Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2105.08118

Does publicity in the science press drive citations? A vindication of peer review

Manolis Antonoyiannakis
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study how publicity, in the form of highlighting in the science press, affects the citations of research papers. After a brief review of prior work, we analyze papers published in Physical Review Letters (PRL) that are highlighted across eight different platforms. Using multiple linear regression we identify how each platform contributes to citations. We also analyze how frequently the highlighted papers end up in the top 1% cited papers in their field. We find that the strongest predictors of medium-term citation impact -- up to 7 years post-publication -- are Viewpoints in Physics, followed by Research Highlights in Nature, Editors' Suggestions in PRL, and Research Highlights in Nature Physics. Our key conclusions are that (a) highlighting for importance identifies a citation advantage, which (b) is stratified according to the degree of vetting during peer review (internal and external to the journal). This implies that we can view highlighting platforms as predictors of citation accrual, with varying degrees of strength that mirror each platform's vetting level.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.SIphysics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Manolis Antonoyiannakis. 2021-05-17. Does publicity in the science press drive citations? A vindication of peer review. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86668-6_4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

TiAb Review Plugin: A Browser-Based Tool for AI-Assisted Study Selection in Systematic Reviews

Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills, and full-text screening has remained outside the scope of no-code open-source tools. We developed TiAb Review Plugin, an open-source Chrome browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted study selection covering both title and abstract (T&A) screening and full-text screening. It uses Google Sheets as a shared database and Google Drive as a PDF store, and users supply their own large language model (LLM) API key. For T&A screening, it offers manual review, LLM batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For full-text screening, it retrieves open-access PDFs from PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Unpaywall, OpenAlex, and publisher pages, supports blinded dual review with structured exclusion reasons and adjudication, optionally obtains an LLM judgment with page-anchored evidence, and computes PRISMA 2020 flow counts. We re-implemented the default ASReview algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript and compared it with the Python original using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM T&A screening, we compared 16 parameter configurations on a benchmark dataset, validated the best (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP 0.95) on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records; 0.5% to 2.0% prevalence), and benchmarked nine further models from four developers. The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings identical to ASReview on all six datasets. LLM T&A screening achieved recall of 94% to 100% with precision of 2% to 15%, and work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95) of 46.3% to 89.3%. No additional model exceeded the 96.1% recall of the reference configuration; the most recent models traded recall for precision. The classification accuracy of the full-text stage has not yet been evaluated.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

PaperAtlas: an automatically constructed atlas of computational methods and software from 6.4 million open-access articles

Computational methods and software are dispersed across a literature that is increasingly difficult to review manually, while curated registries capture only a subset of available resources. We present PaperAtlas, an automatically constructed atlas derived from the PubMed Central open-access corpus. Of 6,446,741 abstracts screened, 1,074,191 were classified as computational, with schema-valid records extracted for 1,074,140. Among these, 267,893 papers describing an algorithm, software package or web server formed 1,438 clusters, with 1,000 retained after restriction to parent-level biomedical categories. In 296 clusters linked to at least five bio.tools entries, the mean concentration of the most frequent EDAM topic was 61.7%, compared with 26.4% under permutation. Of 31,180 distinct software and web-server names, 61.0% lacked a strict match in bio.tools, PyPI, CRAN, Bioconductor or Bioconda. Among 12,207 bio.tools entries with defining papers in the corpus, 56.6% were recovered end to end, increasing to 83.6% among the 8,265 entries whose defining publication entered the atlas. PaperAtlas is fully open source and available as a web server at bhargavaresearch.org/paperatlas.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

FMMD: A multimodal multidisciplinary dataset of open peer reviews from F1000Research

Automated scholarly paper review (ASPR) has entered the coexistence phase with traditional peer review, where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly incorporated into real-world manuscript evaluation. In parallel, research on automated and AI-assisted peer review has proliferated. Despite this momentum, empirical progress remains constrained by several critical limitations in existing datasets. While reviewers routinely evaluate figures, tables, and complex layouts to assess scientific claims, most existing datasets remain overwhelmingly text-centric. This bias is reinforced by a narrow focus on data from computer science publications. Furthermore, existing datasets rarely preserve precise alignment between review comments and specific manuscript versions, obscuring the iterative relationship between peer review and manuscript evolution. In response, we introduce FMMD, a multimodal and multidisciplinary open peer review dataset curated from F1000Research. The dataset addresses the current limitations by integrating manuscript-level visual and structural data with version-specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions. By explicitly aligning review comments with the exact article version under review, FMMD enables granular analysis of the peer review lifecycle. Importantly, its coverage of F1000Research extends ASPR research beyond its traditional focus on computer science to a diverse range of scientific disciplines. FMMD supports a range of research tasks, including visual-semantic consistency classification, figure-related review comment generation, and editorial decision prediction based on multimodal manuscript inputs, thereby providing a comprehensive empirical resource for developing and evaluating multimodal ASPR systems and advancing peer review research.

cs.DL↗