Comments from IEEE VIS review #37
Description
This is a summary of suggestions from IEEE VIS reviewers. If anyone wants to explore these
further, please open a new discussion and we can proceed further with more specific issues.
I liked the four visual components. The treemap and the bubble chart visualization
seem redundant, though. I think it would be better if they showed different but
complementary information. The second one, e.g., could show the number of most-
cited authors (above a threshold) per topic. They could also be linked to one
another (i.e., interactions in one would be reproduced in the another).
The network visualization could be improved by considering paper metadata. One
example would be to color nodes according to the paper publication year, a feature
that would help users to find time intervals of interest. Please see [1].
I should notice that such recommendations would be limited by the volume and accuracy
of the survey data included by the survey authors, i.e., if the authors only categorize
50–100 papers for a topic/field with thousands of papers, the recommendation might
be sound with respect to the list/set of categories, but eventually useless (as
such work could already exist outside of the set of collected papers). Perhaps,
additional factors such as number of papers on a particular category over time (or
over the course of the last N years), citation counts (if available), centralities
(incl. PageRank, for instance) in the citation and/or co-authorship networks, and
so on, could be eventually added to this recommendation approach.