In the last 16 years, more than 200 research articles were published about research-paper recommender systems. We reviewed these articles and present some descriptive statistics in this paper, as well as a discussion about the major advancements and shortcomings and an overview of the most common recommendation concepts and approaches. We found that more than half of the recommendation approaches applied content-based filtering (55 %). Collaborative filtering was applied by only 18 % of the reviewed approaches, and graph-based recommendations by 16 %. Other recommendation concepts included stereotyping, item-centric recommendations, and hybrid recommendations. The content-based filtering approaches mainly utilized papers that the users had authored, tagged, browsed, or downloaded. TF-IDF was the most frequently applied weighting scheme. In addition to simple terms, n-grams, topics, and citations were utilized to model users' information needs. Our review revealed some shortcomings of the current research. First, it remains unclear which recommendation concepts and approaches are the most promising. For instance, researchers reported different results on the performance of contentbased and collaborative filtering. Sometimes content-based filtering performed better than collaborative filtering and Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden sometimes it performed worse. We identified three potential reasons for the ambiguity of the results. (A) Several evaluations had limitations. They were based on strongly pruned datasets, few participants in user studies, or did not use appropriate baselines. (B) Some authors provided little information about their algorithms, which makes it difficult to re-implement the approaches. Consequently, researchers use different implementations of the same recommendations approaches, which might lead to variations in the results. (C) We speculated that minor variations in datasets, algorithms, or user populations inevitably lead to strong variations in the performance of the approaches. Hence, finding the most promising approaches is a challenge. As a second limitation, we noted that many authors neglected to take into account factors other than accuracy, for example overall user satisfaction. In addition, most approaches (81 %) neglected the user-modeling process and did not infer information automatically but let users provide keywords, text snippets, or a single paper as input. Information on runtime was provided for 10 % of the approaches. Finally, few research papers had an impact on research-paper recommender systems in practice. We also identified a lack of authority and long-term research interest in the field: 73 % of the authors published no more than one paper on research-paper recommender systems, and there was little cooperation among different co-author groups. We concluded that several actions could improve the research landscape: developing a common evaluation framework, agreement on the information to include in research papers, a stronger focus on non-accuracy aspect...

Offline evaluations are the most common evaluation method for research paper recommender systems. However, no thorough discussion on the appropriateness of offline evaluations has taken place, despite some voiced criticism. We conducted a study in which we evaluated various recommendation approaches with both offline and online evaluations. We found that results of offline and online evaluations often contradict each other. We discuss this finding in detail and conclude that offline evaluations may be inappropriate for evaluating research paper recommender systems, in many settings.

No abstract

No abstract

This article introduces and discusses the concept of academic search engine optimization (ASEO). Based on three recently conducted studies, guidelines are provided on how to optimize scholarly literature for academic search engines in general, and for Google Scholar in particular. In addition, we briefly discuss the risk of researchers' illegitimately ‘over-optimizing’ their articles.

Numerous recommendation approaches are in use today. However, comparing their effectiveness is a challenging task because evaluation results are rarely reproducible. In this article, we examine the challenge of reproducibility in recommender-system research. We conduct experiments using Plista's news recommender system, and Docear's research-paper recommender system. The experiments show that there are large discrepancies in the effectiveness of identical recommendation approaches in only slightly different scenarios, as well as large discrepancies for slightly different approaches in identical scenarios. For example, in one newsrecommendation scenario, the performance of a content-based filtering approach User-Adapted Interaction : umuai ; 26 (2016), 1. -S. 69-101 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007 was twice as high as the second-best approach, while in another scenario the same content-based filtering approach was the worst performing approach. We found several determinants that may contribute to the large discrepancies observed in recommendation effectiveness. Determinants we examined include user characteristics (gender and age), datasets, weighting schemes, the time at which recommendations were shown, and user-model size. Some of the determinants have interdependencies. For instance, the optimal size of an algorithms' user model depended on users' age. Since minor variations in approaches and scenarios can lead to significant changes in a recommendation approach's performance, ensuring reproducibility of experimental results is difficult. We discuss these findings and conclude that to ensure reproducibility, the recommender-system community needs to (1) survey other research fields and learn from them, (2) find a common understanding of reproducibility, (3) identify and understand the determinants that affect reproducibility, (4) conduct more comprehensive experiments, (5) modernize publication practices, (6) foster the development and use of recommendation frameworks, and (7) establish best-practice guidelines for recommender-systems research.

This paper evaluates the performance of tools for the extraction of metadata from scientific articles. Accurate metadata extraction is an important task for automating the management of digital libraries. This comparative study is a guide for developers looking to integrate the most suitable and effective metadata extraction tool into their software. We shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of seven tools in common use. In our evaluation using papers from the arXiv collection, GROBID delivered the best results, followed by Mendeley Desktop. SciPlore Xtract, PDFMeat, and SVMHeaderParse also delivered good results depending on the metadata type to be extracted.

Neural Turing Machines (NTMs) are an instance of Memory Augmented Neural Networks, a new class of recurrent neural networks which decouple computation from memory by introducing an external memory unit. NTMs have demonstrated superior performance over Long Short-Term Memory Cells in several sequence learning tasks. A number of open source implementations of NTMs exist but are unstable during training and/or fail to replicate the reported performance of NTMs. This paper presents the details of our successful implementation of a NTM.Our implementation learns to solve three sequential learning tasks from the original NTM paper. We find that the choice of memory contents initialization scheme is crucial in successfully implementing a NTM. Networks with memory contents initialized to small constant values converge on average 2 times faster than the next best memory contents initialization scheme.