Search

This position paper analyzes the evolving roles of open-source and closed-source large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, emphasizing their distinct contributions and the scientific community's response to their development. Due to their advanced reasoning capabilities, closed LLMs, such as GPT-4, have dominated high-performance applications, particularly in medical imaging and multimodal diagnostics. Conversely, open LLMs, like Meta's LLaMA, have gained popularity for their adaptability and cost-effectiveness, enabling researchers to fine-tune models for specific domains, such as mental health and patient communication., Comment: Accepted by GenAI for Health Workshop @ NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver

Scientific team dynamics are critical in determining the nature and impact of research outputs. However, existing methods for classifying author roles based on self-reports and clustering lack comprehensive contextual analysis of contributions. Thus, we present a transformative approach to classifying author roles in scientific teams using advanced large language models (LLMs), which offers a more refined analysis compared to traditional clustering methods. Specifically, we seek to complement and enhance these traditional methods by utilizing open source and proprietary LLMs, such as GPT-4, Llama3 70B, Llama2 70B, and Mistral 7x8B, for role classification. Utilizing few-shot prompting, we categorize author roles and demonstrate that GPT-4 outperforms other models across multiple categories, surpassing traditional approaches such as XGBoost and BERT. Our methodology also includes building a predictive deep learning model using 10 features. By training this model on a dataset derived from the OpenAlex database, which provides detailed metadata on academic publications -- such as author-publication history, author affiliation, research topics, and citation counts -- we achieve an F1 score of 0.76, demonstrating robust classification of author roles., Comment: 14 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables

Cultural values alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) is a critical challenge due to their tendency to embed Western-centric biases from training data, leading to misrepresentations and fairness issues in cross-cultural contexts. Recent approaches, such as role-assignment and few-shot learning, often struggle with reliable cultural alignment as they heavily rely on pre-trained knowledge, lack scalability, and fail to capture nuanced cultural values effectively. To address these issues, we propose ValuesRAG, a novel and effective framework that applies Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with in-context learning to integrate cultural and demographic knowledge dynamically during text generation. Leveraging the World Values Survey (WVS) dataset, ValuesRAG first generates summaries of values for each individual. Subsequently, we curated several representative regional datasets to serve as test datasets and retrieve relevant summaries of values based on demographic features, followed by a reranking step to select the top-k relevant summaries. ValuesRAG consistently outperforms baseline methods, both in the main experiment and in the ablation study where only the values summary was provided, highlighting ValuesRAG's potential to foster culturally aligned AI systems and enhance the inclusivity of AI-driven applications., Comment: preprint

This paper investigates the performance of several representative large models in the tasks of literature recommendation and explores potential biases in research exposure. The results indicate that not only LLMs' overall recommendation accuracy remains limited but also the models tend to recommend literature with greater citation counts, later publication date, and larger author teams. Yet, in scholar recommendation tasks, there is no evidence that LLMs disproportionately recommend male, white, or developed-country authors, contrasting with patterns of known human biases.

This paper contributes a new idea for exploring research funding effects on scholar performance. By collecting details of 9,501 research grants received by principal investigators from universities in the U.S. social sciences from 2000 to 2019 and data on their publications and citations in the Microsoft Academic Graph and Web of Science bibliographic collections, we build a novel dataset of grants and article counts, citations, and journal CiteScore. Based on this dataset, we first introduce three instrumental variables (IVs) suitable for isolating endogeneity issues in the study of competing grant effects, namely scholars' political hegemony in academia, imitation isomorphic behavior among scholars, and project familiarity. Then, this study explains the research funding effects by combining the three IVs with a two-stage least square (2SLS) model and by considering gaps from individual academics, universities, and research fields. Also, we provide validity and robustness tests of these three IVs and research funding effects. We find that our IVs serve the function of exogenizing and isolating endogeneity in capturing the research funding effect. Furthermore, empirical findings show that receiving research funding increases a scholar's research output and impact, but does not result in the scholar's research being published in more prestigious academic journals., Comment: This manuscript has successfully completed major revisions and is presently under review at Quantitative Science Studies (QSS)

