Insights from full-text analyses of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine

Abdalla, Moustafa; Abdalla, Mohamed; Abdalla, Salwa; Saad, Mohamed; Jones, David S.; Podolsky, Scott H.

doi:10.7554/elife.72602

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientometrics is a field of study which explores scientific research from a quantitative perspective (Mingers and Leydesdorff, 2015;Leydesdorff and Milojević, 2015). Tracing back to the mid-20th century (Price, 1961), efforts in this field have focused on measuring the impact of research (Garfield, 1979), mapping science to understand relationships between fields (Callon et al, 1986;Ruas and Pereira, 2014), the volume of work being published (Mohammad, 2020c;Lo et al, 2020), how scientific concepts have changed over time (Sharma et al, 2021;Abdalla et al, 2022a), and how scientists have changed over time (Mohammad, 2020b;Abdalla et al, 2022b). Focused on NLP, there has been a healthy amount of research conducted on studying the field; many researchers have shared open-sourced datasets that can be used to study the growth and change in NLP (Mariani et al, 2019;Mohammad, 2020c,a;Wahle et al, 2022).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research

Abdalla¹,

Wahle²,

Ruas³

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in deep learning methods for natural language processing (NLP) have created new business opportunities and made NLP research critical for industry development. As one of the big players in the field of NLP, together with governments and universities, it is important to track the influence of industry on research. In this study, we seek to quantify and characterize industry presence in the NLP community over time. Using a corpus with comprehensive metadata of 78,187 NLP publications and 701 resumes of NLP publication authors, we explore the industry presence in the field since the early 90s. We find that industry presence among NLP authors has been steady before a steep increase over the past five years (180% growth from 2017 to 2022). A few companies account for most of the publications and provide funding to academic researchers through grants and internships. Our study shows that the presence and impact of the industry on natural language processing research are significant and fast-growing. This work calls for increased transparency of industry influence in the field.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research

Abdalla¹,

Wahle²,

Ruas³

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term ‘evidence’ is widely used in today’s society. Reviewing The New England Journal of Medicine , The Lancet and The BMJ , it is not difficult to find that the term ‘evidence’ has been used in scientific research articles since its publication, and the use is gradually increasing in scholarly papers 1. In addition to researchers, the public also use evidence to make judgements and decisions in their daily life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviewing The New England Journal of Medicine , The Lancet and The BMJ , it is not difficult to find that the term ‘evidence’ has been used in scientific research articles since its publication, and the use is gradually increasing in scholarly papers. 1 In addition to researchers, the public also use evidence to make judgements and decisions in their daily life. In Europe and the USA, beginning in the 18th century, and escalating in the 20th century, increasing attention was given to the empirical underpinnings of rational decision-making in medicine, particularly with respect to therapeutics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the diverse definitions of ‘evidence’: a scoping review

Yu,

Wu,

Sun

et al. 2023

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo systematically collect and analyse diverse definitions of ‘evidence’ in both health and social sciences, and help users to correctly use the term ‘evidence’ and rethink what is the definition of ‘evidence’ in scientific research.DesignScoping review.MethodsDefinitions of evidence in the health sciences and social sciences were included. We have excluded the definition of evidence applied in the legal field, abstracts without full text, documents not published in either Chinese or English and so on. We established a multidisciplinary working group and systematically searched five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, EBSCO, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and the Chinese Science Citation Database from their inception to 26 February 2022. We also searched websites and reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. Six reviewers working in pairs, independently, selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted information. Any differences were discussed in pairs, and if there was disagreement, it was resolved via discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted document characteristics, the original content for the definitions of ‘evidence’, assessed definitions as either intensional or extensional, and any citations for the given definition.ResultsForty-nine documents were finally included after screening, and 68 definitions were obtained. After excluding duplicates, a total of 54 different definitions of ‘evidence’ were identified. There were 42 intensional definitions and 12 extensional definitions. The top three definiens were ‘information’, ‘fact’ and ‘research/study’. The definition of ‘evidence’ differed between health and social sciences. The term ‘research’ appeared most frequently in the definitions.ConclusionsThe definition of ‘evidence’ has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars and decision-makers in health and social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no widely recognised and accepted definition in scientific research. Given the wide use of the term, we need to think about whether, or under what circumstances, a standardised, clear, meaningful and widely applicable definition of ‘evidence’ might be helpful.

show abstract

Insights from full-text analyses of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine

Cited by 2 publications

References 30 publications

The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research

The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research

Exploring the diverse definitions of ‘evidence’: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About