machine learning

‘If citations could talk’: how to uncover previous research findings while you read

Researchers have been making their early-stage research available on preprint servers since the early 90s, but it’s really over the past year or two that preprints have gone mainstream. As well as the huge growth in submissions to established repositories such as arXiv and bioRxiv, there are now preprint servers for marine biology, the social sciences, psychology, chemistry, health sciences, and larger publishers are starting to get in on the action.   Source: https://twitter.com/JeffDean/status/1135114657344237568?s=20     Monthly bioRXiv submissions Source: https://twitter.com/cshperspectives/status/1112694746403745792?s=20   Unless you insist that authors write [...]

Read more...
Photo by Yeshi Kangrang on Unsplash

How does Scholarcy work its magic?

We are often asked: ‘How does Scholarcy summarise and identify the key points in research papers and other articles, and in what ways is it unique?’. Without giving too much away about our secret sauce, here’s an overview of what is happening under the hood. No matter what the input format – PDF, Word, HTML, XML, e-pub, Powerpoint, text – we convert the document into a unified, internal format, so that, for the purposes of our algorithms, all documents have [...]

Read more...

How to solve the problem of too much information and not enough time.

Ever find yourself thinking how much better your work could be if you just had time to read more of the information that’s out there? Even then, not everything we might save with the best intention of reading later is relevant or useful. And if that rare oasis of time does open up, skim-reading is probably the most common and practical way of processing several articles to find what’s useful. In fact, as a way of digesting large volumes of information, skim reading is actively [...]

Read more...

How reviewers can use AI right now to make peer review easier

The academic peer review process has come under a great deal of scrutiny recently. The various merits and drawbacks of anonymous and double-blind review vs. open and public review have been discussed and debated on academic forums, in conferences and on Twitter. Leaving aside claims that the ‘Blockchain’ provides a panacea for resolving issues such as trust, bias, and academic misconduct in the peer review process, how can technology assist with the mechanics of actually reviewing papers for publication? Academics [...]

Read more...