Clustering of publication networks is an efficient way to obtain classifications of large collections of research publications. Such classifications can be used to, e.g., detect research topics, normalize citation relations, or explore the publication output of a unit. Citation networks can be created using a variety of approaches. Best practices to obtain classifications using clustering have been investigated, in particular the performance of different publication-publication relatedness measures. However, evaluation of different approaches to normalization of citation relations have not been explored to the same extent. In this paper, we evaluate five approaches to normalization of direct citation relations with respect to clustering solution quality in four data sets. A sixth approach is evaluated using no normalization. To assess the quality of clustering solutions, we use three measures. (1) We compare the clustering solution to the reference lists of a set of publications using the Adjusted Rand Index. (2) Using the Sihouette width measure, we quantity to which extent the publications have relations to other clusters than the one they have been assigned to. (3) We propose a measure that captures publications that have probably been inaccurately assigned. The results clearly show that normalization is preferred over unnormalized direct citation relations. Furthermore, the results indicate that the fractional normalization approach, which can be considered the standard approach, causes inaccurate assignments. The geometric normalization approach has a similar performance as the fractional approach regarding Adjusted Rand Index and Silhouette width but leads to fewer inaccurate assignments. We therefore believe that the geometric approach may be preferred over the fractional approach.

翻译：暂无翻译