Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2209.01841

Which structure of academic articles do referees pay more attention to?: perspective of peer review and full-text of academic articles

Chenglei Qin·Chengzhi Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore which structures of academic articles referees would pay more attention to, what specific content referees focus on, and whether the distribution of PRC is related to the citations. Design/methodology/approach Firstly, utilizing the feature words of section title and hierarchical attention network model (HAN) to identify the academic article structures. Secondly, analyzing the distribution of PRC in different structures according to the position information extracted by rules in PRC. Thirdly, analyzing the distribution of feature words of PRC extracted by the Chi-square test and TF-IDF in different structures. Finally, four correlation analysis methods are used to analyze whether the distribution of PRC in different structures is correlated to the citations. Findings The count of PRC distributed in Materials and Methods and Results section is significantly more than that in the structure of Introduction and Discussion, indicating that referees pay more attention to the Material and Methods and Results. The distribution of feature words of PRC in different structures is obviously different, which can reflect the content of referees' concern. There is no correlation between the distribution of PRC in different structures and the citations. Research limitations/implications Due to the differences in the way referees write peer review reports, the rules used to extract position information cannot cover all PRC. Originality/value The paper finds a pattern in the distribution of PRC in different academic article structures proving the long-term empirical understanding. It also provides insight into academic article writing: researchers should ensure the scientificity of methods and the reliability of results when writing academic article to obtain a high degree of recognition from referees.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chenglei Qin, Chengzhi Zhang. 2022-09-05. Which structure of academic articles do referees pay more attention to?: perspective of peer review and full-text of academic articles. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-05-2022-0244

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