Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.28648

Building Knowledge Graphs for Theses: A Survey

Donia Ruelas·Elmer Coyla·Miguel Aceituno·Elwin Huaman
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Academic theses are a valuable source of scientific knowledge, yet their semantic exploitation remains limited. While Scholarly Knowledge Graphs have significantly advanced the representation of scientific publications, knowledge graph construction for academic theses has received comparatively limited attention. This paper provides a systematic review of existing approaches and analyzes their potential application for the thesis domain. We analyzed 46 peer-reviewed studies published between 2021 and 2025, and organised existing approaches into a structured classification of techniques, models, and tools. The review reveals a methodological evolution from natural language processing techniques for entity and relation extraction to ontology engineering, Semantic Web technologies, and AI-driven enrichment through knowledge graph embeddings, Linked Open Data, and Large Language Models. The findings provide a consolidated view of the current state of the art and identify methodological foundations and future research directions for building knowledge graphs for the thesis domain.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Donia Ruelas, Elmer Coyla, Miguel Aceituno, Elwin Huaman. 2026-10-05. Building Knowledge Graphs for Theses: A Survey. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28648

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Large Teams Consistently Develop Science

Scientific progress depends on both developing established knowledge and disrupting it to make way for new ideas. Using the disruption index (D), our previous work showed that large teams tend to develop science, while small teams are more likely to disrupt it. Recent work challenges this finding, arguing that D mechanically depends on reference-list length. Using an alternative measure (oneD), it reaches the opposite conclusion: large teams are more disruptive. Combining Nobel Prize case studies, mathematical analysis, and large-scale publication data, we show that oneD misclassifies developmental contributions as disruptive and introduces the very sensitivity to reference-list length that it seeks to eliminate. The original measure, D, however, shows no evidence of the claimed systematic dependence on reference-list length. More fundamentally, even after controlling for reference-list length, larger teams remain more likely to produce strongly developmental work. Our findings reaffirm that large teams consistently develop science and offer new insights into the measurement of scientific disruption.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Metadata conflicts and their impact on DataCite metadata completeness in disciplinary research data repositories

This paper presents results from a study that investigates how eight disciplinary research data repositories from the geosciences and social sciences navigate metadata conflicts - conflicts in implementations of the same standard and inter-standard conflicts - and how these conflicts affect the completeness of DataCite metadata. It combines results from analyzing DataCite metadata records, structural differences between three disciplinary metadata schemas and the DataCite Metadata Schema, and a direct comparison of two metadata records describing the same dataset. The results show that both conflicts in implementations of the same standard and inter-standard conflicts contribute to incomplete DataCite metadata. In addition to inherent differences between the metadata schemas, workflows and conscious decisions by the repositories also contribute to these conflicts. Some of these conflicts could be resolved by updated metadata crosswalks, emerging initiatives for retroactive collaborative metadata enrichment, the implementation of metadata application profiles or schema updates. Other conflicts can't be resolved or are strongly connected to the repository mission. The results also highlight that metadata completeness is multifaceted, and assessment requires careful consideration of context.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

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↗