Archives des catégories : EN

Between Flat-Earthers and Fitness Coaches: Who is Citing Scientific Publications in YouTube Video Descriptions?

Posté le par

Authors : Olga Zagovora, Katrin Weller

In this study, we undertake an extensive analysis of YouTube channels that reference research publications in their video descriptions, offering a unique insight into the intersection of digital media and academia. Our investigation focuses on three principal aspects: the background of YouTube channel owners, their thematic focus, and the nature of their operational dynamics, specifically addressing whether they work individually or in groups. Our results highlight a strong emphasis on content related to science and engineering, as well as health, particularly in channels managed by individual researchers and academic institutions.

However, there is a notable variation in the popularity of these channels, with professional YouTubers and commercial media entities often outperforming in terms of viewer engagement metrics like likes, comments, and views. This underscores the challenge academic channels face in attracting a wider audience. Further, we explore the role of academic actors on YouTube, scrutinizing their impact in disseminating research and the types of publications they reference.

Despite a general inclination towards professional academic topics, these channels displayed a varied effectiveness in spotlighting highly cited research. Often, they referenced a wide array of publications, indicating a diverse but not necessarily impact-focused approach to content selection.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15083

The role of non-scientific factors vis-a-vis the quality of publications in determining their scholarly impact

Posté le par

Authors : Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, Leonardo Grilli

In the evaluation of scientific publications’ impact, the interplay between intrinsic quality and non-scientific factors remains a subject of debate. While peer review traditionally assesses quality, bibliometric techniques gauge scholarly impact. This study investigates the role of non-scientific attributes alongside quality scores from peer review in determining scholarly impact.

Leveraging data from the first Italian Research Assessment Exercise (VTR 2001-2003) and Web of Science citations, we analyse the relationship between quality scores, non-scientific factors, and publication short- and long-term impact.

Our findings shed light on the significance of non-scientific elements overlooked in peer review, offering policymakers and research management insights in choosing evaluation methodologies. Sections delve into the debate, identify non-scientific influences, detail methodologies, present results, and discuss implications.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05345

Sentiment Analysis of Citations in Scientific Articles Using ChatGPT: Identifying Potential Biases and Conflicts of Interest

Posté le par

Author : Walid Hariri

Scientific articles play a crucial role in advancing knowledge and informing research directions. One key aspect of evaluating scientific articles is the analysis of citations, which provides insights into the impact and reception of the cited works. This article introduces the innovative use of large language models, particularly ChatGPT, for comprehensive sentiment analysis of citations within scientific articles.

By leveraging advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques, ChatGPT can discern the nuanced positivity or negativity of citations, offering insights into the reception and impact of cited works. Furthermore, ChatGPT’s capabilities extend to detecting potential biases and conflicts of interest in citations, enhancing the objectivity and reliability of scientific literature evaluation.

This study showcases the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools in enhancing citation analysis and promoting integrity in scholarly research.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01800

PubTator 3.0: an AI-powered literature resource for unlocking biomedical knowledge

Posté le par

Authors  : Chih-Hsuan Wei, Alexis Allot, Po-Ting Lai, Robert Leaman, Shubo Tian, Ling Luo, Qiao Jin, Zhizheng Wang, Qingyu Chen, Zhiyong Lu

PubTator 3.0 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/pubtator3/) is a biomedical literature resource using state-of-the-art AI techniques to offer semantic and relation searches for key concepts like proteins, genetic variants, diseases and chemicals. It currently provides over one billion entity and relation annotations across approximately 36 million PubMed abstracts and 6 million full-text articles from the PMC open access subset, updated weekly.

PubTator 3.0’s online interface and API utilize these precomputed entity relations and synonyms to provide advanced search capabilities and enable large-scale analyses, streamlining many complex information needs. We showcase the retrieval quality of PubTator 3.0 using a series of entity pair queries, demonstrating that PubTator 3.0 retrieves a greater number of articles than either PubMed or Google Scholar, with higher precision in the top 20 results.

We further show that integrating ChatGPT (GPT-4) with PubTator APIs dramatically improves the factuality and verifiability of its responses. In summary, PubTator 3.0 offers a comprehensive set of features and tools that allow researchers to navigate the ever-expanding wealth of biomedical literature, expediting research and unlocking valuable insights for scientific discovery.

URL : PubTator 3.0: an AI-powered literature resource for unlocking biomedical knowledge

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae235

Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross‑discipline survey

Posté le par

Authors : Elizaveta Savchenko, Ariel Rosenfeld

Collaboration among scholars has emerged as a significant characteristic of contemporary science. As a result, the number of authors listed in publications continues to rise steadily. Unfortunately, determining the authors to be included in the byline and their respective order entails multiple difficulties which often lead to conflicts. Despite the large volume of literature about conflicts in academia, it remains unclear how exactly these are distributed over the main socio-demographic properties, as well as the different types of interactions academics experience.

To address this gap, we conducted an international and cross-disciplinary survey answered by 752 academics from 41 fields of research and 93 countries that statistically well-represent the overall academic workforce. Our findings are concerning and suggest that conflicts over authorship credit arise very early in one’s academic career, even at the level of Master and Ph.D., and become increasingly common over time.

URL : Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross‑discipline survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04972-x

The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies

Posté le par

Authors : David Johann, Jorg Neufeld, Kathrin Thomas, Justus Rathmann, Heiko Rauhut

This article investigates researchers’ publication strategies and how their perceived pressure to publish and to obtain external funding are related to these strategies. The analyses rely on data from the Zurich Survey of Academics (ZSoA), an online survey representative of academics working at higher education institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The results suggest that academics pursue both instrumental and normative publication strategies.

The main finding is that academics who perceive high pressure to publish tend to employ instrumental publication strategies rather than normative ones: they are more likely to focus on the journal’s reputation and the speed of publication when selecting an outlet for peer review. Publishing results in open-access outlets or in native languages other than English is less important for those under pressure.

However, the extent to which researchers’ perceived pressure affects publication strategies also depends on other factors, such as the discrepancy between the time available for research and the time actually desired for research.

URL : The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae011

Evolution of Peer Review in Scientific Communication

Posté le par

Author : Dmitry Kochetkov

It is traditionally believed that peer review is the backbone of an academic journal and scientific communication, ensuring high quality and trust in the published materials. However, peer review only became an institutionalized practice in the second half of the 20th century, although the first scientific journals appeared three centuries earlier. By the beginning of the 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the traditional model of peer review is in deep crisis.

The aim of this article is to formulate a perspective model of peer review for scientific communication. The article discusses the evolution of the institution of scientific peer review and the formation of the current crisis. The author analyzed the modern landscape of innovations in peer review and scientific communication. Based on this analysis, three main peer review models in relation to editorial workflow were identified: pre-publication peer review (traditional model),  registered reports, and post-publication (peer) review (including preprints (peer) review).

The author argues that the third model offers the best way to implement the main functions of scientific communication.

URL : Evolution of Peer Review in Scientific Communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b2ra3