ArticlePloS one2025
What do the differences and commonalities in doctoral dissertation acknowledgments across disciplines reveal?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acknowledgments in academic dissertations occupy a unique role within scholarly communication. Prior research has investigated acknowledgments through lenses such as funding attribution, genre analysis, and linguistic features. This study examines acknowledgments in doctoral dissertations from Chinese universities, organized by broad disciplinary categories. Utilizing BERTopic modeling, the research identifies topic keywords embedded within dissertation acknowledgments. Furthermore, computational linguistics techniques are employed to quantitatively evaluate the content and stylistic attributes of these acknowledgments, complemented by hierarchical clustering analysis to explore cross-disciplinary similarities. The topic modeling results indicate that acknowledgments by Chinese doctoral students frequently convey emotional reflections and exhibit distinct disciplinary traits. Additionally, hierarchical clustering shows that disciplines with similar characteristics exhibit greater similarity in the content and writing style of their acknowledgments, indicating that academic training influences researchers' writing to some degree. This study seeks to catalyze further scholarly inquiry into this domain, advocating for expanded investigations from perspectives including psychology, neuroscience, and cross-cultural studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.