Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13782v3
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 14:49:43 GMT
- Title: Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process
- Authors: Iain Xie Weissburg, Mehir Arora, Xinyi Wang, Liangming Pan, William Yang Wang,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 82.2069685579588
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: As the number of accepted papers at AI and ML conferences reaches into the thousands, it has become unclear how researchers access and read research publications. In this paper, we investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research, particularly the citation counts of papers they share. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023, alongside controls precisely matched by 9 key covariates. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers, with median citation counts 2-3 times higher than those of the control group. Additionally, the study delves into the geographic, gender, and institutional diversity of highlighted authors. Given these findings, we advocate for a responsible approach to curation, encouraging influencers to uphold the journalistic standard that includes showcasing diverse research topics, authors, and institutions.
Related papers
- Analysis of the ICML 2023 Ranking Data: Can Authors' Opinions of Their Own Papers Assist Peer Review in Machine Learning? [52.00419656272129]
We conducted an experiment during the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)
We received 1,342 rankings, each from a distinct author, pertaining to 2,592 submissions.
We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using author-provided rankings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z) - Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals.
Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z) - Analyzing the Impact of Companies on AI Research Based on Publications [1.450405446885067]
We compare academic- and company-authored AI publications published in the last decade.
We find that the citation count an individual publication receives is significantly higher when it is (co-authored) by a company.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-31T13:27:04Z) - 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) - A Comprehensive Study of Groundbreaking Machine Learning Research:
Analyzing highly cited and impactful publications across six decades [1.6442870218029522]
Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a prominent field of research in computer science and other related fields.
It is crucial to understand the landscape of highly cited publications to identify key trends, influential authors, and significant contributions made thus far.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-01T21:43:22Z) - Forgotten Knowledge: Examining the Citational Amnesia in NLP [63.13508571014673]
We show how far back in time do we tend to go to cite papers? How has that changed over time, and what factors correlate with this citational attention/amnesia?
We show that around 62% of cited papers are from the immediate five years prior to publication, whereas only about 17% are more than ten years old.
We show that the median age and age diversity of cited papers were steadily increasing from 1990 to 2014, but since then, the trend has reversed, and current NLP papers have an all-time low temporal citation diversity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-29T18:30:34Z) - Artificial intelligence technologies to support research assessment: A
review [10.203602318836444]
This literature review identifies indicators that associate with higher impact or higher quality research from article text.
It includes studies that used machine learning techniques to predict citation counts or quality scores for journal articles or conference papers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-11T06:58:39Z) - How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors'
Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? [87.00095008723181]
Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers.
Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors.
At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-22T15:59:30Z) - Geographic Citation Gaps in NLP Research [63.13508571014673]
This work asks a series of questions on the relationship between geographical location and publication success.
We first created a dataset of 70,000 papers from the ACL Anthology, extracted their meta-information, and generated their citation network.
We show that not only are there substantial geographical disparities in paper acceptance and citation but also that these disparities persist even when controlling for a number of variables such as venue of publication and sub-field of NLP.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-26T02:25:23Z) - Community-Driven Comprehensive Scientific Paper Summarization: Insight
from cvpaper.challenge [23.10314444860379]
We organized a group of non-native English speakers to write summaries of papers presented at a computer vision conference.
We summarized a total of 2,000 papers presented at the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-17T06:31:17Z)
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.