Poincare: Recommending Publication Venues via Treatment Effect
Estimation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09157v2
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2022 07:10:17 GMT
- Title: Poincare: Recommending Publication Venues via Treatment Effect
Estimation
- Authors: Ryoma Sato, Makoto Yamada, Hisashi Kashima
- Abstract summary: We use a bias correction method to estimate the potential impact of choosing a publication venue effectively.
We highlight the effectiveness of our method using paper data from computer science conferences.
- Score: 40.60905158071766
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: Choosing a publication venue for an academic paper is a crucial step in the
research process. However, in many cases, decisions are based solely on the
experience of researchers, which often leads to suboptimal results. Although
there exist venue recommender systems for academic papers, they recommend
venues where the paper is expected to be published. In this study, we aim to
recommend publication venues from a different perspective. We estimate the
number of citations a paper will receive if the paper is published in each
venue and recommend the venue where the paper has the most potential impact.
However, there are two challenges to this task. First, a paper is published in
only one venue, and thus, we cannot observe the number of citations the paper
would receive if the paper were published in another venue. Secondly, the
contents of a paper and the publication venue are not statistically
independent; that is, there exist selection biases in choosing publication
venues. In this paper, we formulate the venue recommendation problem as a
treatment effect estimation problem. We use a bias correction method to
estimate the potential impact of choosing a publication venue effectively and
to recommend venues based on the potential impact of papers in each venue. We
highlight the effectiveness of our method using paper data from computer
science conferences.
Related papers
- Predicting Award Winning Research Papers at Publication Time [5.318302558039615]
We predict the likelihood for a research paper of winning an award only relying on information available at publication time.
We made our experiments considering the ArnetMiner citation graph, while the ground truth on award-winning papers has been obtained from a collection of best paper awards from 32 computer science conferences.
Remarkably, The high recall and the low false negatives rate, show how the model performs very well at identifying papers that will not win an award.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-18T12:09:10Z) - Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process [82.2069685579588]
We investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research.
We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023.
Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-24T20:05:49Z) - CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations [80.82622421055734]
CausalCite is a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers.
It is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-05T23:09:39Z) - Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References [3.607567777043649]
This study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not.
By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-27T19:51:44Z) - Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on Paper Acceptance [56.538813945721685]
We estimate the effect of arXiving a paper before the reviewing period (early arXiving) on its acceptance to the conference.
Our results suggest that early arXiving may have a small effect on a paper's chances of acceptance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-24T07:45:38Z) - Tag-Aware Document Representation for Research Paper Recommendation [68.8204255655161]
We propose a hybrid approach that leverages deep semantic representation of research papers based on social tags assigned by users.
The proposed model is effective in recommending research papers even when the rating data is very sparse.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-08T09:13:07Z) - Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores.
We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z) - Making Paper Reviewing Robust to Bid Manipulation Attacks [44.34601846490532]
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some reviewers bid on papers by "friends" or colluding authors.
We develop a novel approach for paper bidding and assignment that is much more robust against such attacks.
In addition to being more robust, the quality of our paper review assignments is comparable to that of current, non-robust assignment approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-09T21:24:16Z) - A Correspondence Analysis Framework for Author-Conference
Recommendations [2.1055643409860743]
We use Correspondence Analysis (CA) to derive appropriate relationships between the entities in question, such as conferences and papers.
Our models show promising results when compared with existing methods such as content-based filtering, collaborative filtering and hybrid filtering.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-08T18:52:39Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.