Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33974653›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Article-level classification of scientific publications: A comparison of deep learning, direct citation and bibliographic coupling.

Maxime Rivest, Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Éric Archambault

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maxime RivestScience-Metrix Inc., Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1196-4679
Etienne Vignola-GagnéScience-Metrix Inc., Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4948-4363
Éric ArchambaultScience-Metrix Inc., Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4422-1054
RELX Group (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classification schemes for scientific activity and publications underpin a large swath of research evaluation practices at the organizational, governmental, and national levels. Several research classifications are currently in use, and they require continuous work as new classification techniques becomes available and as new research topics emerge. Convolutional neural networks, a subset of "deep learning" approaches, have recently offered novel and highly performant methods for classifying voluminous corpora of text. This article benchmarks a deep learning classification technique on more than 40 million scientific articles and on tens of thousands of scholarly journals. The comparison is performed against bibliographic coupling-, direct citation-, and manual-based classifications-the established and most widely used approaches in the field of bibliometrics, and by extension, in many science and innovation policy activities such as grant competition management. The results reveal that the performance of this first iteration of a deep learning approach is equivalent to the graph-based bibliometric approaches. All methods presented are also on par with manual classification. Somewhat surprisingly, no machine learning approaches were found to clearly outperform the simple label propagation approach that is direct citation. In conclusion, deep learning is promising because it performed just as well as the other approaches but has more flexibility to be further improved. For example, a deep neural network incorporating information from the citation network is likely to hold the key to an even better classification algorithm.

Indexed as

BibliometricsDeep LearningScienceBibliographies as TopicDatabases, BibliographicPublicationsScholarly Communication

Identifiers

PMID33974653
PMCPMC8112690
OpenAlexW3162745513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.