Extracting Problem and Method Sentence from Scientific Papers: A Context-enhanced Transformer Using Formulaic Expression Desensitization

Billions of scientific papers lead to the need to identify essential parts from the massive text. Scientific research is an activity from putting forward problems to using methods. To learn the main idea from scientific papers, we focus on extracting problem and method sentences. Annotating sentences within scientific papers is labor-intensive, resulting in small-scale datasets that limit the amount of information models can learn. This limited information leads models to rely heavily on specific forms, which in turn reduces their generalization capabilities. This paper addresses the problems caused by small-scale datasets from three perspectives: increasing dataset scale, reducing dependence on specific forms, and enriching the information within sentences. To implement the first two ideas, we introduce the concept of formulaic expression (FE) desensitization and propose FE desensitization-based data augmenters to generate synthetic data and reduce models' reliance on FEs. For the third idea, we propose a context-enhanced transformer that utilizes context to measure the importance of words in target sentences and to reduce noise in the context. Furthermore, this paper conducts experiments using large language model (LLM) based in-context learning (ICL) methods. Quantitative and qualitative experiments demonstrate that our proposed models achieve a higher macro F1 score compared to the baseline models on two scientific paper datasets, with improvements of 3.71% and 2.67%, respectively. The LLM based ICL methods are found to be not suitable for the task of problem and method extraction.

Utilizing Cognitive Signals Generated during Human Reading to Enhance Keyphrase Extraction from Microblogs

Microblogging platforms generate massive amounts of short, noisy, and dispersed user content, making automatic keyphrase extraction (AKE) an important but challenging task. Prior studies have used eye-tracking signals to improve microblog-based AKE because such signals reflect readers' attention to salient words. However, eye tracking alone is limited by physiological, acquisition, and feature-decoding constraints. To address this issue, we investigate whether electroencephalogram (EEG) signals can complement eye-tracking signals for AKE. Using the ZuCo cognitive language processing corpus, we select 8 EEG features and 17 eye-tracking features and incorporate them into microblog-based AKE models. To reduce possible distortion of cognitive signals by model structures, we inject these features into the input of the soft-attention layer and the query vectors of the self-attention layer. We then evaluate different combinations of cognitive signals across AKE models. The results show that cognitive signals produced during reading consistently improve AKE performance, regardless of feature combinations and model architectures. EEG features bring the largest gains, while combining EEG and eye-tracking features yields performance between the two individual signal types, suggesting partial complementarity but also possible redundancy or noise. These findings indicate that EEG signals provide useful cognitive evidence for microblog-based AKE and that multimodal cognitive signals deserve further investigation.

Automatic Generation of Highlights for Academic Paper Via Prompt-based Learning

Highlights provide a concise summary of the main contributions of an academic paper and help readers quickly understand its focus. However, many journals do not provide highlights, which limits their use in literature retrieval, text mining, and bibliometric analysis. Existing studies have explored supervised learning methods for automatic highlight extraction, but these methods usually require large amounts of labeled training data. This study investigates prompt-based learning for automatic highlight generation. We design task-specific prompt templates and combine them with paper abstracts as model inputs. Several language models are evaluated, including locally deployed pre-trained models such as GPT-2 and T5, as well as ChatGPT accessed through an API. Experiments on three datasets show that ChatGPT with prompt templates achieves performance comparable to previous supervised methods without using task-specific training samples. When a small number of examples are added to the prompts, the model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on two datasets. We further analyze how prompt design affects generation quality and find that, although ChatGPT has strong language modeling ability, its performance on this task is highly sensitive to the information provided in the prompt. Case studies also show that the generated highlights are generally coherent, informative, and close to author-written highlights. This study is among the first to apply prompt-based learning to academic highlight generation. The proposed method does not rely on domain-specific training corpora and can generate highlights for papers that lack such information, thereby supporting downstream text mining and bibliometric research.

Measuring Research Difficulty of Academic Papers: A Case Study in Natural Language Processing

With the rapid growth of the number of academic papers, systematically evaluating the difficulty of research and its relationship to academic impact offers important significance for research topic selection and resource allocation. However, current studies lack quantitative assessments of research difficulty and its correlation with academic impact. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation system for research difficulty, incorporating factors such as academic collaboration, content, and references. Taking the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) as a case study, we extract both internal and external features from academic papers, compute multiple research difficulty indicators. We assign their weights using the entropy weight method and perform a weighted sum to obtain the research difficulty score of academic papers. This paper uses the citation frequency of academic papers to measure academic impact. To validate our approach, NLP experts assessed the difficulty of a sample of papers, and correlation analyses confirmed the reliability of our measurement. Empirical results reveal that in NLP, factors such as the number of pages, reference count, and participation of high-level institutions are significantly associated with academic impact. Moreover, we identify an inverted U-shaped relationship between research difficulty and academic impact. It suggests that moderately difficult research tends to achieve greater academic impact.

