Search

Twitter bots are a controversial element of the platform, and their negative impact is well known. In the field of scientific communication, they have been perceived in a more positive light, and the accounts that serve as feeds alerting about scientific publications are quite common. However, despite being aware of the presence of bots in the dissemination of science, no large-scale estimations have been made nor has it been evaluated if they can truly interfere with altmetrics. Analyzing a dataset of 3,744,231 papers published between 2017 and 2021 and their associated 51,230,936 Twitter mentions, our goal was to determine the volume of publications mentioned by bots and whether they skew altmetrics indicators. Using the BotometerLite API, we categorized Twitter accounts based on their likelihood of being bots. The results showed that 11,073 accounts (0.23% of total users) exhibited automated behavior, contributing to 4.72% of all mentions. A significant bias was observed in the activity of bots. Their presence was particularly pronounced in disciplines such as Mathematics, Physics, and Space Sciences, with some specialties even exceeding 70% of the tweets. However, these are extreme cases, and the impact of this activity on altmetrics varies by speciality, with minimal influence in Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences. This research emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between specialties and disciplines when using Twitter as an altmetric.

Universities face increasing demands to improve their visibility, public outreach, and online presence. There is a broad consensus that scientific reputation significantly increases the attention universities receive. However, in most cases estimates of scientific reputation are based on composite or weighted indicators and absolute positions in university rankings. In this study, we adopt a more granular approach to assessment of universities' scientific performance using a multidimensional set of indicators from the Leiden Ranking and testing their individual effects on university Wikipedia page views. We distinguish between international and local attention and find a positive association between research performance and Wikipedia attention which holds for regions and linguistic areas. Additional analysis shows that productivity, scientific impact, and international collaboration have a curvilinear effect on universities' Wikipedia attention. This finding suggests that there may be other factors than scientific reputation driving the general public's interest in universities. Our study adds to a growing stream of work which views altmetrics as tools to deepen science-society interactions rather than direct measures of impact and recognition of scientific outputs.

Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) is based on seven technical requirements sustained over three main pillars that should be met throughout the system's entire life cycle: it should be (1) lawful, (2) ethical, and (3) robust, both from a technical and a social perspective. However, attaining truly trustworthy AI concerns a wider vision that comprises the trustworthiness of all processes and actors that are part of the system's life cycle, and considers previous aspects from different lenses. A more holistic vision contemplates four essential axes: the global principles for ethical use and development of AI-based systems, a philosophical take on AI ethics, a risk-based approach to AI regulation, and the mentioned pillars and requirements. The seven requirements (human agency and oversight; robustness and safety; privacy and data governance; transparency; diversity, non-discrimination and fairness; societal and environmental wellbeing; and accountability) are analyzed from a triple perspective: What each requirement for trustworthy AI is, Why it is needed, and How each requirement can be implemented in practice. On the other hand, a practical approach to implement trustworthy AI systems allows defining the concept of responsibility of AI-based systems facing the law, through a given auditing process. Therefore, a responsible AI system is the resulting notion we introduce in this work, and a concept of utmost necessity that can be realized through auditing processes, subject to the challenges posed by the use of regulatory sandboxes. Our multidisciplinary vision of trustworthy AI culminates in a debate on the diverging views published lately about the future of AI. Our reflections in this matter conclude that regulation is a key for reaching a consensus among these views, and that trustworthy and responsible AI systems will be crucial for the present and future of our society., Comment: 30 pages, 5 figures, under second review

Federated learning (FL) brings collaborative intelligence into industries without centralized training data to accelerate the process of Industry 4.0 on the edge computing level. FL solves the dilemma in which enterprises wish to make the use of data intelligence with security concerns. To accelerate industrial Internet of things with the further leverage of FL, existing achievements on FL are developed from three aspects: 1) define terminologies and elaborate a general framework of FL for accommodating various scenarios; 2) discuss the state-of-the-art of FL on fundamental researches including data partitioning, privacy preservation, model optimization, local model transportation, personalization, motivation mechanism, platform & tools, and benchmark; 3) discuss the impacts of FL from the economic perspective. To attract more attention from industrial academia and practice, a FL-transformed manufacturing paradigm is presented, and future research directions of FL are given and possible immediate applications in Industry 4.0 domain are also proposed.

Decision making models are constrained by taking the expert evaluations with pre-defined numerical or linguistic terms. We claim that the use of sentiment analysis will allow decision making models to consider expert evaluations in natural language. Accordingly, we propose the Sentiment Analysis based Multi-person Multi-criteria Decision Making (SA-MpMcDM) methodology for smarter decision aid, which builds the expert evaluations from their natural language reviews, and even from their numerical ratings if they are available. The SA-MpMcDM methodology incorporates an end-to-end multi-task deep learning model for aspect based sentiment analysis, named DOC-ABSADeepL model, able to identify the aspect categories mentioned in an expert review, and to distill their opinions and criteria. The individual evaluations are aggregated via the procedure named criteria weighting through the attention of the experts. We evaluate the methodology in a case study of restaurant choice using TripAdvisor reviews, hence we build, manually annotate, and release the TripR-2020 dataset of restaurant reviews. We analyze the SA-MpMcDM methodology in different scenarios using and not using natural language and numerical evaluations. The analysis shows that the combination of both sources of information results in a higher quality preference vector.