Previous researches on the Information retrieval (IR) field have focused on summarizing progress and synthesizing knowledge and techniques from individual studies and data-driven experiments, the extent of contributions and collaborations between researchers from different communities (e.g., academia and industry) in advancing IR knowledge remains unclear. To address this gap, this study explores several characteristics of information retrieval research in four areas: productivity patterns and preferred venues, the relationship between citations and downloads, changes in research topics, and changes in patterns of scientific collaboration, by analyzing 53,471 papers published between 2000 and 2018 from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library dataset. Through the analysis and interpretation on empirical datasets, we find that academic research, industry research, and collaborative research between academia and industry focused on different topics. Among the collaboration models, Academia-Industry Collaboration is more oriented towards large teamwork. Collaborative networks between researchers in academia and industry suggest that the field of information retrieval has become richer over time in terms of themes, foci, and sub-themes, becoming a more diverse field of study., Comment: 43 pages, 11 figures

This paper investigates the performance of several representative large models in the field of literature recommendation and explores potential biases. The results indicate that while some large models' recommendations can be somewhat satisfactory after simple manual screening, overall, the accuracy of these models in specific literature recommendation tasks is generally moderate. Additionally, the models tend to recommend literature that is timely, collaborative, and expands or deepens the field. In scholar recommendation tasks. There is no evidence to suggest that LLMs exacerbate inequalities related to gender, race, or the level of development of countries., Comment: There are some aspects in the original research that need to be supplemented with robustness checks

AIGC tools such as ChatGPT have profoundly changed scientific research, leading to widespread attention on its use on academic writing. Leveraging preprints from large language models, this study examined the use of AIGC in manuscript writing and its correlation with author profiles. We found that: (1) since the release of ChatGPT, the likelihood of abstracts being AI-generated has gradually increased; (2) scientists from English-speaking countries are less likely to use AIGC tools for writing assistance, while those from countries with linguistic differences from English are more likely to use these tools; (3) there is weak correlation between a paper's AI-generated probability and authors' academic performance; and (4) authors who have previously published papers with high AI-generated probabilities are more likely to continue using AIGC tools. We believe that this paper provides insightful results for relevant policies and norms and in enhancing the understanding of the relationship between humans and AI., Comment: 8 pages, 4 figures, 1 table

Scientific novelty is the essential driving force for research breakthroughs and innovation. However, little is known about how early-career scientists pursue novel research paths, and the gender disparities in this process. To address this research gap, this study investigates a comprehensive dataset of 279,424 doctoral theses in biomedical sciences authored by US Ph.D. graduates. Spanning from 1980 to 2016, the data originates from the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. This study aims to shed light on Ph.D. students' pursuit of scientific novelty in their doctoral theses and assess gender-related differences in this process. Using a combinatorial approach and a pre-trained Bio-BERT model, we quantify the scientific novelty of doctoral theses based on bio-entities. Applying fractional logistic and quantile regression models, this study reveals a decreasing trend in scientific novelty over time and heterogeneous gender disparities in doctoral theses. Specifically, female students consistently exhibited lower scientific novelty levels than their male peers. When supervised by female advisors, students' theses are found to be less novel than those under male advisors. The significant interaction effect of female students and female advisors suggests that female advisors may amplify the gender disparity in scientific novelty. Moreover, heterogeneous gender disparities in scientific novelty are identified, with non-top-tier universities displaying more pronounced disparities, while the differences at higher percentile ranges were comparatively more minor. These findings indicate a potential underrepresentation of female scientists pursuing novel research during the early stages of their careers. Notably, the outcomes of this study hold significant policy implications for advancing the careers of female scientists.

Same-race mentorship preference refers to mentors or mentees forming connections significantly influenced by a shared race. Although racial diversity in science has been well-studied and linked to favorable outcomes, the extent and effects of same-race mentorship preferences remain largely underexplored. Here, we analyze 465,355 mentor-mentee pairs from more than 60 research areas over the last 70 years to investigate the effect of same-race mentorship preferences on mentees' academic performance and survival. We use causal inference and statistical matching to measure same-race mentorship preferences while accounting for racial demographic variations across institutions, time periods, and research fields. Our findings reveal a pervasive same-race mentorship propensity across races, fields, and universities of varying research intensity. We observe an increase in same-race mentorship propensity over the years, further reinforced inter-generationally within a mentorship lineage. This propensity is more pronounced for minorities (Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics). Our results reveal that mentees under the supervision of mentors with high same-race propensity experience significantly lower productivity, impact, and collaboration reach during and after training, ultimately leading to a 27.6% reduced likelihood of remaining in academia. In contrast, a mentorship approach devoid of racial propensity appears to offer the best prospects for academic performance and persistence. These findings underscore the importance of mentorship diversity for academic success and shed light on factors contributing to minority underrepresentation in science., Comment: 1. After further evaluating the race prediction method, we observed unsatisfactory accuracy and F1 scores. The study's findings could be impacted by these subpar predictions. 2. Our study incorporates both US and non-US samples, revealing that non-US samples may introduce outliers and distort the results. We recognize that the study's findings and conclusions might be affected by data quality

Artificial Intelligence (AI), a cornerstone of 21st-century technology, has seen remarkable growth in China. In this paper, we examine China's AI development process, demonstrating that it is characterized by rapid learning and differentiation, surpassing the export-oriented growth propelled by Foreign Direct Investment seen in earlier Asian industrializers. Our data indicates that China currently leads the USA in the volume of AI-related research papers. However, when we delve into the quality of these papers based on specific metrics, the USA retains a slight edge. Nevertheless, the pace and scale of China's AI development remain noteworthy. We attribute China's accelerated AI progress to several factors, including global trends favoring open access to algorithms and research papers, contributions from China's broad diaspora and returnees, and relatively lax data protection policies. In the vein of our research, we have developed a novel measure for gauging China's imitation of US research. Our analysis shows that by 2018, the time lag between China and the USA in addressing AI research topics had evaporated. This finding suggests that China has effectively bridged a significant knowledge gap and could potentially be setting out on an independent research trajectory. While this study compares China and the USA exclusively, it's important to note that research collaborations between these two nations have resulted in more highly cited work than those produced by either country independently. This underscores the power of international cooperation in driving scientific progress in AI.

With an exponential increase in submissions to top-tier Computer Science (CS) conferences, more and more conferences have introduced a rebuttal stage to the conference peer review process. The rebuttal stage can be modeled as social interactions between authors and reviewers. A successful rebuttal often results in an increased review score after the rebuttal stage. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to determine the factors contributing to a successful rebuttal using over 3,000 papers and 13,000 reviews from ICLR2022, one of the most prestigious computer science conferences. First, we observe a significant difference in review scores before and after the rebuttal stage, which is crucial for paper acceptance. Furthermore, we investigate factors from the reviewer's perspective using signed social network analysis. A notable finding is the increase in balanced network structure after the rebuttal stage. Subsequently, we evaluate several quantifiable author rebuttal strategies and their effects on review scores. These strategies can help authors in improving their review scores. Finally, we used machine learning models to predict rebuttal success and validated the impact of potential factors analyzed in this paper. Our experiments demonstrate that the utilization of all features proposed in this study can aid in predicting the success of the rebuttal. In summary, this work presents a study on the impact factors of successful rebuttals from both reviewers' and authors' perspectives and lays the foundation for analyzing rebuttals with social network analysis.

Leadership is evolving dynamically from an individual endeavor to shared efforts. This paper aims to advance our understanding of shared leadership in scientific teams. We define three kinds of leaders, junior (10-15), mid (15-20), and senior (20+) based on career age. By considering the combinations of any two leaders, we distinguish shared leadership as heterogeneous when leaders are in different age cohorts and homogeneous when leaders are in the same age cohort. Drawing on 1,845,351 CS, 254,039 Sociology, and 193,338 Business teams with two leaders in the OpenAlex dataset, we identify that heterogeneous shared leadership brings higher citation impact for teams than homogeneous shared leadership. Specifically, when junior leaders are paired with senior leaders, it significantly increases team citation ranking by 1-2%, in comparison with two leaders of similar age. We explore the patterns between homogeneous leaders and heterogeneous leaders from team scale, expertise composition, and knowledge recency perspectives. Compared with homogeneous leaders, heterogeneous leaders are more adaptive in large teams, have more diverse expertise, and trace both the newest and oldest references.

