Cited by 26Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorUsability and User Interface DesignRecommender Systems and Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interactive IR User Study Design, Evaluation, and Reporting

Liu, Jiqun, Shah, Chirag·2019·Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-031-02319-4

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liu, J., & Shah, C.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Venue
Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services
Published
2019
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
i-75
ISSN
  • 1947-945X (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-9468
OpenAlex
W2948113848
Cited by
26
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.74
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services (publishedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1423239, 1717488)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
interactive information retrieval, user study evaluation, information retrieval evaluation, meta-evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review