Cargando…

Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews

Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to researchers arguing with its reliability and qua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghosal, Tirthankar, Kumar, Sandeep, Bharti, Prabhat Kumar, Ekbal, Asif
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794172/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35085252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259238
_version_ 1784640772745723904
author Ghosal, Tirthankar
Kumar, Sandeep
Bharti, Prabhat Kumar
Ekbal, Asif
author_facet Ghosal, Tirthankar
Kumar, Sandeep
Bharti, Prabhat Kumar
Ekbal, Asif
author_sort Ghosal, Tirthankar
collection PubMed
description Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to researchers arguing with its reliability and quality. These problems could also be due to the lack of studies with the peer-review texts for various proprietary and confidentiality clauses. Peer review texts could serve as a rich source of Natural Language Processing (NLP) research on understanding the scholarly communication landscape, and thereby build systems towards mitigating those pertinent problems. In this work, we present a first of its kind multi-layered dataset of 1199 open peer review texts manually annotated at the sentence level (∼ 17k sentences) across the four layers, viz. Paper Section Correspondence, Paper Aspect Category, Review Functionality, and Review Significance. Given a text written by the reviewer, we annotate: to which sections (e.g., Methodology, Experiments, etc.), what aspects (e.g., Originality/Novelty, Empirical/Theoretical Soundness, etc.) of the paper does the review text correspond to, what is the role played by the review text (e.g., appreciation, criticism, summary, etc.), and the importance of the review statement (major, minor, general) within the review. We also annotate the sentiment of the reviewer (positive, negative, neutral) for the first two layers to judge the reviewer’s perspective on the different sections and aspects of the paper. We further introduce four novel tasks with this dataset, which could serve as an indicator of the exhaustiveness of a peer review and can be a step towards the automatic judgment of review quality. We also present baseline experiments and results for the different tasks for further investigations. We believe our dataset would provide a benchmark experimental testbed for automated systems to leverage on current NLP state-of-the-art techniques to address different issues with peer review quality, thereby ushering increased transparency and trust on the holy grail of scientific research validation. Our dataset and associated codes are available at https://www.iitp.ac.in/~ai-nlp-ml/resources.html#Peer-Review-Analyze.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8794172
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87941722022-01-28 Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews Ghosal, Tirthankar Kumar, Sandeep Bharti, Prabhat Kumar Ekbal, Asif PLoS One Research Article Peer Review is at the heart of scholarly communications and the cornerstone of scientific publishing. However, academia often criticizes the peer review system as non-transparent, biased, arbitrary, a flawed process at the heart of science, leading to researchers arguing with its reliability and quality. These problems could also be due to the lack of studies with the peer-review texts for various proprietary and confidentiality clauses. Peer review texts could serve as a rich source of Natural Language Processing (NLP) research on understanding the scholarly communication landscape, and thereby build systems towards mitigating those pertinent problems. In this work, we present a first of its kind multi-layered dataset of 1199 open peer review texts manually annotated at the sentence level (∼ 17k sentences) across the four layers, viz. Paper Section Correspondence, Paper Aspect Category, Review Functionality, and Review Significance. Given a text written by the reviewer, we annotate: to which sections (e.g., Methodology, Experiments, etc.), what aspects (e.g., Originality/Novelty, Empirical/Theoretical Soundness, etc.) of the paper does the review text correspond to, what is the role played by the review text (e.g., appreciation, criticism, summary, etc.), and the importance of the review statement (major, minor, general) within the review. We also annotate the sentiment of the reviewer (positive, negative, neutral) for the first two layers to judge the reviewer’s perspective on the different sections and aspects of the paper. We further introduce four novel tasks with this dataset, which could serve as an indicator of the exhaustiveness of a peer review and can be a step towards the automatic judgment of review quality. We also present baseline experiments and results for the different tasks for further investigations. We believe our dataset would provide a benchmark experimental testbed for automated systems to leverage on current NLP state-of-the-art techniques to address different issues with peer review quality, thereby ushering increased transparency and trust on the holy grail of scientific research validation. Our dataset and associated codes are available at https://www.iitp.ac.in/~ai-nlp-ml/resources.html#Peer-Review-Analyze. Public Library of Science 2022-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8794172/ /pubmed/35085252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259238 Text en © 2022 Ghosal et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ghosal, Tirthankar
Kumar, Sandeep
Bharti, Prabhat Kumar
Ekbal, Asif
Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
title Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
title_full Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
title_fullStr Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
title_full_unstemmed Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
title_short Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
title_sort peer review analyze: a novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794172/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35085252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259238
work_keys_str_mv AT ghosaltirthankar peerreviewanalyzeanovelbenchmarkresourceforcomputationalanalysisofpeerreviews
AT kumarsandeep peerreviewanalyzeanovelbenchmarkresourceforcomputationalanalysisofpeerreviews
AT bhartiprabhatkumar peerreviewanalyzeanovelbenchmarkresourceforcomputationalanalysisofpeerreviews
AT ekbalasif peerreviewanalyzeanovelbenchmarkresourceforcomputationalanalysisofpeerreviews