We have proposed and experimentally verified a tunable inter-qubit coupling scheme for large-scale integration of superconducting qubits. The key feature of the scheme is the insertion of connecting pads between qubit and tunable coupling element. In such a way, the distance between two qubits can be increased considerably to a few millimeters, leaving enough space for arranging control lines, readout resonators and other necessary structures. The increased inter-qubit distance provides more wiring space for flip-chip process and reduces crosstalk between qubits and from control lines to qubits. We use the term Tunable Coupler with Capacitively Connecting Pad (TCCP) to name the tunable coupling part that consists of a transmon coupler and capacitively connecting pads. With the different placement of connecting pads, different TCCP architectures can be realized. We have designed and fabricated a few multi-qubit devices in which TCCP is used for coupling. The measured results show that the performance of the qubits coupled by the TCCP, such as $T_1$ and $T_2$, was similar to that of the traditional transmon qubits without TCCP. Meanwhile, our TCCP also exhibited a wide tunable range of the effective coupling strength and a low residual ZZ interaction between the qubits by properly tuning the parameters on the design. Finally, we successfully implemented an adiabatic CZ gate with TCCP. Furthermore, by introducing TCCP, we also discuss the realization of the flip-chip process and tunable coupling qubits between different chips., Comment: Main text: 7 pages, 6 figures

[Purpose] To better understand the online reviews and help potential consumers, businessmen, and product manufacturers effectively obtain users' evaluation on product aspects, this paper explores the distribution regularities of user attention and sentiment toward product aspects from the temporal perspective of online reviews. [Design/methodology/approach] Temporal characteristics of online reviews (purchase time, review time, and time intervals between purchase time and review time), similar attributes clustering, and attribute-level sentiment computing technologies are employed based on more than 340k smartphone reviews of three products from JD.COM (a famous online shopping platform in China) to explore the distribution regularities of user attention and sentiment toward product aspects in this article. [Findings] The empirical results show that a power-law distribution can fit user attention to product aspects, and the reviews posted in short time intervals contain more product aspects. Besides, the results show that the values of user sentiment of product aspects are significantly higher/lower in short time intervals which contribute to judging the advantages and weaknesses of a product. [Research limitations] The paper can't acquire online reviews for more products with temporal characteristics to verify the findings because of the restriction on reviews crawling by the shopping platforms. [Originality/value] This work reveals the distribution regularities of user attention and sentiment toward product aspects, which is of great significance in assisting decision-making, optimizing review presentation, and improving the shopping experience.

Incorporating fresh members in teams is considered a pathway to team creativity. However, whether freshness improves team performance or not remains unclear, as well as the optimal involvement of fresh members for team performance. This study uses a group of authors on the byline of a publication as a proxy for a scientific team. We extend an indicator, i.e., team freshness, to measure the extent to which a scientific team incorporates new members, by calculating the fraction of new collaboration relations established within the team. Based on more than 43 million scientific publications covering more than a half-century of research from Microsoft Academic Graph, this study provides a holistic picture of the current development of team freshness by outlining the temporal evolution of freshness, and its disciplinary distribution. Subsequently, using a multivariable regression approach, we examine the association between team freshness and papers'short-term and long-term citations.The major findings are as follows: (1)team freshness in scientific teams has been increasing in the past half-century; (2)there exists an inverted-U-shaped association between team freshness and papers' citations in all the disciplines and in different periods;(3)the inverted-U-shaped relationship between team freshness and papers' citations is only found in small teams, while, in large teams, team freshness is significantly positively related to papers' citations.

This paper elaborates how to identify and evaluate causal factors to improve scientific impact. Currently, analyzing scientific impact can be beneficial to various academic activities including funding application, mentor recommendation, and discovering potential cooperators etc. It is universally acknowledged that high-impact scholars often have more opportunities to receive awards as an encouragement for their hard working. Therefore, scholars spend great efforts in making scientific achievements and improving scientific impact during their academic life. However, what are the determinate factors that control scholars' academic success? The answer to this question can help scholars conduct their research more efficiently. Under this consideration, our paper presents and analyzes the causal factors that are crucial for scholars' academic success. We first propose five major factors including article-centered factors, author-centered factors, venue-centered factors, institution-centered factors, and temporal factors. Then, we apply recent advanced machine learning algorithms and jackknife method to assess the importance of each causal factor. Our empirical results show that author-centered and article-centered factors have the highest relevancy to scholars' future success in the computer science area. Additionally, we discover an interesting phenomenon that the h-index of scholars within the same institution or university are actually very close to each other.

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all co-authors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of co-authors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Scientometrics studies have extended from direct citations to high-order citations, as simple citation count is found to tell only part of the story regarding scientific impact. This extension is deemed to be beneficial in scenarios like research evaluation, science history modeling, and information retrieval. In contrast to citations of citations (forward citation generations), references of references (backward citation generations) as another side of high-order citations, is relatively less explored. We adopt a series of metrics for measuring the unfolding of backward citations of a focal paper, tracing back to its knowledge ancestors generation by generation. Two sub-fields in Physics are subject to such analysis on a large-scale citation network. Preliminary results show that (1) most papers in our dataset can be traced to their knowledge ancestry; (2) the size distribution of backward citation generations presents a decreasing-and-then-increasing shape; and (3) citations more than one generation away are still relevant to the focal paper, from either a forward or backward perspective; yet, backward citation generations are higher in topic relevance to the paper of interest. Furthermore, the backward citation generations shed lights for literature recommendation, science evaluation, and sociology of science studies.

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pre-trained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic., Comment: 19 pages, 3 figures

Innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) are occurring at speeds faster than ever witnessed before. However, few studies have managed to measure or depict this increasing velocity of innovations in the field of AI. In this paper, we combine data on AI from arXiv and Semantic Scholar to explore the pace of AI innovations from three perspectives: AI publications, AI players, and AI updates (trial and error). A research framework and three novel indicators, Average Time Interval (ATI), Innovation Speed (IS) and Update Speed (US), are proposed to measure the pace of innovations in the field of AI. The results show that: (1) in 2019, more than 3 AI preprints were submitted to arXiv per hour, over 148 times faster than in 1994. Furthermore, there was one deep learning-related preprint submitted to arXiv every 0.87 hours in 2019, over 1,064 times faster than in 1994. (2) For AI players, 5.26 new researchers entered into the field of AI each hour in 2019, more than 175 times faster than in the 1990s. (3) As for AI updates (trial and error), one updated AI preprint was submitted to arXiv every 41 days, with around 33% of AI preprints having been updated at least twice in 2019. In addition, as reported in 2019, it took, on average, only around 0.2 year for AI preprints to receive their first citations, which is 5 times faster than 2000-2007. This swift pace in AI illustrates the increase in popularity of AI innovation. The systematic and fine-grained analysis of the AI field enabled to portrait the pace of AI innovation and demonstrated that the proposed approach can be adopted to understand other fast-growing fields such as cancer research and nano science., Comment: Journal of Informetrics 2021

Responsible indicators are crucial for research assessment and monitoring. Transparency and accuracy of indicators are required to make research assessment fair and ensure reproducibility. However, sometimes it is difficult to conduct or replicate studies based on indicators due to the lack of transparency in conceptualization and operationalization. In this paper, we review the different variants of the Probabilistic Affinity Index (PAI), considering both the conceptual and empirical underpinnings. We begin with a review of the historical development of the indicator and the different alternatives proposed. To demonstrate the utility of the indicator, we demonstrate the application of PAI to identifying preferred partners in scientific collaboration. A streamlined procedure is provided, to demonstrate the variations and appropriate calculations. We then compare the results of implementation for five specific countries involved in international scientific collaboration. Despite the different proposals on its calculation, we do not observe large differences between the PAI variants, particularly with respect to country size. As with any indicator, the selection of a particular variant is dependent on the research question. To facilitate appropriate use, we provide recommendations for the use of the indicator given specific contexts., Comment: 35 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables

The emergence of the novel COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global healthcare and the economy over the past few months. The virus's rapid widespread has led to a proliferation in biomedical research addressing the pandemic and its related topics. One of the essential Knowledge Discovery tools that could help the biomedical research community understand and eventually find a cure for COVID-19 are Knowledge Graphs. The CORD-19 dataset is a collection of publicly available full-text research articles that have been recently published on COVID-19 and coronavirus topics. Here, we use several Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Knowledge Graph construction and mining techniques to formalize and extract insights from the PubMed dataset and the CORD-19 dataset to identify COVID-19 related experts and bio-entities. Besides, we suggest possible techniques to predict related diseases, drug candidates, gene, gene mutations, and related compounds as part of a systematic effort to apply Knowledge Discovery methods to help biomedical researchers tackle the pandemic., Comment: 8 pages; Accepted by ACM KDD 2020

