Conflicts of Interest in Published NLP Research 2000-2024

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16218v1
• Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:44:57 GMT
• Title: Conflicts of Interest in Published NLP Research 2000-2024
• Authors: Maarten Bosten, Bennett Kleinberg,
• Abstract summary: Increasing entanglement of academic research and industry interests leads to conflicts of interest.<n>Overall 27.65% of the papers contained at least one industry-affiliated author.<n>Top-tier venues (ACL, EMNLP) as main drivers for that effect.
• Score: 0.3867363075280544
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Natural Language Processing research is increasingly reliant on large scale data and computational power. Many achievements in the past decade resulted from collaborations with the tech industry. But an increasing entanglement of academic research and industry interests leads to conflicts of interest. We assessed published NLP research from 2000-2024 and labeled author affiliations as academic or industry-affiliated to measure conflicts of interest. Overall 27.65% of the papers contained at least one industry-affiliated author. That figure increased substantially with more than 1 in 3 papers having a conflict of interest in 2024. We identify top-tier venues (ACL, EMNLP) as main drivers for that effect. The paper closes with a discussion and a simple, concrete suggestion for the future.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices [89.85174013619883]
  We focus on text summarization, a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T15:35:36Z)
• 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)
• Topics, Authors, and Institutions in Large Language Model Research: Trends from 17K arXiv Papers [1.5362868418787874]
  Large language models (LLMs) are dramatically influencing AI research, spurring discussions on what has changed so far and how to shape the field's future. To clarify such questions, we analyze a new dataset of 16,979 LLM-related arXiv papers, focusing on recent trends in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. An influx of new authors -- half of all first authors in 2023 -- are entering from non-NLP fields of AI, driving disciplinary expansion. Surprisingly, industry accounts for a smaller publication share in 2023, largely due to reduced output from Google and other Big Tech companies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T08:45:00Z)
• Artificial intelligence adoption in the physical sciences, natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences and the arts and humanities: A bibliometric analysis of research publications from 1960-2021 [73.06361680847708]
  In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI, but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI (many in computer science), but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. We conclude that the context of the current surge appears different, and that interdisciplinary AI application is likely to be sustained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T14:08:07Z)
• Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment [86.77085171670323]
  We present a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T21:26:12Z)
• The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research [28.382353702576314]
  We use a corpus with comprehensive metadata of 78,187 NLP publications and 701 resumes of NLP publication authors. We find that industry presence among NLP authors has been steady before a steep increase over the past five years. A few companies account for most of the publications and provide funding to academic researchers through grants and internships.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T12:57:18Z)
• The History of AI Rights Research [0.0]
  Report documents the history of research on AI rights and other moral consideration of artificial entities. It highlights key intellectual influences on this literature as well as research and academic discussion addressing the topic more directly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-06T17:52:27Z)
• Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions [119.67643184567623]
  We review the concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. We present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to certain research gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T08:34:25Z)
• Industry and Academic Research in Computer Vision [5.634825161148484]
  This work aims to study the dynamic between research in the industry and academia in computer vision. The results are demonstrated on a set of top-5 vision conferences that are representative of the field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-10T20:09:52Z)

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.