Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Decoding the End-to-end Writing Trajectory in Scholarly Manuscripts

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 2304.00121 v1 pith:4PT3Q4LG submitted 2023-03-31 cs.CL cs.HC

classification cs.CLcs.HC
keywords writingscholarlytaxonomywriteractionscreativeend-to-endfeedback
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Scholarly writing presents a complex space that generally follows a methodical procedure to plan and produce both rationally sound and creative compositions. Recent works involving large language models (LLM) demonstrate considerable success in text generation and revision tasks; however, LLMs still struggle to provide structural and creative feedback on the document level that is crucial to academic writing. In this paper, we introduce a novel taxonomy that categorizes scholarly writing behaviors according to intention, writer actions, and the information types of the written data. We also provide ManuScript, an original dataset annotated with a simplified version of our taxonomy to show writer actions and the intentions behind them. Motivated by cognitive writing theory, our taxonomy for scientific papers includes three levels of categorization in order to trace the general writing flow and identify the distinct writer activities embedded within each higher-level process. ManuScript intends to provide a complete picture of the scholarly writing process by capturing the linearity and non-linearity of writing trajectory, such that writing assistants can provide stronger feedback and suggestions on an end-to-end level. The collected writing trajectories are viewed at https://minnesotanlp.github.io/REWARD_demo/

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ScholaWrite: A Dataset of End-to-End Scholarly Writing Process

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ScholaWrite records over 61,000 keystroke-level edits from five real scholarly preprints, each annotated with one of 15 cognitive writing intentions, and analyzes how writing unfolds non-linearly over months.

Pith tools