Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userComparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-print Versions
65
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Martin Klein
Publication date
2016
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Academic publishers claim that they add value to scholarly communications by coordinating reviews and contributing and enhancing text during publication. These contributions come at a considerable cost: U.S. academic libraries paid $1.7 billion for serial subscriptions in 2008 alone. Library budgets, in contrast, are flat and not able to keep pace with serial price inflation. We have investigated the publishers value proposition by conducting a comparative study of pre-print papers and their final published counterparts. This comparison had two working assumptions: 1) if the publishers argument is valid, the text of a pre-print paper should vary measurably from its corresponding final published version, and 2) by applying standard similarity measures, we should be able to detect and quantify such differences. Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final publish
rate research
Read More
Academic publishers claim that they add value to scholarly communications by coordinating reviews and contributing and enhancing text during publication. These contributions come at a considerable cost: U.S. academic libraries paid $1.7 billion for serial subscriptions in 2008 alone. Library budgets, in contrast, are flat and not able to keep pace with serial price inflation. We have investigated the publishers value proposition by conducting a comparative study of pre-print papers from two distinct science, technology, and medicine (STM) corpora and their final published counterparts. This comparison had two working assumptions: 1) if the publishers argument is valid, the text of a pre-print paper should vary measurably from its corresponding final published version, and 2) by applying standard similarity measures, we should be able to detect and quantify such differences. Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final publish
New researchers are usually very curious about the recipe that could accelerate the chances of their paper getting accepted in a reputed forum (journal/conference). In search of such a recipe, we investigate the profile and peer review text of authors whose papers almost always get accepted at a venue (Journal of High Energy Physics in our current work). We find authors with high acceptance rate are likely to have a high number of citations, high $h$-index, higher number of collaborators etc. We notice that they receive relatively lengthy and positive reviews for their papers. In addition, we also construct three networks -- co-reviewer, co-citation and collaboration network and study the network-centric features and intra- and inter-category edge interactions. We find that the authors with high acceptance rate are more `central in these networks; the volume of intra- and inter-category interactions are also drastically different for the authors with high acceptance rate compared to the other authors. Finally, using the above set of features, we train standard machine learning models (random forest, XGBoost) and obtain very high class wise precision and recall. In a followup discussion we also narrate how apart from the author characteristics, the peer-review system might itself have a role in propelling the distinction among the different categories which could lead to potential discrimination and unfairness and calls for further investigation by the system admins.
A `peer-review system in the context of judging research contributions, is one of the prime steps undertaken to ensure the quality of the submissions received, a significant portion of the publishing budget is spent towards successful completion of the peer-review by the publication houses. Nevertheless, the scientific community is largely reaching a consensus that peer-review system, although indispensable, is nonetheless flawed. A very pertinent question therefore is could this system be improved?. In this paper, we attempt to present an answer to this question by considering a massive dataset of around $29k$ papers with roughly $70k$ distinct review reports together consisting of $12m$ lines of review text from the Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP) between 1997 and 2015. In specific, we introduce a novel textit{reviewer-reviewer interaction network} (an edge exists between two reviewers if they were assigned by the same editor) and show that surprisingly the simple structural properties of this network such as degree, clustering coefficient, centrality (closeness, betweenness etc.) serve as strong predictors of the long-term citations (i.e., the overall scientific impact) of a submitted paper. These features, when plugged in a regression model, alone achieves a high $R^2$ of 0.79 and a low $RMSE$ of 0.496 in predicting the long-term citations. In addition, we also design a set of supporting features built from the basic characteristics of the submitted papers, the authors and the referees (e.g., the popularity of the submitting author, the acceptance rate history of a referee, the linguistic properties laden in the text of the review reports etc.), which further results in overall improvement with $R^2$ of 0.81 and $RMSE$ of 0.46.
Data-driven approaches to sequence-to-sequence modelling have been successfully applied to short text summarization of news articles. Such models are typically trained on input-summary pairs consisting of only a single or a few sentences, partially due to limited availability of multi-sentence training data. Here, we propose to use scientific articles as a new milestone for text summarization: large-scale training data come almost for free with two types of high-quality summaries at different levels - the title and the abstract. We generate two novel multi-sentence summarization datasets from scientific articles and test the suitability of a wide range of existing extractive and abstractive neural network-based summarization approaches. Our analysis demonstrates that scientific papers are suitable for data-driven text summarization. Our results could serve as valuable benchmarks for scaling sequence-to-sequence models to very long sequences.
Documents in scientific newspapers are often marked by attitudes and opinions of the author and/or other persons, who contribute with objective and subjective statements and arguments as well. In this respect, the attitude is often accomplished by a linguistic modality. As in languages like english, french and german, the modality is expressed by special verbs like can, must, may, etc. and the subjunctive mood, an occurrence of modalities often induces that these verbs take over the role of modality. This is not correct as it is proven that modality is the instrument of the whole sentence where both the adverbs, modal particles, punctuation marks, and the intonation of a sentence contribute. Often, a combination of all these instruments are necessary to express a modality. In this work, we concern with the finding of modal verbs in scientific texts as a pre-step towards the discovery of the attitude of an author. Whereas the input will be an arbitrary text, the output consists of zones representing modalities.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
