Fig 1.
Example of a directed unweighted citation network.
The network consists of 25 nodes and 50 edges organized in three communities (colored in blue, orange, and fuchsia). The seed paper (source article) is colored in red. Every node represents a paper whereas every edge between nodes refers to whether that paper is cited by another paper (as indicated by the label “cited by”). An example of bridging node is signaled by the label “bridging node”. Bridging papers serve as links between two or more communities in the network.
Table 1.
In addition to the metrics reported in this Table, the Density Maximum Neighborhood Component (DMNC) metric, which detects densely connected neighborhoods, was calculated. However, DMNC was not taken into account for further analysis (see Section D in S1 File).
Table 2.
The titles for the communities with at least 10 papers are reported in this table along with the number of papers contained in each community.
See the Section B in S1 File, for additional details.
Fig 2.
Top 5 communities in the human aggression network.
(i) Media and Videogames (red), (ii) Stress, Traits, and aggression (blue), (iii) Rumination and Displaced aggression (green), (iv) Role of Testosterone (pink), (v) Social aggression (yellow). The largest nodes represent the five most influential papers within each community.
Table 3.
Top 5 articles for each of the Top 5 largest communities in the human aggression network.
Table 4.
The Top 10 most relevant papers (excluding the source paper) in our aggression network.
For the top 11- 20 see the Section A in S1 File.
Fig 3.
Pairwise interconnectedness scores (average shortest path) by communities were submitted to Multidimensional Scaling in order to visualize the level of similarity between communities.
Fig 4.
The bar charts represent the frequency of publications (in red) and number of citations (in blue) per year by community (for the 5 largest communities). On the x-axis are represented the years between 2002 (year of origin of the network: the seed paper was published in 2002) and 2019 (end of data gathering). It is possible to notice that in every community there is a steep decrease of publications and citations in the year 2019. We suspect that this trend might be due to a delay in the uploading of papers in the semantic scholar database and it should not have to reflect a real significant decrease of the interest in the field.
Fig 5.
Pie charts of gender percentage (Female and Male) for the correlation ranking (top 75), composite ranking (top 75), and communities (top 5 papers for each community, n 75).