skip to main content

Title: HINTS: Citation Time Series Prediction for New Publications via Dynamic Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding
Accurate prediction of scientific impact is important for scientists, academic recommender systems, and granting organizations alike. Existing approaches rely on many years of leading citation values to predict a scientific paper’s citations (a proxy for impact), even though most papers make their largest contributions in the first few years after they are published. In this paper, we tackle a new problem: predicting a new paper’s citation time series from the date of publication (i.e., without leading values). We propose HINTS, a novel end-to-end deep learning framework that converts citation signals from dynamic heterogeneous information networks (DHIN) into citation time series. HINTS imputes pseudo-leading values for a paper in the years before it is published from DHIN embeddings, and then transforms these embeddings into the parameters of a formal model that can predict citation counts immediately after publication. Empirical analysis on two real-world datasets from Computer Science and Physics show that HINTS is competitive with baseline citation prediction models. While we focus on citations, our approach generalizes to other “cold start” time series prediction tasks where relational data is available and accurate prediction in early timestamps is crucial.
; ;
Award ID(s):
1705169 1741634 1937599
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
WWW '21: Proceedings of the Web Conference
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. A standard measure of the influence of a research paper is the number of times it is cited. However, papers may be cited for many reasons, and citation count offers limited information about the extent to which a paper affected the content of subsequent publications. We therefore propose a novel method to quantify linguistic influence in timestamped document collections. There are two main steps: first, identify lexical and semantic changes using contextual embeddings and word frequencies; second, aggregate information about these changes into per-document influence scores by estimating a high-dimensional Hawkes process with a low-rank parameter matrix. We show that this measure of linguistic influence is predictive of future citations: the estimate of linguistic influence from the two years after a paper’s publication is correlated with and predictive of its citation count in the following three years. This is demonstrated using an online evaluation with incremental temporal training/test splits, in comparison with a strong baseline that includes predictors for initial citation counts, topics, and lexical features.
  2. Citations have long been used to characterize the state of a scientific field and to identify influential works. However, writers use citations for different purposes, and this varied purpose influences uptake by future scholars. Unfortunately, our understanding of how scholars use and frame citations has been limited to small-scale manual citation analysis of individual papers. We perform the largest behavioral study of citations to date, analyzing how scientific works frame their contributions through different types of citations and how this framing affects the field as a whole. We introduce a new dataset of nearly 2,000 citations annotated for their function, and use it to develop a state-of-the-art classifier and label the papers of an entire field: Natural Language Processing. We then show how differences in framing affect scientific uptake and reveal the evolution of the publication venues and the field as a whole. We demonstrate that authors are sensitive to discourse structure and publication venue when citing, and that how a paper frames its work through citations is predictive of the citation count it will receive. Finally, we use changes in citation framing to show that the field of NLP is undergoing a significant increase in consensus.
  3. Abstract

    Following widespread availability of computerized databases, much research has correlated bibliometric measures from papers or patents to subsequent success, typically measured as the number of publications or citations. Building on this large body of work, we ask the following questions: given available bibliometric information in one year, along with the combined theories on sources of creative breakthroughs from the literatures on creativity and innovation, how accurately can we explain the impact of authors in a given research community in the following year? In particular, who is most likely to publish, publish highly cited work, and even publish a highly cited outlier? And, how accurately can these existing theories predict breakthroughs using only contemporaneous data? After reviewing and synthesizing (often competing) theories from the literatures, we simultaneously model the collective hypotheses based on available data in the year before RNA interference was discovered. We operationalize author impact using publication count, forward citations, and the more stringent definition of being in the top decile of the citation distribution. Explanatory power of current theories altogether ranges from less than 9% for being top cited to 24% for productivity. Machine learning (ML) methods yield similar findings as the explanatory linear models, and tangiblemore »improvement only for non-linear Support Vector Machine models. We also perform predictions using only existing data until 1997, and find lower predictability than using explanatory models. We conclude with an agenda for future progress in the bibliometric study of creativity and look forward to ML research that can explain its models.

    « less
  4. Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014–15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use ofmore »anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not postsurgical analgesia. Journals’ caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014–15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0155001 May 12, 2016 1 / 24 a11111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Carbone L, Austin J (2016) Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0155001. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0155001 Editor: Chang-Qing Gao, Central South University, CHINA Received: December 29, 2015 Accepted: April 22, 2016 Published: May 12, 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Carbone, Austin. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Authors may be contacted for further information. Funding: This study was funded by the United States National Science Foundation Division of Social and Economic Sciences. Award #1455838. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency.« less
  5. Searching for relevant literature is a fundamental part of academic research. The search for relevant literature is becoming a more difficult and time-consuming task as millions of articles are published each year. As a solution, recommendation systems for academic papers attempt to help researchers find relevant papers quickly. This paper focuses on graph-based recommendation systems for academic papers using citation networks. This type of paper recommendation system leverages a graph of papers linked by citations to create a list of relevant papers. In this study, we explore recommendation systems for academic papers using citation networks incorporating citation relations. We define citation relation based on the number of times the origin paper cites the reference paper, and use this citation relation to measure the strength of the relation between the papers. We created a weighted network using citation relation as citation weight on edges. We evaluate our proposed method on a real-world publication data set, and conduct an extensive comparison with three state-of-the-art baseline methods. Our results show that citation network-based recommendation systems using citation weights perform better than the current methods.