Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2407.19942

Predicting citation impact of research papers using GPT and other text embeddings

Abstract

The impact of research papers, typically measured in terms of citation counts, depends on several factors, including the reputation of the authors, journals, and institutions, in addition to the quality of the scientific work. In this paper, we present an approach that combines natural language processing and machine learning to predict the impact of papers in a specific journal. Our focus is on the text, which should correlate with impact and the topics covered in the research. We employed a dataset of over 40,000 articles from ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces spanning from 2012 to 2022. The data was processed using various text embedding techniques and classified with supervised machine learning algorithms. Papers were categorized into the top 20% most cited within the journal, using both yearly and cumulative citation counts as metrics. Our analysis reveals that the method employing generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) was the most efficient for embedding, while the random forest algorithm exhibited the best predictive power among the machine learning algorithms. An optimized accuracy of 80\% in predicting whether a paper was among the top 20% most cited was achieved for the cumulative citation count when abstracts were processed. This accuracy is noteworthy, considering that author, institution, and early citation pattern information were not taken into account. The accuracy increased only slightly when the full texts of the papers were processed. Also significant is the finding that a simpler embedding technique, term frequency-inverse document frequency (TFIDF), yielded performance close to that of GPT. Since TFIDF captures the topics of the paper we infer that, apart from considering author and institution biases, citation counts for the considered journal may be predicted by identifying topics and "reading" the abstract of a paper.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Adilson Vital Jr., Filipi N. Silva, Osvaldo N. Oliveira Jr., Diego R. Amancio. 2024-07-29. Predicting citation impact of research papers using GPT and other text embeddings. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19942

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL

Reading the Data Back: Enriching Variable-Level Metadata for Model-Data Consistency Checks

Purpose: Research data repositories often lack variable-level metadata. Model-choice screening, checking whether a reported model suits the values of its outcome variable, also requires summaries of those values and links to the analyses that use them. We ask how repositories can represent and acquire them as metadata with evidence and review histories. Methods: We propose a metadata application profile compatible with the Data Documentation Initiative Cross-Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) model, linking versioned variables and empirical profiles to reported analyses, estimators, and analysis roles. Extraction provenance and review decisions are recorded separately. We evaluate streaming data profiling, deterministic extraction from Stata and R code, and language-model extraction of analysis records from papers. Results: A worked export of one replication package illustrates the profile: it passes shape and interchange checks and answers four queries, one of which returns the analyses that raise no alert. Screening 4,868 replication datasets from six political-science journals links outcomes to profiled columns in 1,440 deposits and flags 965, including 14 of the 21 deposits with a hand-verified linear model on a count, proportion, binary, or ordinal outcome. AI-assisted adjudication yields 55% precision on a near-balanced sample of 119 count and proportion candidates; screening rules were developed on the same corpus. Conclusion: The profile makes analysis-variable relationships queryable while preserving evidence and review history; screening yields review candidates with context. Code, metadata, and measurements are released.

cs.DL

From Code Archival to Knowledge Graph: Bridging Software Heritage, COAR Notify and Wikidata

Software is a first-class scientific object, yet validated links between source code and the scholarly record remain largely absent from the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud, isolating archived artefacts from semantic discovery. This paper presents an end-to-end reconciliation pipeline that harvests, validates, and models publication-to-repository pairs from sources where the link between a paper and its source code is explicit and editorially verified: the software-centric journals JOSS, SoftwareX, and IPOL, together with the reproducibility reports of the SIGMOD Availability and Reproducibility Initiative (ARI). This yields a curated corpus of 4,397 $\langle$DOI, repository-URL$\rangle$ pairs. We design two distinct application profiles grounded in Wikidata classes (one for scholarly articles, one for software instances) aligned with the schema.org and CodeMeta vocabularies. This architectural separation enables rule-based reconciliation at two granularities: lightweight, inline publication references or standalone, first-class Wikidata software nodes equipped with SWHIDs, Software Heritage's content-addressed identifiers. A read-only lookup against Wikidata shows that only 82 of the harvested repositories were already modelled there; human-reviewed batches have since created 4{,}182 new software items cross-linked to their articles. We further show that payloads of the emerging COAR Notify protocol, an external effort we do not develop, map natively onto our input format, so the same backend could later serve a live enrichment stream. Our core contribution is a pair of application profiles that turn Wikidata into a connector between the scholarly record and archived source code; we openly release all code, application profiles, and harvested datasets.

cs.DL