Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Predicting the Citations of Scholarly Paper

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 2008.05013 v1 pith:XFEFMUZS submitted 2020-08-10 cs.DL cs.SIphysics.soc-ph

classification cs.DLcs.SIphysics.soc-ph
keywords modelscholarlycitationcitationsimpactmulti-featurepredictionaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Citation prediction of scholarly papers is of great significance in guiding funding allocations, recruitment decisions, and rewards. However, little is known about how citation patterns evolve over time. By exploring the inherent involution property in scholarly paper citation, we introduce the Paper Potential Index (PPI) model based on four factors: inherent quality of scholarly paper, scholarly paper impact decaying over time, early citations, and early citers' impact. In addition, by analyzing factors that drive citation growth, we propose a multi-feature model for impact prediction. Experimental results demonstrate that the two models improve the accuracy in predicting scholarly paper citations. Compared to the multi-feature model, the PPI model yields superior predictive performance in terms of range-normalized RMSE. The PPI model better interprets the changes in citation, without the need to adjust parameters. Compared to the PPI model, the multi-feature model performs better prediction in terms of Mean Absolute Percentage Error and Accuracy; however, their predictive performance is more dependent on the parameter adjustment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools