Instruct: Identify the main and secondary category of Arxiv papers based on the titles and abstracts
Query: When standard network measures fail to rank journals: A theoretical and
  empirical analysis   Journal rankings are widely used and are often based on citation data in
combination with a network perspective. We argue that some of these
network-based rankings can produce misleading results. From a theoretical point
of view, we show that the standard network modelling approach of citation data
at the journal level (i.e., the projection of paper citations onto journals)
introduces fictitious relations among journals. To overcome this problem, we
propose a citation path perspective, and empirically show that rankings based
on the network and the citation path perspective are very different. Based on
our theoretical and empirical analysis, we highlight the limitations of
standard network metrics, and propose a method to overcome these limitations
and compute journal rankings.

36
The categories of this paper are: cmp-lg
18
The categories of this paper are: econ
30
The categories of this paper are: q-alg
34
The categories of this paper are: chem-ph
6
The categories of this paper are: astro-ph
8
The categories of this paper are: hep-ex
14
The categories of this paper are: math-ph
13
The categories of this paper are: quant-ph
32
The categories of this paper are: atom-ph
35
The categories of this paper are: mtrl-th
10
The categories of this paper are: q-bio
16
The categories of this paper are: stat
17
The categories of this paper are: q-fin
26
The categories of this paper are: bayes-an
11
The categories of this paper are: hep-lat
25
The categories of this paper are: patt-sol