arXiv subjects

Chengzhi Zhang

Publications and source records attributed to Chengzhi Zhang.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

Data-Driven Evolution of Library and Information Science Research Methods (1990-2022): A Perspective Based on Fine-grained Method Entities

Since the 1990s, advancements in big data and information technology have increasingly driven data-centric research in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). To assess the influence of this data-driven research paradigm on the LIS discipline, this study conducts a fine-grained analysis to uncover the evolutionary trends of research methods within the domain. Using academic papers from LIS published between 1990 and 2022, four key categories of data-driven method entities are automatically extracted: algorithms and models, data resources, software and tools, and metrics. Based on these entities, the study examines the evolution of LIS research methods from three dimensions: the characteristics of research method entities over time, their evolution within different research topics, and the evolutionary features of research method entities across various research methods. The findings highlight data resources as a pivotal driver of methodological evolution in LIS, revealing a cyclical pattern of "emergence-stability/practical application" in the development of research methods within the field.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Measuring Research Difficulty of Academic Papers: A Case Study in Natural Language Processing

With the rapid growth of the number of academic papers, systematically evaluating the difficulty of research and its relationship to academic impact offers important significance for research topic selection and resource allocation. However, current studies lack quantitative assessments of research difficulty and its correlation with academic impact. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation system for research difficulty, incorporating factors such as academic collaboration, content, and references. Taking the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) as a case study, we extract both internal and external features from academic papers, compute multiple research difficulty indicators. We assign their weights using the entropy weight method and perform a weighted sum to obtain the research difficulty score of academic papers. This paper uses the citation frequency of academic papers to measure academic impact. To validate our approach, NLP experts assessed the difficulty of a sample of papers, and correlation analyses confirmed the reliability of our measurement. Empirical results reveal that in NLP, factors such as the number of pages, reference count, and participation of high-level institutions are significantly associated with academic impact. Moreover, we identify an inverted U-shaped relationship between research difficulty and academic impact. It suggests that moderately difficult research tends to achieve greater academic impact.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Automatic Generation of Highlights for Academic Paper Via Prompt-based Learning

Highlights provide a concise summary of the main contributions of an academic paper and help readers quickly understand its focus. However, many journals do not provide highlights, which limits their use in literature retrieval, text mining, and bibliometric analysis. Existing studies have explored supervised learning methods for automatic highlight extraction, but these methods usually require large amounts of labeled training data. This study investigates prompt-based learning for automatic highlight generation. We design task-specific prompt templates and combine them with paper abstracts as model inputs. Several language models are evaluated, including locally deployed pre-trained models such as GPT-2 and T5, as well as ChatGPT accessed through an API. Experiments on three datasets show that ChatGPT with prompt templates achieves performance comparable to previous supervised methods without using task-specific training samples. When a small number of examples are added to the prompts, the model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on two datasets. We further analyze how prompt design affects generation quality and find that, although ChatGPT has strong language modeling ability, its performance on this task is highly sensitive to the information provided in the prompt. Case studies also show that the generated highlights are generally coherent, informative, and close to author-written highlights. This study is among the first to apply prompt-based learning to academic highlight generation. The proposed method does not rely on domain-specific training corpora and can generate highlights for papers that lack such information, thereby supporting downstream text mining and bibliometric research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Aspect-Based Sentiment Evolution and its Correlation with Review Rounds in Multi-Round Peer Reviews: A Deep Learning Approach

Mining sentiment information from the textual content of peer review comments offers valuable insights into the scientific evaluation process. However, previous studies are often constrained by coarse-grained analysis and the lack of differentiation across review rounds. Notably, the dynamic shifts in reviewers' focus and sentiment tendencies throughout multiple review stages remain underexplored. To address this gap, the present study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments and examines their correlation with the number of review rounds. We begin by segmenting the multi-round review comments of 11,063 accepted papers from Nature Communications and identifying fine-grained review aspect clusters. A manually annotated corpus of approximately 5,000 review sentences is then constructed. Using this dataset, we train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models. Among them, the LCF-BERT-CDM model achieves the best performance, with a Macro-F1 score of 82.65%. Subsequent statistical analysis reveals a consistent trend: as the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline. Correlation analysis further indicates that aspect sentiment scores are negatively associated with the total number of review rounds. Key aspects exhibiting stronger correlations include "experiments", "research significance" and "result analysis".

