Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?

Anna Divoli, Preslav Nakov, Marti A. Hearst

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances - sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances.

Original languageEnglish
Article number750214
JournalAdvances in Bioinformatics
Volume2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Molecular interactions
Publications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Do peers see more in a paper than its authors? / Divoli, Anna; Nakov, Preslav; Hearst, Marti A.

In: Advances in Bioinformatics, Vol. 2012, 750214, 27.12.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2637463c2ec64d2b8d070a1a378834bd,
title = "Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?",
abstract = "Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances - sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20{\%} more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances.",
author = "Anna Divoli and Preslav Nakov and Hearst, {Marti A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1155/2012/750214",
language = "English",
volume = "2012",
journal = "Advances in Bioinformatics",
issn = "1687-8027",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?

AU - Divoli, Anna

AU - Nakov, Preslav

AU - Hearst, Marti A.

PY - 2012/12/27

Y1 - 2012/12/27

N2 - Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances - sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances.

AB - Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances - sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871438052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871438052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1155/2012/750214

DO - 10.1155/2012/750214

M3 - Article

VL - 2012

JO - Advances in Bioinformatics

JF - Advances in Bioinformatics

SN - 1687-8027

M1 - 750214

ER -