Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Towards Explainable Scientific Venue Recommendations

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 2109.11343 v1 pith:ZEWOAATF submitted 2021-09-21 cs.IR cs.AI

Towards Explainable Scientific Venue Recommendations

classification cs.IR cs.AI
keywords recommendationsvenueaspectsresearchscientificacceptanceadditionaladvances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Selecting the best scientific venue (i.e., conference/journal) for the submission of a research article constitutes a multifaceted challenge. Important aspects to consider are the suitability of research topics, a venue's prestige, and the probability of acceptance. The selection problem is exacerbated through the continuous emergence of additional venues. Previously proposed approaches for supporting authors in this process rely on complex recommender systems, e.g., based on Word2Vec or TextCNN. These, however, often elude an explanation for their recommendations. In this work, we propose an unsophisticated method that advances the state-of-the-art in two aspects: First, we enhance the interpretability of recommendations through non-negative matrix factorization based topic models; Second, we surprisingly can obtain competitive recommendation performance while using simpler learning methods.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. An LLM-Powered Semantic Alignment Framework for Journal Recommendation

    cs.IR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    An LLM semantic-matching framework for journal recommendation reports 40.23% Top-3 accuracy on 23,609 statistics articles from 49 journals without task-specific training.