Top organizations in CS research

&#62; # For example, Paper A is written by Author B and Author C, when this paper was published in year 2000, Author B is affiliated with Organization 1, and Author B was affiliated with Organization 2, provided such information was presented in the paper full text or meta data. Now Author A is affiliated with Organization 3, and Author B is with Organization 4. Our algorithm constructs the following relationship:<p>&#62; # Paper A is related to Organization 1, 2, 3, and 4.<p>&#62; # Therefore, all citations to Paper A will be contributed to all 4 organizations.<p>This seems rather ridiculous to me. So if I have 100 publications with at least 5 citations each at some unknown school, then I go to Stanford, all of a sudden Stanford gets 500 extra citations?<p>Also, I saw no mention about citation filtering. It's not uncommon for small communities to (intentionally or unintentionally) game these kinds of systems by publishing lots of low-quality papers and citing each other a lot. In fact, I didn't even see any mention about filtering out self-citations, which is absolutely necessary.

It seems like among the top 4, Berkeley has the highest citation/publication ratio, which indicates they publish less (due to size or just pub frequency), but with more meaningful stuff on average. I wonder if this is related to the laid-back culture of Berkeley that students don't have pressure to "publish".<p>Disclaimer: I am becoming a graduate student at Berkeley soon.

This would be far more indicative if it were scaled to organizational size. Some of the top places are great places, but they're also huge places.

It's interesting to note how much Google's (citation) influence has decreased over time. 60583 -&#62; 19354 -&#62; 3893 for all years -&#62; last 10 -&#62; last 5, where "all years" means about 12 (!). I'm guessing it's the exponential falloff of PageRank paper citations over time.

this seems to be simply a ranking of organisations by the number of citations.<p>there are a number of factors missed:<p>1. what's the earliest publication of each organisation?<p>2. what's the real world impact of the publications? (citations are not real world impact.)<p>3. what was the significance of an organisation's contribution to a publication? for example, there might be many authors, where only one author did the actual work.<p>4. it should be normalized by the size of the organisation.<p>5. CS is multidisciplinary: plenty of people in CS publish in other domains such as biology, mathematics, statistics.<p>i couldn't work out if they counted self-citations or not.

I don't know what conclusions you can really draw from this, but the underlying service (Microsoft Academic Search) is pretty interesting. I've been checking out publications from my school for the last hour.

I don't quite get why the citations for major institutions have grown at a rate of ~10K per year since the late 90s, but much fewer for the decade before that.<p>Can anyone explain?

&#62; 2. what's the real world impact of the publications? (citations are not real world impact.)<p>so any suggestions on real world impact? winning a Turing Award?

Not sure what data sources they are using here but there is probably certain organisations which a lot of their stuff is missed and some where everything is present. If it's similar to Google scholar a lot of the stuff my uni does doesn't end up on there.<p>Fully agree that papers published has no correlation with an organisations actual overall contribution to the field. Even citations really, because in some cases something broad will get cited a lot as it relates to a lot of papers without actually presenting something new or important.

I wonder how much namespace pollution there is? I found at least one incorrect attribution due to identical names.

I wonder how many decades IBM has been in the top 10?