Abstract
Several works have used traditional readability measures to investigate the readability of scientific texts and its association with scientific impact . However, these works are limited in terms of dataset size, range of domains, and examined readability and impact measures. Our study addresses these limitations, investigating the readability of paper abstracts on a very large multidisciplinary corpus, the association of expert judgments on abstract readability with traditional readability measures, and the association of abstract readability with the scientific impact of the corresponding publication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
http://opencitations.net/download (November 2018 Dump).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
This is a restriction imposed by the textstat library (see Sect. 3.2).
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
For each question, the interpretation of the extreme scale values (i.e., 1 and 5) were provided (actual wording is described in the dataset description page in Zenodo).
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Recall that FRE scores increase with readability, contrary to the other measures.
- 11.
Due to lack of space we omit \(\rho \) values, however the results were similar.
- 12.
For this measurement, we used all overlapping D2 abstracts for each expert pair.
- 13.
We omit \(\tau \) since it runs very slow on this dataset (\(\sim 12\)M papers).
References
Bauerly, R.J., Johnson, D.T., Singh, M.: Readability and writing well. Mark. Manag. J. 16(1), 216–227 (2006)
Bonett, D.G., Wright, T.A.: Sample size requirements for estimating pearson, kendall and spearman correlations. Psychometrika 65(1), 23–28 (2000)
Bottle, R.T., Rennie, J.S., Russ, S., Sardar, Z.: Changes in the communication of chemical information I: some effects of growth. J. Inf. Sci. 6(4), 103–108 (1983)
Crosier, K.: How effectively do marketing journals transfer useful learning from scholars to practitioners? Mark. Intell. Plan. 22(5), 540–556 (2004)
Flesch, R.: A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32(3), 221 (1948)
Gazni, A.: Are the abstracts of high impact articles more readable? Investigating the evidence from top research institutions in the world. J. Inf. Sci. 37(3), 273–281 (2011)
Ghosh, R., Kuo, T.T., Hsu, C.N., Lin, S.D., Lerman, K.: Time-aware ranking in dynamic citation networks. In: 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pp. 373–380. IEEE (2011)
Gunning, R.: The Technique of Clear Writing. McGraw-Hill, New York (1952)
Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J.W., Fox, C.: Abstracts, introductions and discussions: how far do they differ in style? Scientometrics 57(3), 389–398 (2003)
Hartley, J., Sotto, E., Pennebaker, J.: Style and substance in psychology: are influential articles more readable than less influential ones? Soc. Stud. Sci. 32(2), 321–334 (2002)
Lei, L., Yan, S.: Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012). Scientometrics 108(3), 1155–1169 (2016)
Letchford, A., Preis, T., Moat, H.S.: The advantage of simple paper abstracts. J. Informetr. 10(1), 1–8 (2016)
Mc Laughlin, G.H.: Smog grading-a new readability formula. J. Read. 12(8), 639–646 (1969)
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab (1999)
Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, G.J., Schiffler, B.C., Thompson, W.H.: The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. Elife 6, e27725 (2017)
Sawyer, A.G., Laran, J., Xu, J.: The readability of marketing journals: are award-winning articles better written? J. Mark. 72(1), 108–117 (2008)
Sinha, A., et al.: An overview of Microsoft academic service (MAS) and applications. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 243–246. ACM (2015)
Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., Verhoef, P.C.: The quest for citations: drivers of article impact. J. Mark. 71(3), 171–193 (2007)
Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., Su, Z.: ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD, pp. 990–998. ACM (2008)
Yeung, A.W.K., Goto, T.K., Leung, W.K.: Readability of the 100 most-cited neuroimaging papers assessed by common readability formulae. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12, 308 (2018)
Zamanian, M., Heydari, P.: Readability of texts: state of the art. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2(1), 43–53 (2012)
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge support of this work by the project “Moving from Big Data Management to Data Science” (MIS 5002437/3) which is implemented under the Action “Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure”, funded by the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (NSRF 2014-2020) and co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Vergoulis, T., Kanellos, I., Tzerefos, A., Chatzopoulos, S., Dalamagas, T., Skiadopoulos, S. (2019). A Study on the Readability of Scientific Publications. In: Doucet, A., Isaac, A., Golub, K., Aalberg, T., Jatowt, A. (eds) Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge. TPDL 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11799. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30760-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30760-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30759-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30760-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)