Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?

Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances-sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances

Text Analytics for Android Project

Most advanced text analytics and text mining tasks include text classification, text clustering, building ontology, concept/entity extraction, summarization, deriving patterns within the structured data, production of granular taxonomies, sentiment and emotion analysis, document summarization, entity relation modelling, interpretation of the output. Already existing text analytics and text mining cannot develop text material alternatives (perform a multivariant design), perform multiple criteria analysis, automatically select the most effective variant according to different aspects (citation index of papers (Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) and authors (Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar), Top 25 papers, impact factor of journals, supporting phrases, document name and contents, density of keywords), calculate utility degree and market value. However, the Text Analytics for Android Project can perform the aforementioned functions. To the best of the knowledge herein, these functions have not been previously implemented; thus this is the first attempt to do so. The Text Analytics for Android Project is briefly described in this article

Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal

The importance of a research article is routinely measured by counting how many times it has been cited. However, treating all citations with equal weight ignores the wide variety of functions that citations perform. We want to automatically identify the subset of references in a bibliography that have a central academic influence on the citing paper. For this purpose, we examine the effectiveness of a variety of features for determining the academic influence of a citation. By asking authors to identify the key references in their own work, we created a data set in which citations were labeled according to their academic influence. Using automatic feature selection with supervised machine learning, we found a model for predicting academic influence that achieves good performance on this data set using only four features. The best features, among those we evaluated, were those based on the number of times a reference is mentioned in the body of a citing paper. The performance of these features inspired us to design an influence-primed h-index (the hip-index). Unlike the conventional h-index, it weights citations by how many times a reference is mentioned. According to our experiments, the hip-index is a better indicator of researcher performance than the conventional h-index

The Structure and Dynamics of Co-Citation Clusters: A Multiple-Perspective Co-Citation Analysis

A multiple-perspective co-citation analysis method is introduced for characterizing and interpreting the structure and dynamics of co-citation clusters. The method facilitates analytic and sense making tasks by integrating network visualization, spectral clustering, automatic cluster labeling, and text summarization. Co-citation networks are decomposed into co-citation clusters. The interpretation of these clusters is augmented by automatic cluster labeling and summarization. The method focuses on the interrelations between a co-citation cluster's members and their citers. The generic method is applied to a three-part analysis of the field of Information Science as defined by 12 journals published between 1996 and 2008: 1) a comparative author co-citation analysis (ACA), 2) a progressive ACA of a time series of co-citation networks, and 3) a progressive document co-citation analysis (DCA). Results show that the multiple-perspective method increases the interpretability and accountability of both ACA and DCA networks.Comment: 33 pages, 11 figures, 10 tables. To appear in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technolog

Text Summarization Techniques: A Brief Survey

In recent years, there has been a explosion in the amount of text data from a variety of sources. This volume of text is an invaluable source of information and knowledge which needs to be effectively summarized to be useful. In this review, the main approaches to automatic text summarization are described. We review the different processes for summarization and describe the effectiveness and shortcomings of the different methods.Comment: Some of references format have update