There exist situations of decision-making under information overload in the Internet, where people have an overwhelming number of available options to choose from, e.g. products to buy in an e-commerce site, or restaurants to visit in a large city. Recommender systems arose as a data-driven personalized decision support tool to assist users in these situations: they are able to process user-related data, filtering and recommending items based on the users preferences, needs and/or behaviour. Unlike most conventional recommender approaches where items are inanimate entities recommended to the users and success is solely determined upon the end users reaction to the recommendation(s) received, in a Reciprocal Recommender System (RRS) users become the item being recommended to other users. Hence, both the end user and the user being recommended should accept the 'matching' recommendation to yield a successful RRS performance. The operation of an RRS entails not only predicting accurate preference estimates upon user interaction data as classical recommenders do, but also calculating mutual compatibility between (pairs of) users, typically by applying fusion processes on unilateral user-to-user preference information. This paper presents a snapshot-style analysis of the extant literature that summarizes the state-of-the-art RRS research to date, focusing on the algorithms, fusion processes and fundamental characteristics of RRS, both inherited from conventional user-to-item recommendation models and those inherent to this emerging family of approaches. Representative RRS models are likewise highlighted. Following this, we discuss the challenges and opportunities for future research on RRSs, with special focus on (i) fusion strategies to account for reciprocity and (ii) emerging application domains related to social recommendation., Comment: This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to an author dispute

Epidemic is a rapid and wide spread of infectious disease threatening many lives and economy damages. It is important to fore-tell the epidemic lifetime so to decide on timely and remedic actions. These measures include closing borders, schools, suspending community services and commuters. Resuming such curfews depends on the momentum of the outbreak and its rate of decay. Being able to accurately forecast the fate of an epidemic is an extremely important but difficult task. Due to limited knowledge of the novel disease, the high uncertainty involved and the complex societal-political factors that influence the widespread of the new virus, any forecast is anything but reliable. Another factor is the insufficient amount of available data. Data samples are often scarce when an epidemic just started. With only few training samples on hand, finding a forecasting model which offers forecast at the best efforts is a big challenge in machine learning. In the past, three popular methods have been proposed, they include 1) augmenting the existing little data, 2) using a panel selection to pick the best forecasting model from several models, and 3) fine-tuning the parameters of an individual forecastingmodel for the highest possible accuracy. In this paper, a methodology that embraces these three virtues of data mining from a small dataset is proposed..., Comment: 9 pages

In the advent of the novel coronavirus epidemic since December 2019, governments and authorities have been struggling to make critical decisions under high uncertainty at their best efforts. Composite Monte-Carlo (CMC) simulation is a forecasting method which extrapolates available data which are broken down from multiple correlated/casual micro-data sources into many possible future outcomes by drawing random samples from some probability distributions. For instance, the overall trend and propagation of the infested cases in China are influenced by the temporal-spatial data of the nearby cities around the Wuhan city (where the virus is originated from), in terms of the population density, travel mobility, medical resources such as hospital beds and the timeliness of quarantine control in each city etc. Hence a CMC is reliable only up to the closeness of the underlying statistical distribution of a CMC, that is supposed to represent the behaviour of the future events, and the correctness of the composite data relationships. In this paper, a case study of using CMC that is enhanced by deep learning network and fuzzy rule induction for gaining better stochastic insights about the epidemic development is experimented. Instead of applying simplistic and uniform assumptions for a MC which is a common practice, a deep learning-based CMC is used in conjunction of fuzzy rule induction techniques. As a result, decision makers are benefited from a better fitted MC outputs complemented by min-max rules that foretell about the extreme ranges of future possibilities with respect to the epidemic., Comment: 19 pages

This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of "Medicine" and "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology" papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals., Comment: Preprint paper published in PLOS ONE

World University rankings have become well-established tools that students, university managers and policy makers read and use. Each ranking claims to have a unique methodology capable of measuring the 'quality' of universities. The purpose of this paper is to analyze to which extent these different rankings measure the same phenomenon and what it is that they are measuring. For this, we selected a total of seven world-university rankings and performed a principal component analysis. After ensuring that despite their methodological differences, they all come together to a single component, we hypothesized that bibliometric indicators could explain what is being measured. Our analyses show that ranking scores from whichever of the seven league tables under study can be explained by the number of publications and citations received by the institution. We conclude by discussing policy implications and opportunities on how a nuanced and responsible use of rankings can help decision making at the institutional level, Comment: Paper accepted for publication in Research Evaluation