Data-Driven Evolution of Library and Information Science Research Methods (1990-2022): A Perspective Based on Fine-grained Method Entities

Since the 1990s, advancements in big data and information technology have increasingly driven data-centric research in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). To assess the influence of this data-driven research paradigm on the LIS discipline, this study conducts a fine-grained analysis to uncover the evolutionary trends of research methods within the domain. Using academic papers from LIS published between 1990 and 2022, four key categories of data-driven method entities are automatically extracted: algorithms and models, data resources, software and tools, and metrics. Based on these entities, the study examines the evolution of LIS research methods from three dimensions: the characteristics of research method entities over time, their evolution within different research topics, and the evolutionary features of research method entities across various research methods. The findings highlight data resources as a pivotal driver of methodological evolution in LIS, revealing a cyclical pattern of "emergence-stability/practical application" in the development of research methods within the field.

Aspect-Based Sentiment Evolution and its Correlation with Review Rounds in Multi-Round Peer Reviews: A Deep Learning Approach

Mining sentiment information from the textual content of peer review comments offers valuable insights into the scientific evaluation process. However, previous studies are often constrained by coarse-grained analysis and the lack of differentiation across review rounds. Notably, the dynamic shifts in reviewers' focus and sentiment tendencies throughout multiple review stages remain underexplored. To address this gap, the present study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments and examines their correlation with the number of review rounds. We begin by segmenting the multi-round review comments of 11,063 accepted papers from Nature Communications and identifying fine-grained review aspect clusters. A manually annotated corpus of approximately 5,000 review sentences is then constructed. Using this dataset, we train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models. Among them, the LCF-BERT-CDM model achieves the best performance, with a Macro-F1 score of 82.65%. Subsequent statistical analysis reveals a consistent trend: as the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline. Correlation analysis further indicates that aspect sentiment scores are negatively associated with the total number of review rounds. Key aspects exhibiting stronger correlations include "experiments", "research significance" and "result analysis".

Is Higher Team Gender Diversity Correlated with Better Scientific Impact?

Collaborative research involving scholars of various genders constitutes a prominent theme in scientific research that has garnered substantial attention. While several studies have investigated the connection between gender-specific collaboration patterns and the scientific impact of paper, the specific gender diversity factors that contribute to enhanced scientific impact remain largely unexplored. In this study, we analyze the correlation between gender diversity and the scientific impact of papers using the examples of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Library and Information Science (LIS) domains. Our findings reveal three key observations: First, significant gender disparities exist in both NLP and LIS domains, with underrepresentation of female scholars. The gender disparity is more pronounced in the NLP domain compared to the LIS domain. Second, based on papers from the NLP and LIS domains, we find that papers with different gender compositions achieve varying numbers of citations, with mixed-gender collaborations gradually obtaining higher average citation counts compared to same-gender collaborations. Lastly, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the gender diversity of paper collaborations and the number of citations received by those papers. Based on the most impactful gender diversity calculations, the ideal gender ratio for NLP and LIS teams within a range where one gender constitutes 5% to 15% of the total number of authors. This paper contributes to the exploration of the most impactful gender diversity in collaborative research and offers insights to guide more effective scientific paper collaboration.

Exploring Academic Influence of Algorithms by Co-occurrence Network Based on Full-text of Academic Papers

Algorithms have become central to scientific research in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Although algorithm mentions in papers are often used to indicate popularity and influence, existing studies usually evaluate individual algorithms in isolation and pay limited attention to the collective influence formed through their interconnections. This study constructs large-scale algorithm co-occurrence networks in natural language processing (NLP) based on the full text of academic papers and investigates algorithm influence from a network perspective. Using deep learning models, we extract algorithm entities and build overall, cumulative, and annual co-occurrence networks. We analyze their structural characteristics and apply multiple centrality measures to assess the group influence of algorithms across the whole field and over time. The results show that algorithm networks display typical features of complex networks, with increasingly dense connections developing over approximately two decades. Classic, high-performing algorithms and those located at the intersections of different research periods tend to have high popularity, control, centrality, and balanced influence. When the influence of an algorithm declines, it usually loses its core network position first, followed by weaker associations with other algorithms. This study is the first large-scale analysis of algorithm co-occurrence networks. Covering more than four decades of academic publications, it provides a temporal and structural view of algorithm influence and offers a foundation for future research on networks linking algorithms, scholars, and tasks.

Which Sections of a Research Paper Best Reveal Its Research Methods? Evidence from Library and Information Science

Research methods are essential carriers of knowledge contribution in academic papers. Automatic multi-label classification of research methods can support knowledge services such as method retrieval, review generation, and research intelligence analysis. While existing studies primarily rely on titles and abstracts, abstracts often provide only limited methodological information, whereas utilizing full-text content faces challenges related to excessive length and information redundancy. Therefore, this paper proposes a segment combination strategy by partitioning the full-text content according to its physical postion. Using an annotated corpus of 1,954 full-text articles from three representative journals in Library and Information Science (JASIST, LISR, and JDoc), we evaluate the classification performance of various segments and their combinations across multiple models. Experimental results indicate that methodological information is distributed unevenly within the full-text content, with the middle-to-late and final segments exhibiting greater discriminative power. Furthermore, integrating bibliographic metadata with cross-segment combination strategies effectively enhances classification performance.

Examining the Cognitive Gap Between Authors and Peer Reviewers on Academic Paper Novelty

Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.