Dataset Information

A corpus and a concordancer of academic journal articles.

ABSTRACT: This data article presents a corpus (i.e. a selection of a big number of words in an electronic form) and a concordancer (i.e. a tool to show the word in its context of use) of academic journal articles. As the title suggests, the data were collected from research articles published in academic journals. The corpus contains 5,686,428 words selected from 895 journal articles published by Elsevier in 2011-2015. The corpus is classified into four subject areas: Health sciences, Life sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences, following the classifications of Scopus, which is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. To ease the access and utilization of the corpus, a program to produce the key word in context (KWIC) and word frequency was created and placed on the website: corpus.kwary.net. The corpus is a valuable resource for researchers, teachers, and translators working on academic English.

SUBMITTER: Kwary DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5694964 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A corpus and a concordancer of academic journal articles.

Kwary Deny A DA

Data in brief 20171108

This data article presents a corpus (i.e. a selection of a big number of words in an electronic form) and a concordancer (i.e. a tool to show the word in its context of use) of academic journal articles. As the title suggests, the data were collected from research articles published in academic journals. The corpus contains 5,686,428 words selected from 895 journal articles published by Elsevier in 2011-2015. The corpus is classified into four subject areas: Health sciences, Life sciences, Physi ...[more]

PMID: 29188227

Similar Datasets

Project description:Coreference resolution is the task of finding strings in text that have the same referent as other strings. Failures of coreference resolution are a common cause of false negatives in information extraction from the scientific literature. In order to better understand the nature of the phenomenon of coreference in biomedical publications and to increase performance on the task, we annotated the Colorado Richly Annotated Full Text (CRAFT) corpus with coreference relations.The corpus was manually annotated with coreference relations, including identity and appositives for all coreferring base noun phrases. The OntoNotes annotation guidelines, with minor adaptations, were used. Interannotator agreement ranges from 0.480 (entity-based CEAF) to 0.858 (Class-B3), depending on the metric that is used to assess it. The resulting corpus adds nearly 30,000 annotations to the previous release of the CRAFT corpus. Differences from related projects include a much broader definition of markables, connection to extensive annotation of several domain-relevant semantic classes, and connection to complete syntactic annotation. Tool performance was benchmarked on the data. A publicly available out-of-the-box, general-domain coreference resolution system achieved an F-measure of 0.14 (B3), while a simple domain-adapted rule-based system achieved an F-measure of 0.42. An ensemble of the two reached F of 0.46. Following the IDENTITY chains in the data would add 106,263 additional named entities in the full 97-paper corpus, for an increase of 76% percent in the semantic classes of the eight ontologies that have been annotated in earlier versions of the CRAFT corpus.The project produced a large data set for further investigation of coreference and coreference resolution in the scientific literature. The work raised issues in the phenomenon of reference in this domain and genre, and the paper proposes that many mentions that would be considered generic in the general domain are not generic in the biomedical domain due to their referents to specific classes in domain-specific ontologies. The comparison of the performance of a publicly available and well-understood coreference resolution system with a domain-adapted system produced results that are consistent with the notion that the requirements for successful coreference resolution in this genre are quite different from those of the general domain, and also suggest that the baseline performance difference is quite large.

Project description:ImportanceWomen are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresPrimary and senior authors' genders.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of citations per article.ResultsAmong 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

Dataset Information

A corpus and a concordancer of academic journal articles.

Publications

A corpus and a concordancer of academic journal articles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets