Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTweetPap: A Dataset to Study the Social Media Discourse of Scientific Papers
175
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Naman Jain
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Nowadays, researchers have moved to platforms like Twitter to spread information about their ideas and empirical evidence. Recent studies have shown that social media affects the scientific impact of a paper. However, these studies only utilize the tweet counts to represent Twitter activity. In this paper, we propose TweetPap, a large-scale dataset that introduces temporal information of citation/tweets and the metadata of the tweets to quantify and understand the discourse of scientific papers on social media. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/lingo-iitgn/TweetPap
rate research
Read More
Despite a long history of use of citation count as a measure to assess the impact or influence of a scientific paper, the evolution of follow-up work inspired by the paper and their interactions through citation links have rarely been explored to quantify how the paper enriches the depth and breadth of a research field. We propose a novel data structure, called Influence Dispersion Tree (IDT) to model the organization of follow-up papers and their dependencies through citations. We also propose the notion of an ideal IDT for every paper and show that an ideal (highly influential) paper should increase the knowledge of a field vertically and horizontally. Upon suitably exploring the structural properties of IDT, we derive a suite of metrics, namely Influence Dispersion Index (IDI), Normalized Influence Divergence (NID) to quantify the influence of a paper. Our theoretical analysis shows that an ideal IDT configuration should have equal depth and breadth (and thus minimize the NID value). We establish the superiority of NID as a better influence measure in two experimental settings. First, on a large real-world bibliographic dataset, we show that NID outperforms raw citation count as an early predictor of the number of new citations a paper will receive within a certain period after publication. Second, we show that NID is superior to the raw citation count at identifying the papers recognized as highly influential through Test of Time Award among all their contemporary papers (published in the same venue). We conclude that in order to quantify the influence of a paper, along with the total citation count, one should also consider how the citing papers are organized among themselves to better understand the influence of a paper on the research field. For reproducibility, the code and datasets used in this study are being made available to the community.
In a perfect world, all articles consistently contain sufficient metadata to describe the resource. We know this is not the reality, so we are motivated to investigate the evolution of the metadata that is present when authors and publishers supply their own. Because applying metadata takes time, we recognize that each news article author has a limited metadata budget with which to spend their time and effort. How are they spending this budget? What are the top metadata categories in use? How did they grow over time? What purpose do they serve? We also recognize that not all metadata fields are used equally. What is the growth of individual fields over time? Which fields experienced the fastest adoption? In this paper, we review 227,726 HTML news articles from 29 outlets captured by the Internet Archive between 1998 and 2016. Upon reviewing the metadata fields in each article, we discovered that 2010 began a metadata renaissance as publishers embraced metadata for improved search engine ranking, search engine tracking, social media tracking, and social media sharing. When analyzing individual fields, we find that one application of metadata stands out above all others: social cards -- the cards generated by platforms like Twitter when one shares a URL. Once a metadata standard was established for cards in 2010, its fields were adopted by 20% of articles in the first year and reached more than 95% adoption by 2016. This rate of adoption surpasses efforts like Schema.org and Dublin Core by a fair margin. When confronted with these results on how news publishers spend their metadata budget, we must conclude that it is all about the cards.
There is demand from science funders, industry, and the public that science should become more risk-taking, more out-of-the-box, and more interdisciplinary. Is it possible to tell how interdisciplinary and out-of-the-box scientific papers are, or which papers are mainstream? Here we use the bibliographic coupling network, derived from all physics papers that were published in the Physical Review journals in the past century, to try to identify them as mainstream, out-of-the-box, or interdisciplinary. We show that the network clusters into scientific fields. The position of individual papers with respect to these clusters allows us to estimate their degree of mainstreamness or interdisciplinary. We show that over the past decades the fraction of mainstream papers increases, the fraction of out-of-the-box decreases, and the fraction of interdisciplinary papers remains constant. Studying the rewards of papers, we find that in terms of absolute citations, both, mainstream and interdisciplinary papers are rewarded. In the long run, mainstream papers perform less than interdisciplinary ones in terms of citation rates. We conclude that to avoid a trend towards mainstreamness a new incentive scheme is necessary.
Science is built upon scholarship consensus that changes over time. This raises the question of how revolutionary theories and assumptions are evaluated and accepted into the norm of science as the setting for the next science. Using two recently proposed metrics, we identify the novel paper with high atypicality, which models how research draws upon unusual combinations of prior research in crafting their own contributions, and evaluate recognition to novel papers by citation and disruption, which captures the degree to which a research article creates a new direction by eclipsing citations to the prior work it builds upon. Only a small fraction of papers (2.3%) are highly novel, and there are fewer novel papers over time, with a nearly threefold decrease from 3.9% in 1970 to 1.4% in 2000. A highly novel paper indeed has a much higher chance (61.3%) to disrupt science than conventional papers (36.4%), but this recognition only comes from a distant future as reflected in citations, and it typically takes 10 years or longer for the disruption score of a paper to stabilize. In comparison, only nearly 20% of scholars survived in academia over this long period, measured in publications. We also provide the first computational model reformulating atypicality as the distance across the latent knowledge spaces learned by neural networks, as a proxy to the socially agreed relevance between distinct fields of scientific knowledge. The evolution of this knowledge space characterizes how yesterdays novelty forms todays scientific conventions, which condition the novelty--and surprise--of tomorrows breakthroughs. This computational model may be used to inform science policy that aims to recognize and cultivate novelty, so as to mitigate the conflict between individual career success and collective advance in science and direct human creativity to the unknown frontier of scientific knowledge.
To quantify the mechanism of a complex network growth we focus on the network of citations of scientific papers and use a combination of the theoretical and experimental tools to uncover microscopic details of this network growth. Namely, we develop a stochastic model of citation dynamics based on copying/redirection/triadic closure mechanism. In a complementary and coherent way, the model accounts both for statistics of references of scientific papers and for their citation dynamics. Originating in empirical measurements, the model is cast in such a way that it can be verified quantitatively in every aspect. Such verification is performed by measuring citation dynamics of Physics papers. The measurements revealed nonlinear citation dynamics, the nonlinearity being intricately related to network topology. The nonlinearity has far-reaching consequences including non-stationary citation distributions, diverging citation trajectory of similar papers, runaways or immortal papers with infinite citation lifetime etc. Thus, our most important finding is nonlinearity in complex network growth. In a more specific context, our results can be a basis for quantitative probabilistic prediction of citation dynamics of individual papers and of the journal impact factor.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
