.2774]

Comment on "Quantifying the Fraction of Missing Information for Hypothesis Testing in Statistical and Genetic Studies" [arXiv:1102.2774]

A reply to the comment by Lee et al. [arXiv:1309.5367]

This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.