Sentiment-aware Enhancements of PageRank-based Citation Metric, Impact Factor, and H-index for Ranking the Authors of Scholarly Articles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08176v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:01:25 GMT
• Title: Sentiment-aware Enhancements of PageRank-based Citation Metric, Impact Factor, and H-index for Ranking the Authors of Scholarly Articles
• Authors: Shikha Gupta and Animesh Kumar
• Abstract summary: considering the sentiment behind citations aids in a better understanding of the viewpoints of fellow researchers for the scholarly output of an author. The only way to evaluate an author has been frequency-based citation metrics that assume citations to be of a neutral sentiment.
• Score: 3.97048491084787
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Heretofore, the only way to evaluate an author has been frequency-based citation metrics that assume citations to be of a neutral sentiment. However, considering the sentiment behind citations aids in a better understanding of the viewpoints of fellow researchers for the scholarly output of an author.

Related papers

• Rethinking Review Citations: Impact on Scientific Integrity [0.0]
  The proliferation of surveys and review articles in academic journals has impacted citation metrics like impact factor and h-index. This work investigates the implications of this trend, focusing on the field of Computer Science. We advocate for prioritizing citations of primary research in journal articles to uphold citation integrity and ensure fair recognition of substantive contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T11:02:31Z)
• 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)
• A Comparative Analysis of Faithfulness Metrics and Humans in Citation Evaluation [22.041561519672456]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate content with unsupported or unverifiable content, known as "hallucinations" We propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishing citations between three-category support levels. Our results indicate no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, highlighting the complexity of accurately evaluating fine-grained support levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T13:44:31Z)
• ALiiCE: Evaluating Positional Fine-grained Citation Generation [54.19617927314975]
  We propose ALiiCE, the first automatic evaluation framework for fine-grained citation generation. Our framework first parses the sentence claim into atomic claims via dependency analysis and then calculates citation quality at the atomic claim level. We evaluate the positional fine-grained citation generation performance of several Large Language Models on two long-form QA datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T09:16:14Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• 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)
• A Measure of Research Taste [91.3755431537592]
  We present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste. The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity. We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T18:01:47Z)
• Citations are not opinions: a corpus linguistics approach to understanding how citations are made [0.0]
  Key issue in citation content analysis is looking for linguistic structures that characterize distinct classes of citations. In this study, we start with a large sample of a pre-classified citation corpus, 2 million citations from each class of the scite Smart Citation dataset. By generating comparison tables for each citation type, we present a number of interesting linguistic features that uniquely characterize citation type.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-16T12:52:27Z)
• How are journals cited? characterizing journal citations by type of citation [0.0]
  We present initial results on the statistical characterization of citations to journals based on citation function. We also present initial results of characterizing the ratio of supports and disputes received by a journal as a potential indicator of quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-22T14:15:50Z)
• Context-Based Quotation Recommendation [60.93257124507105]
  We propose a novel context-aware quote recommendation system. It generates a ranked list of quotable paragraphs and spans of tokens from a given source document. We conduct experiments on a collection of speech transcripts and associated news articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-17T17:49:53Z)
• The Demise of Single-Authored Publications in Computer Science: A Citation Network Analysis [0.0]
  I analyze the DBLP database to study role of single author publications in the computer science literature between 1940 and 2019. I examine the demographics and reception by computing the population fraction, citation statistics, and scores of single author publications over the years.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-02T07:47:44Z)

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.