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Is Higher Team Gender Diversity Correlated with Better Scientific Impact?

Collaborative research involving scholars of various genders constitutes a prominent theme in scientific research that has garnered substantial attention. While several studies have investigated the connection between gender-specific collaboration patterns and the scientific impact of paper, the specific gender diversity factors that contribute to enhanced scientific impact remain largely unexplored. In this study, we analyze the correlation between gender diversity and the scientific impact of papers using the examples of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Library and Information Science (LIS) domains. Our findings reveal three key observations: First, significant gender disparities exist in both NLP and LIS domains, with underrepresentation of female scholars. The gender disparity is more pronounced in the NLP domain compared to the LIS domain. Second, based on papers from the NLP and LIS domains, we find that papers with different gender compositions achieve varying numbers of citations, with mixed-gender collaborations gradually obtaining higher average citation counts compared to same-gender collaborations. Lastly, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the gender diversity of paper collaborations and the number of citations received by those papers. Based on the most impactful gender diversity calculations, the ideal gender ratio for NLP and LIS teams within a range where one gender constitutes 5% to 15% of the total number of authors. This paper contributes to the exploration of the most impactful gender diversity in collaborative research and offers insights to guide more effective scientific paper collaboration.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Exploring Academic Influence of Algorithms by Co-occurrence Network Based on Full-text of Academic Papers

Algorithms have become central to scientific research in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Although algorithm mentions in papers are often used to indicate popularity and influence, existing studies usually evaluate individual algorithms in isolation and pay limited attention to the collective influence formed through their interconnections. This study constructs large-scale algorithm co-occurrence networks in natural language processing (NLP) based on the full text of academic papers and investigates algorithm influence from a network perspective. Using deep learning models, we extract algorithm entities and build overall, cumulative, and annual co-occurrence networks. We analyze their structural characteristics and apply multiple centrality measures to assess the group influence of algorithms across the whole field and over time. The results show that algorithm networks display typical features of complex networks, with increasingly dense connections developing over approximately two decades. Classic, high-performing algorithms and those located at the intersections of different research periods tend to have high popularity, control, centrality, and balanced influence. When the influence of an algorithm declines, it usually loses its core network position first, followed by weaker associations with other algorithms. This study is the first large-scale analysis of algorithm co-occurrence networks. Covering more than four decades of academic publications, it provides a temporal and structural view of algorithm influence and offers a foundation for future research on networks linking algorithms, scholars, and tasks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Gender Differences in Research Topic and Method Convergence among Collaborating Scholars in Library and Information Science

This study explores gender differences in research topic choice and methodology among collaborating scholars. Previous studies have often focused on gender differences in research topics or methods at the individual level of scholars, without considering collaborating groups, lacking depth and practical guidance. This study takes Library and Information Science (LIS) as an example, employing the Top2Vec method for topic identification and the CogFT model for research method classification. It systematically analyzes 25,204 papers published between 1990 and 2022 to investigate gender differences in the convergence of research topics and method choices among collaborating scholars in this field. The results of the study found that female scholars showed lower convergence in their research methods and topic choices compared to male scholars. This study uses a relatively systematic methodology to address the difficulty of studying gender differences in academic publishing, and is expected to serve as a reference for other disciplines and research questions. This study also emphasizes the manifestation of gender differences in collaborative research and provides insights into the convergence and diversity of research topics and methods chosen by scholars.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Research Method Usage across Academic Ages in Library and Information Science: An Empirical Study (1990-2023)

Academic age critically shapes career development, influencing research behavior, output volume, and methodological choices. Analyzing method variation across academic ages offers a new theoretical lens on scholarly evolution and provides early-career researchers with practical guidance for method selection. A corpus of 26,677 articles published 1990-2023 in 14 authoritative Library and Information Science journals was compiled. The CogFT model automatically classified the research methods embedded in these articles, and Top2Vec generated the topic model. This process resulted in a comprehensive dataset linking research methods with topics. Author-name disambiguation enabled calculation of each scholar's academic age. Popularity and Shannon diversity indices for methods, together with topic diversity, were compared across academic age groups. Results reveal dynamic methodological trends: the share of theoretical approaches declined gradually, whereas experimental and bibliometric methods gained ground. Method popularity differs significantly among cohorts. Mid-career scholars exhibit the highest method diversity; late-career scholars the lowest.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications

Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Which Sections of a Research Paper Best Reveal Its Research Methods? Evidence from Library and Information Science

Research methods are essential carriers of knowledge contribution in academic papers. Automatic multi-label classification of research methods can support knowledge services such as method retrieval, review generation, and research intelligence analysis. While existing studies primarily rely on titles and abstracts, abstracts often provide only limited methodological information, whereas utilizing full-text content faces challenges related to excessive length and information redundancy. Therefore, this paper proposes a segment combination strategy by partitioning the full-text content according to its physical postion. Using an annotated corpus of 1,954 full-text articles from three representative journals in Library and Information Science (JASIST, LISR, and JDoc), we evaluate the classification performance of various segments and their combinations across multiple models. Experimental results indicate that methodological information is distributed unevenly within the full-text content, with the middle-to-late and final segments exhibiting greater discriminative power. Furthermore, integrating bibliographic metadata with cross-segment combination strategies effectively enhances classification performance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Examining the Cognitive Gap Between Authors and Peer Reviewers on Academic Paper Novelty

Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Detection and Interpretability Analysis of Quotation Errors by Large Language Models

Purpose - Quotation error refers to the inconsistency between cited information and its original source. This phenomenon leads to a series of negative impacts, such as misinterpretation of the original research, undermining the academic community's collective understanding of relevant issues, and weakening the accuracy and fairness of the citation-based academic evaluation system. Existing studies have shown that quotation error is prevalent in the academic community; moreover, manual verification of quotation error is not only labor-intensive but also inefficient. Therefore, this paper proposes the task of 'automated detection of quotation errors'. Methodology - Adopting a large language model (LLM)-based approach, this paper improves detection performance from two aspects on the basis of existing research: first, employ the fine-tuning approach for LLMs to detect quotation errors; second, incorporating full-text data of the cited literature into dataset construction, and exploring the optimal scheme for building such datasets by comparing three types of full-text integration methods. Based on this, this paper further uses the TokenSHAP tool to conduct interpretability experimental analysis on the model's prediction results. Findings - The fine-tuning approach for LLMs has improved the performance in detecting quotation errors. Among the different methods for incorporating full-text information, the approach based on using the source abstract yielded the best performance. Originality - The fine-tuning approach for large language models (LLMs) is applied to the task of automated detection of quotation errors, and interpretability analysis is conducted on the model's output results.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Evolution of Research Method Usage Across the Academic Careers of Library and Information Science Scholars

Research methods constitute an indispensable tool for scholars engaged in scientific inquiry. Investigating how scholars use research methods throughout their careers can reveal distinct patterns in method adoption, providing valuable insights for novice researchers in selecting appropriate methods. This study employs a comprehensive dataset comprising full-text journal articles and bibliographic records from the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. Utilizing an automated classification model based on full-text cognitive analysis, the research methods employed by LIS scholars are systematically identified. Topic modeling was then conducted using Top2Vec. Subsequently, author name disambiguation is performed, and academic age is calculated for each scholar. This study focuses on 435 senior scholars with an academic age of more than 14 years and a consistent publication record at five-year intervals, covering a total of 6,116 articles. The corpus covers 16 research method categories and 20 research topics. The findings indicate that bibliometric methods are the most frequently used across career stages, accounting for 19.61% among early-career scholars and 31.81% among senior scholars. Over the course of a scholarly career, the diversity of research methods initially increases and then declines. Furthermore, scholars exhibit a propensity for combining multiple research methods, including both conventional and unconventional pairings. Notably, the research methods most commonly used by researchers change with age and seniority.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Enhancing Research Idea Generation through Combinatorial Innovation and Multi-Agent Iterative Search Strategies

