Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Quantifying the topic disparity of scientific articles

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2202.03805 v2 pith:SBB65WLA submitted 2022-02-08 cs.DL physics.soc-ph

Quantifying the topic disparity of scientific articles

classification cs.DL physics.soc-ph
keywords citationdisparitytopicconventionaldisciplineconventionalitylessmeasure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Citation count is a popular index for assessing scientific papers. However, it depends on not only the quality of a paper but also various factors, such as conventionality, team size, and gender. Here, we examine the extent to which the conventionality of a paper is related to its citation percentile in a discipline by using our measure, topic disparity. The topic disparity is the cosine distance between a paper and its discipline on a neural embedding space. Using this measure, we show that the topic disparity is negatively associated with the citation percentile in many disciplines, even after controlling team size and the genders of the first and last authors. This result indicates that less conventional research tends to receive fewer citations than conventional research. Our proposed method can be used to complement the raw citation counts and to recommend papers at the periphery of a discipline because of their less conventional topics.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.