Étiquette : Mike Thelwall

Catégories
EN

Can ChatGPT be a good follower of academic paradigms? Research quality evaluations in conflicting areas of sociology

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Ralph Schroeder, Meena Dhanda

Purpose

It has become increasingly likely that Large Language Models (LLMs) will be used to score the quality of academic publications to support research assessment goals in the future. This may cause problems for fields with competing paradigms since there is a risk that one may be favoured, causing long term harm to the reputation of the other.

Design/methodology/approach

To test whether this is plausible, this article uses 17 ChatGPTs to evaluate up to 100 journal articles from each of eight pairs of competing sociology paradigms (1490 altogether). Each article was assessed by prompting ChatGPT to take one of five roles: paradigm follower, opponent, antagonistic follower, antagonistic opponent, or neutral.

Findings

Articles were scored highest by ChatGPT when it followed the aligning paradigm, and lowest when it was told to devalue it and to follow the opposing paradigm. Broadly similar patterns occurred for most of the paradigm pairs. Follower ChatGPTs displayed only a small amount of favouritism compared to neutral ChatGPTs, but articles evaluated by an opposing paradigm ChatGPT had a substantial disadvantage. Research limitations: The data covers a single field and LLM.

Practical implications

The results confirm that LLM instructions for research evaluation should be carefully designed to ensure that they are paradigm-neutral to avoid accidentally resolving conflicts between paradigms on a technicality by devaluing one side’s contributions. Originality/value: This is the first demonstration that LLMs can be prompted to show a partiality for academic paradigms.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22426

Catégories
EN

Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Marianna Lehtisaari, Irini Katsirea, Kim Holmberg, Er-Te Zheng

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o-mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each.

Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19).

In a follow-up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o-mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two-thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago.

The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

URL : Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2018

Catégories
EN

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

Authors : Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall

Academics and departments are sometimes judged by how their research has benefited society. For example, the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) assesses Impact Case Studies (ICSs), which are five-page evidence-based claims of societal impacts.

This article investigates whether ChatGPT can evaluate societal impact claims and therefore potentially support expert human assessors. For this, various parts of 6220 public ICSs from REF2021 were fed to ChatGPT 4o-mini along with the REF2021 evaluation guidelines, comparing ChatGPT’s predictions with published departmental average ICS scores.

The results suggest that the optimal strategy for high correlations with expert scores is to input the title and summary of an ICS but not the remaining text and to modify the original REF guidelines to encourage a stricter evaluation.

The scores generated by this approach correlated positively with departmental average scores in all 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs), with values between 0.18 (Economics and Econometrics) and 0.56 (Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience).

At the departmental level, the corresponding correlations were higher, reaching 0.71 for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism. Thus, ChatGPT-based ICS evaluations are simple and viable to support or cross-check expert judgments, although their value varies substantially between fields.

URL : Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.25021

Catégories
EN

Evaluating the predictive capacity of ChatGPT for academic peer review outcomes across multiple platforms

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Abdallah Yaghi

Academic peer review is at the heart of scientific quality control, yet the process is slow and time-consuming. Technology that can predict peer review outcomes may help with this, for example by fast-tracking desk rejection decisions. While previous studies have demonstrated that Large Language Models (LLMs) can predict peer review outcomes to some extent, this paper introduces two new contexts and employs a more robust method—averaging multiple ChatGPT scores.

Averaging 30 ChatGPT predictions, based on reviewer guidelines and using only the submitted titles and abstracts failed to predict peer review outcomes for F1000Research (Spearman’s rho = 0.00). However, it produced mostly weak positive correlations with the quality dimensions of SciPost Physics (rho = 0.25 for validity, rho = 0.25 for originality, rho = 0.20 for significance, and rho = 0.08 for clarity) and a moderate positive correlation for papers from the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (rho = 0.38). Including article full texts increased the correlation for ICLR (rho = 0.46) and slightly improved it for F1000Research (rho = 0.09), with variable effects on the four quality dimension correlations for SciPost LaTeX files.

The use of simple chain-of-thought system prompts slightly increased the correlation for F1000Research (rho = 0.10), marginally reduced it for ICLR (rho = 0.37), and further decreased it for SciPost Physics (rho = 0.16 for validity, rho = 0.18 for originality, rho = 0.18 for significance, and rho = 0.05 for clarity). Overall, the results suggest that in some contexts, ChatGPT can produce weak pre-publication quality predictions.

However, their effectiveness and the optimal strategies for employing them vary considerably between platforms, journals, and conferences. Finally, the most suitable inputs for ChatGPT appear to differ depending on the platform.

URL : Evaluating the predictive capacity of ChatGPT for academic peer review outcomes across multiple platforms

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05287-1

Catégories
EN

Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT’s Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs

Author : Mike Thelwall

Evaluating the quality of academic journal articles is a time consuming but critical task for national research evaluation exercises, appointments and promotion. It is therefore important to investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can play a role in this process.

This article assesses which ChatGPT inputs (full text without tables, figures and references; title and abstract; title only) produce better quality score estimates, and the extent to which scores are affected by ChatGPT models and system prompts.

The results show that the optimal input is the article title and abstract, with average ChatGPT scores based on these (30 iterations on a dataset of 51 papers) correlating at 0.67 with human scores, the highest ever reported. ChatGPT 4o is slightly better than 3.5-turbo (0.66), and 4o-mini (0.66).

The results suggest that article full texts might confuse LLM research quality evaluations, even though complex system instructions for the task are more effective than simple ones.

Thus, whilst abstracts contain insufficient information for a thorough assessment of rigour, they may contain strong pointers about originality and significance. Finally, linear regression can be used to convert the model scores into the human scale scores, which is 31% more accurate than guessing.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06752

Catégories
EN

In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Kayvan Kousha, Emma Stuart, Meiko Makita, Mahshid Abdoli, Paul Wilson, Jonathan Levitt

Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA).

The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these.

We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.

URL : In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24767

Catégories
EN

Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Kayvan Kousha, Mahshid Abdoli, Emma Stuart, Meiko Makita, Paul Wilson, Jonathan Levitt

Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with individual article quality scores.

It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014–2017/2018, split into 34 broadly field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs). Altmetrics correlated more strongly with research quality than previously found, although less strongly than raw and field normalized Scopus citation counts.

Surprisingly, field normalizing citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best altmetric (e.g., three Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.5), tweet counts are also a moderate strength indicator in eight UoAs (Spearman correlations with quality scores above 0.3), ahead of news (eight correlations above 0.3, but generally weaker), blogs (five correlations above 0.3), and Facebook (three correlations above 0.3) citations, at least in the United Kingdom.

In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities.

URL : Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

Original location : https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asi.24751