Scientific progress depends on the continual generation of innovative re-search ideas. However, the rapid growth of scientific literature has greatly increased the cost of knowledge filtering, making it harder for researchers to identify novel directions. Although existing large language model (LLM)-based methods show promise in research idea generation, the ideas they produce are often repetitive and lack depth. To address this issue, this study proposes a multi-agent iterative planning search strategy inspired by com-binatorial innovation theory. The framework combines iterative knowledge search with an LLM-based multi-agent system to generate, evaluate, and re-fine research ideas through repeated interaction, with the goal of improving idea diversity and novelty. Experiments in the natural language processing domain show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art base-lines in both diversity and novelty. Further comparison with ideas derived from top-tier machine learning conference papers indicates that the quality of the generated ideas falls between that of accepted and rejected papers. These results suggest that the proposed framework is a promising approach for supporting high-quality research idea generation. The source code and dataset used in this paper are publicly available on Github repository: https://github.com/ChenShuai00/MAGenIdeas. The demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/cshuai20/MAGenIdeas.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Enhancing Unsupervised Keyword Extraction in Academic Papers through Integrating Highlights with Abstract

Automatic keyword extraction from academic papers is a key area of interest in natural language processing and information retrieval. Although previous research has mainly focused on utilizing abstract and references for keyword extraction, this paper focuses on the highlights section - a summary describing the key findings and contributions, offering readers a quick overview of the research. Our observations indicate that highlights contain valuable keyword information that can effectively complement the abstract. To investigate the impact of incorporating highlights into unsupervised keyword extraction, we evaluate three input scenarios: using only the abstract, the highlights, and a combination of both. Experiments conducted with four unsupervised models on Computer Science (CS), Library and Information Science (LIS) datasets reveal that integrating the abstract with highlights significantly improves extraction performance. Furthermore, we examine the differences in keyword coverage and content between abstract and highlights, exploring how these variations influence extraction outcomes. The data and code are available at https://github.com/xiangyi-njust/Highlight-KPE.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the academic community has faced unprecedented disruptions, particularly in the realm of academic communication. The primary function of peer review is improving the quality of academic manuscripts, such as clarity, originality and other evaluation aspects. Although prior studies suggest that LLMs are beginning to influence peer review, it remains unclear whether they are altering its core evaluative functions. Moreover, the extent to which LLMs affect the linguistic form, evaluative focus, and recommendation-related signals of peer-review reports has yet to be systematically examined. In this study, we examine the changes in peer review reports for academic articles following the emergence of LLMs, emphasizing variations at fine-grained level. Specifically, we investigate linguistic features such as the length and complexity of words and sentences in review comments, while also automatically annotating the evaluation aspects of individual review sentences. We also use a maximum likelihood estimation method, previously established, to identify review reports that potentially have modified or generated by LLMs. Finally, we assess the impact of evaluation aspects mentioned in LLM-assisted review reports on the informativeness of recommendation for paper decision-making. The results indicate that following the emergence of LLMs, peer review texts have become longer and more fluent, with increased emphasis on summaries and surface-level clarity, as well as more standardized linguistic patterns, particularly reviewers with lower confidence score. At the same time, attention to deeper evaluative dimensions, such as originality, replicability, and nuanced critical reasoning, has declined.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Single-Dimension Novelty: How Combinations of Theory, Method, and Results-based Novelty Shape Scientific Impact

Scientific novelty drives advances at the research frontier, yet it is also associated with heightened uncertainty and potential resistance from incumbent paradigms, leading to complex patterns of scientific impact. Prior studies have primarily ex-amined the relationship between a single dimension of novelty -- such as theoreti-cal, methodological, or results-based novelty -- and scientific impact. However, because scientific novelty is inherently multidimensional, focusing on isolated dimensions may obscure how different types of novelty jointly shape impact. Consequently, we know little about how combinations of novelty types influence scientific impact. To this end, we draw on a dataset of 15,322 articles published in Nature Communications. Using the DeepSeek-V3 model, we classify articles into three novelty dimensions based on the content of their Introduction sections: theoretical novelty, methodological novelty, and results-based novelty. These dimensions may coexist within the same article, forming distinct novelty configura-tions. Scientific impact is measured using five-year citation counts and indicators of whether an article belongs to the top 1% or top 10% highly cited papers. Descriptive results indicate that results-based novelty alone and the simultaneous presence of all three novelty types are the dominant configurations in the sample. Regression results further show that articles with results-based novelty only re-ceive significantly more citations and are more likely to rank among the top 1% and top 10% highly cited papers than articles exhibiting all three novelty types. These findings advance our understanding of how multidimensional novelty configurations shape knowledge diffusion.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment

Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.

cs.CL↗