PubMed is an essential resource for the medical domain, but useful concepts are either difficult to extract or are ambiguated, which has significantly hindered knowledge discovery. To address this issue, we constructed a PubMed knowledge graph (PKG) by extracting bio-entities from 29 million PubMed abstracts, disambiguating author names, integrating funding data through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ExPORTER, collecting affiliation history and educational background of authors from ORCID, and identifying fine-grained affiliation data from MapAffil. Through the integration of the credible multi-source data, we could create connections among the bio-entities, authors, articles, affiliations, and funding. Data validation revealed that the BioBERT deep learning method of bio-entity extraction significantly outperformed the state-of-the-art models based on the F1 score (by 0.51%), with the author name disambiguation (AND) achieving a F1 score of 98.09%. PKG can trigger broader innovations, not only enabling us to measure scholarly impact, knowledge usage, and knowledge transfer, but also assisting us in profiling authors and organizations based on their connections with bio-entities. The PKG is freely available on Figshare (https://figshare.com/s/6327a55355fc2c99f3a2, simplified version that exclude PubMed raw data) and TACC website (http://er.tacc.utexas.edu/datasets/ped, full version)., Comment: 19 pages, 5 figures, 14 tables

Citation analysis, as a tool for quantitative studies of science, has long emphasized direct citation relations, leaving indirect or high order citations overlooked. However, a series of early and recent studies demonstrate the existence of indirect and continuous citation impact across generations. Adding to the literature on high order citations, we introduce the concept of a citation cascade: the constitution of a series of subsequent citing events initiated by a certain publication. We investigate this citation structure by analyzing more than 450,000 articles and over 6 million citation relations. We show that citation impact exists not only within the three generations documented in prior research, but also in much further generations. Still, our experimental results indicate that two to four generations are generally adequate to trace a work's scientific impact. We also explore specific structural properties such as depth, width, structural virality, and size, which account for differences among individual citation cascades. Finally, we find evidence that it is more important for a scientific work to inspire trans domain (or indirectly related domain) works than to receive only intra domain recognition in order to achieve high impact. Our methods and findings can serve as a new tool for scientific evaluation and the modeling of scientific history.

The number of publications and the number of citations received have become the most common indicators of scholarly success. In this context, scientific writing increasingly plays an important role in scholars' scientific careers. To understand the relationship between scientific writing and scientific impact, this paper selected 12 variables of linguistic complexity as a proxy for depicting scientific writing. We then analyzed these features from 36,400 full-text Biology articles and 1,797 full-text Psychology articles. These features were compared to the scientific impact of articles, grouped into high, medium, and low categories. The results suggested no practical significant relationship between linguistic complexity and citation strata in either discipline. This suggests that textual complexity plays little role in scientific impact in our data sets., Comment: 27pages, 6 figures, accepted by Journal of Informetrics

The citation impact of a scientific publication is usually seen as a one-dimensional concept. We introduce a multi-dimensional framework for characterizing the citation impact of a publication. In addition to the level of citation impact, quantified by the number of citations received by a publication, we also conceptualize and operationalize the depth and breadth and the dependence and independence of the citation impact of a publication. The proposed framework distinguishes between publications that have a deep citation impact, typically in a relatively narrow research area, and publications that have a broad citation impact, probably covering a wider area of research. It also makes a distinction between publications that are strongly dependent on earlier work and publications that make a more independent scientific contribution. We use our multi-dimensional citation impact framework to report basic descriptive statistics on the citation impact of highly cited publications in all scientific disciplines. In addition, we present a detailed case study focusing on the field of scientometrics. The proposed citation impact framework provides a more in-depth understanding of the citation impact of a publication than a traditional one-dimensional perspective., Comment: 40 pages, 9 figures, 9 tables

This paper defines and explores the direct citations between citing publications (DCCPs) of a publication. We construct an ego-centered citation network for each paper that contains all of its citing papers and itself, as well as the citation relationships among them. By utilizing a large-scale scholarly dataset from the computer science field in the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG-CS) dataset, we find that DCCPs exist universally in medium and highly cited papers. For those papers that have DCCPs, DCCPs do occur frequently; highly cited papers tend to contain more DCCPs than others. Meanwhile, the number of DCCPs of papers published in different years does not vary dramatically. The current paper also discusses the relationship between DCCPs and some indirect citation relationships (e.g., co-citation and bibliographic coupling).

Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. In order to uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (1) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (2) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity., Comment: 6 figures