Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jambor H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041175 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PNAS is one of world's most cited multidisciplinary scientific journals. The PNAS official classification structure of subjects is reflected in topic labels submitted by the authors of articles, largely related to traditionally established disciplines. These include broad field classifications into physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, and further subtopic classifications within the fields. Focusing on biological sciences, we explore an internal soft-classification structure of articles based only on semantic decompositions of abstracts and bibliographies and compare it with the formal discipline classifications. Our model assumes that there is a fixed number of internal categories, each characterized by multinomial distributions over words (in abstracts) and references (in bibliographies). Soft classification for each article is based on proportions of the article's content coming from each category. We discuss the appropriateness of the model for the PNAS database as well as other features of the data relevant to soft classification.
| S-EPMC387299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose a new method to assess the merit of any set of scientific papers in a given field based on the citations they receive. Given a field and a citation impact indicator, such as the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index, the merit of a given set of [Formula: see text] articles is identified with the probability that a randomly drawn set of [Formula: see text] articles from a given pool of articles in that field has a lower citation impact according to the indicator in question. The method allows for comparisons between sets of articles of different sizes and fields. Using a dataset acquired from Thomson Scientific that contains the articles published in the periodical literature in the period 1998-2007, we show that the novel approach yields rankings of research units different from those obtained by a direct application of the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index.
| S-EPMC3496740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationImages convey essential information in biomedical publications. As such, there is a growing interest within the bio-curation and the bio-databases communities, to store images within publications as evidence for biomedical processes and for experimental results. However, many of the images in biomedical publications are compound images consisting of multiple panels, where each individual panel potentially conveys a different type of information. Segmenting such images into constituent panels is an essential first step toward utilizing images.ResultsIn this article, we develop a new compound image segmentation system, FigSplit, which is based on Connected Component Analysis. To overcome shortcomings typically manifested by existing methods, we develop a quality assessment step for evaluating and modifying segmentations. Two methods are proposed to re-segment the images if the initial segmentation is inaccurate. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our method compared with other methods.Availability and implementationThe system is publicly available for use at: https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~compbio/FigSplit. The code is available upon request.Contactshatkay@udel.edu.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available online at Bioinformatics.
| S-EPMC6030860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publications in scientific journals contain a considerable fraction of our scientific knowledge. Analyzing data from publication databases helps us understand how this knowledge is obtained and how it changes over time. In this study, we present a mathematical model for the temporal dynamics of data on the scientific content of publications. Our data set consists of references to thousands of genes in the >15 million publications listed in PubMed. We show that the observed dynamics may result from a simple process: Researchers predominantly publish on genes that already appear in many publications. This might be a rewarding strategy for researchers, because there is a positive correlation between the frequency of a gene in scientific publications and the journal impact of the publications. By comparing the empirical data with model predictions, we are able to detect unusual publication patterns that often correspond to major achievements in the field. We identify interactions between yeast genes from PubMed and show that the frequency differences of genes in publications lead to a biased picture of the resulting interaction network.
| S-EPMC1924584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ranking the significance of scientific publications is a long-standing challenge. The network-based analysis is a natural and common approach for evaluating the scientific credit of papers. Although the number of citations has been widely used as a metric to rank papers, recently some iterative processes such as the well-known PageRank algorithm have been applied to the citation networks to address this problem. In this paper, we introduce nonlinearity to the PageRank algorithm when aggregating resources from different nodes to further enhance the effect of important papers. The validation of our method is performed on the data of American Physical Society (APS) journals. The results indicate that the nonlinearity improves the performance of the PageRank algorithm in terms of ranking effectiveness, as well as robustness against malicious manipulations. Although the nonlinearity analysis is based on the PageRank algorithm, it can be easily extended to other iterative ranking algorithms and similar improvements are expected.
