Measuring the scientific impact of academic papers based on weighted heterogeneous scholarly network Cover

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Measuring the scientific impact of academic papers based on weighted heterogeneous scholarly network

Journal of Data and Information Science

Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1 (February 2026)

By: Jianlin Zhou , Xinyue Dong , Bin Cui and Ying Fan

Open Access

|Dec 2025

Figures & Tables

A schematic diagram of a weighted heterogeneous scholarly network.

The influence of dynamic parameter values α in WHNR algorithm on the evaluation results of paper impact.

The overlap rate of the top 1% high-impact papers identified by the WHNR algorithm under different parameter values α.

The mean rank of 110 Nobel Prize-winning papers in the WHNR algorithm under different parameters.

The mean rank of 110 Nobel Prize-winning papers under different mutual enhancement algorithms.

The mean rank of 95 Nobel laureates under different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms.

The overlap ratio of the top 1% of scientists identified by different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

Algorithms	WHNR	TAMRR	Prank	MutualRank	MLMRJR
WHNR	1	0.8113	0.6180	0.7843	0.7497
TAMRR	0.8113	1	0.6809	0.8126	0.8472
Prank	0.6180	0.6809	1	0.5901	0.6133
MutualRank	0.7843	0.8126	0.5901	1	0.8691
MLMRJR	0.7497	0.8472	0.6133	0.8691	1

The top 20 papers identified by different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

DOIs	Year	Ranking algorithms
DOIs	Year	WHNR	MLMRJR	MutualRank	Prank	TAMRR
10.1103/PhysRev.81.385	1951	1	88	79	45	24
10.1103/PhysRev.34.1293	1929	2	59	299	1	4
10.1103/PhysRev. 136.B864	1964	3	60	2	74	3
10.1103/PhysRev.73.679	1948	4	62	43	57	21
10.1103/PhysRev.47.777	1935	5	316	32	42	7
10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865	1996	6	6	3	1,354	14
10.1103/PhysRev. 131.2766	1963	7	85	40	141	41
10.1103/PhysRev.65.117	1944	8	141	47	8	10
10.1103/RevModPhys.15.1	1943	9	79	18	51	5
10.1103/PhysRev. 125.1067	1962	10	20	50	104	23
10.1103/PhysRev. 106.364	1957	11	65	242	23	27
10.1103/PhysRev. 109.193	1958	12	17	41	52	11
10.1103/PhysRev. 124.1866	1961	13	183	8	213	13
10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264	1967	14	45	15	65	8
10.1103/PhysRev. 109.1492	1958	15	258	21	64	18
10.1103/PhysRev.43.804	1933	16	98	370	3	15
10.1103/PhysRev.46.1002	1934	17	2,333	105	15	16
10.1103/PhysRev. 108.1175	1957	18	3	4	6	1
10.1103/PhysRev. 140.A1133	1965	19	35	1	54	2
10.1103/PhysRevB.23.5048	1981	20	16	5	392	12

Journal rankings based on different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

Journals	Ranking algorithms
Journals	WHNR	MLMRJR	MutualRank	Prank	TAMRR
Physical Review Letters	1	1	1	1	1
Physical Review B	2	2	2	2	2
Physical Review D	3	3	4	3	3
Physical Review A	4	4	3	4	4
Physical Review C	5	5	6	6	5
Physical Review E	6	6	5	7	6
Review of Modern Physics	7	7	7	5	7
Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams	8	8	8	8	8
Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research	9	9	9	9	9

Hypothesis testing results_

Hypothesis	Correlation Test
Hypothesis	Correlation Coefficient	P-value	95% Confidence Interval
H₁	0.3974	0.0010	[0.3947, 0.4002]
H₂	0.5341	0.0010	[0.5317, 0.5362]
H₃	0.5955	0.0010	[0.5932, 0.5976]
H₄	0.5295	0.0010	[0.5265, 0.5323]
H₅	0.2219	0.0010	[0.2179, 0.2257]
H₆	0.4248	0.0010	[0.4214, 0.4286]
H₇	0.7273	0.0130	[0.0748, 1]
H₈	0.7364	0.0140	[0.1686, 0.9703]
H₉	0.7360	0.0150	[0.1336, 0.9721]

The overlap ratio of the top 1% papers identified by different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

Algorithms	WHNR	TAMRR	Prank	MutualRank	MLMRJR
WHNR	1	0.7911	0.6477	0.5852	0.6254
TAMRR	0.7911	1	0.6183	0.6803	0.7743
Prank	0.6477	0.6183	1	0.3821	0.5178
MutualRank	0.5852	0.6803	0.3821	1	0.6828
MLMRJR	0.6254	0.7743	0.5178	0.6828	1

The top 20 scientists identified by different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

Authors	Paper count	Ranking algorithms
Authors	Paper count	WHNR	MLMRJR	MutualRank	Prank	TAMRR
John C. Slater	66	1	4	4	1	1
G. Breit	176	2	3	6	3	3
Chen N. Yang	105	3	9	8	7	9
John H. Van Vleck	63	4	36	24	20	12
M. Gell-Mann	38	5	19	25	14	15
Richard P. Feynman	34	6	26	20	13	13
Hans A. Bethe	101	7	7	7	10	5
U. Fano	83	8	46	18	183	18
S. Weinberg	133	9	2	3	15	6
Robert S. Mulliken	65	10	60	62	39	33
Philip W. Anderson	138	11	1	1	8	2
Eugene P. Wigner	46	12	20	12	2	7
Julian S. Schwinger	104	13	6	5	6	4
J. Bardeen	79	14	15	11	5	10
Taekoon D. Lee	189	15	11	17	16	14
C. Kittel	80	16	17	19	19	11
James C. Phillips	195	17	27	28	49	25
W. Kohn	115	18	5	2	22	8
Geoffrey F. Chew	85	19	22	32	36	31
Bertrand I. Halperin	185	20	13	9	63	16

The correlation between papers’ impact scores under different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

Algorithms	WHNR	TAMRR	Prank	MutualRank	MLMRJR
WHNR	1	0.9277	0.7288	0.8454	0.8972
TAMRR	0.9277	1	0.731	0.9348	0.9777
Prank	0.7288	0.731	1	0.7836	0.7986
MutualRank	0.8454	0.9348	0.7836	1	0.9492
MLMRJR	0.8972	0.9777	0.7986	0.9492	1

The correlation between scientists’ impact scores under different mutually reinforcing ranking algorithms_

Algorithms	WHNR	TAMRR	Prank	MutualRank	MLMRJR
WHNR	1	0.8902	0.8077	0.9118	0.8502
TAMRR	0.8902	1	0.9372	0.9638	0.9762
Prank	0.8077	0.9372	1	0.8808	0.9276
MutualRank	0.9118	0.9638	0.8808	1	0.9476
MLMRJR	0.8502	0.9762	0.9276	0.9476	1

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2025-0057 | Journal eISSN: 2543-683X | Journal ISSN: 2096-157X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 155 - 180

Submitted on: Jul 19, 2025

|

Accepted on: Nov 12, 2025

|

Published on: Dec 28, 2025

Published by: Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Scientific impact,

Heterogeneous scholarly network,

Mutual enhancement

Related subjects:

Computer sciences,

Information technology,

Computer sciences,

Project management,

Computer sciences,

Databases and data mining

© 2025 Jianlin Zhou, Xinyue Dong, Bin Cui, Ying Fan, published by Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1 (February 2026)Next article