What do writing features tell us about AI papers?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As the numbers of submissions to conferences grow quickly, the task of assessing the quality of academic papers automatically, convincingly, and with high accuracy attracts increasing attention. We argue that studying interpretable dimensions of these submissions could lead to scalable solutions. We extract a collection of writing features, and construct a suite of prediction tasks to assess the usefulness of these features in predicting citation counts and the publication of AI-related papers. Depending on the venues, the writing features can predict the conference vs. workshop appearance with F1 scores up to 60-90, sometimes even outperforming the content-based tf-idf features and RoBERTa. We show that the features describe writing style more than content. To further understand the results, we estimate the causal impact of the most indicative features. Our analysis on writing features provides a perspective to assessing and refining the writing of academic articles at scale.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2021.
Builds on
19 of 66 references.
References · 19
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 436
- 2020Causal Mediation Analysis for Interpreting Neural NLP: The Case of Gender Biascited by 183
- 2020GECToR -- Grammatical Error Correction: Tag, Not Rewritecited by 177
- 2020CausaLM: Causal Model Explanation Through Counterfactual Language Modelscited by 117
- 2018How to Make Causal Inferences Using Textscited by 59
- 2020Text and Causal Inference: A Review of Using Text to Remove Confounding from Causal Estimatescited by 59
- 2018Challenges of Using Text Classifiers for Causal Inferencecited by 33
- 2020What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP?cited by 32
- 2019Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conferencecited by 31
- 2019On Testing for Biases in Peer Reviewcited by 15
7 more
- 2020SChuBERT: Scholarly Document Chunks with BERT-encoding boost Citation Count Predictioncited by 9
- 2018Automatic Academic Paper Rating Based on Modularized Hierarchical Convolutional Neural Networkcited by 7
- 2018Deep Paper Gestaltcited by 6
- 2019Textual analysis of artificial intelligence manuscripts reveals features associated with peer review outcomecited by 5
- 2021What Makes a Scientific Paper be Accepted for Publication?cited by 4
- 2017Detecting and Explaining Causes From Text For a Time Series Eventcited by 3
- 2020De-anonymization of authors through arXiv submissions during double-blind reviewcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.