| S-EPMC4200399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In addition to its primary regulatory role, the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is engaged in many forms of scientific authorship. During the period of 2010 to 2018, FDA oncology staff contributed to 356 publications in the scientific literature. Here, we collaborated with analysts in the Office of Program Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present a series of analyses aimed at quantifying the characteristics and potential impact of these contributions, as well as characterizing the areas of work addressed. We found that FDA oncology papers are enriched for high-impact publications and have about two times the number of citations as an average NIH-funded paper. Further impact of the publications was measured based on the presence of 65 publications that were cited by guidelines and 12 publications cited by publicly listed clinical trials. The results seen here are promising in determining the impact of FDA oncology publication work but prompt further investigation into longer-term impacts, such as the influence of this work on other regulatory activities at FDA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the first comprehensive study of scientific publications produced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology staff. The analysis illustrates that staff are highly engaged in publishing in the scientific literature in addition to completing regulatory review work. Publications are generally in clinical medicine, consistent with the large number of medical oncologists working at the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP). OHOP publications generally focus either on communicating important regulatory work (approval summaries) or highlighting regulatory science issues to encourage dialogue with the scientific community (commentaries, reviews, and expert working papers). The analysis also suggests that several FDA oncology publications may influence clinical guidelines, but further work is needed to evaluate impact.
| S-EPMC7066718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ?10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
| S-EPMC3479492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The question of whether conscious experience is best viewed as graded or dichotomous has received much scientific attention in recent years as the answer is relevant not only to models of consciousness, but also to the examination of neural markers of consciousness in patients and infants. Although some studies have found evidence of graded perception, it is unclear whether such perception is simply composed of individual stimulus features perceived in an all-or-none manner. Here, we examined whether the Kanizsa triangle (an illusory figure that is supposedly only perceived when all its parts are visible) has an impact on line length discrimination across four degrees of subjective visibility. We found that the presence of the Kanizsa triangle biases line length judgments (a phenomenon called the Ponzo illusion) when participants reported any experience (even a weak glimpse) of the stimulus. The results support the view that consciousness is a graded phenomenon. The strength of this support depends on the assumption that all parts of the illusory figure must be perceived for the illusion to work but this assumption is not resolved in the present literature. Currently, evidence can be found both for and against this notion.
| S-EPMC5395153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractMany visual analytics have been developed for examining scientific publications comprising wealthy data such as authors and citations. The studies provide unprecedented insights on a variety of applications, e.g., literature review and collaboration analysis. However, visual information (e.g., figures) that is widely employed for storytelling and methods description are often neglected. We present VIStory, an interactive storyboard for exploring visual information in scientific publications. We harvest a new dataset of a large corpora of figures, using an automatic figure extraction method. Each figure contains various attributes such as dominant color and width/height ratio, together with faceted metadata of the publication including venues, authors, and keywords. To depict these information, we develop an intuitive interface consisting of three components: (1) Faceted View enables efficient query by publication metadata, benefiting from a nested table structure, (2) Storyboard View arranges paper rings-a well-designed glyph for depicting figure attributes, in a themeriver layout to reveal temporal trends, and (3) Endgame View presents a highlighted figure together with the publication metadata. We illustrate the applicability of VIStory with case studies on two datasets, i.e., 10-year IEEE VIS publications, and publications by a research team at CVPR, ICCV, and ECCV conferences. Quantitative and qualitative results from a formal user study demonstrate the efficiency of VIStory in exploring visual information in scientific publications.Graphical abstract
| S-EPMC7429144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific publications are the building blocks of discovery and collaboration, but their impact is limited by the style in which they are traditionally written. Recently, many authors have called for a switch to an engaging, accessible writing style. Here, we experimentally test how readers respond to such a style. We hypothesized that scientific abstracts written in a more accessible style would improve readers' reported readability and confidence as well as their understanding, assessed using multiple-choice questions on the content. We created a series of scientific abstracts, corresponding to real publications on three scientific topics at four levels of difficulty-varying from the difficult, traditional style to an engaging, accessible style. We gave these abstracts to a team of readers consisting of 170 third-year undergraduate students. Then, we posed questions to measure the readers' readability, confidence, and understanding with the content. The scientific abstracts written in a more accessible style resulted in higher readability, understanding, and confidence. These findings demonstrate that rethinking the way we communicate our science may empower a more collaborative and diverse industry.
| S-EPMC8430246 | biostudies-literature