Cited by 61Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesAcademic integrity and plagiarismscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Biomedical text mining for research rigor and integrity: tasks, challenges, directions

Open access
Kilicoglu, Halil·2017·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

An estimated quarter of a trillion US dollars is invested in the biomedical research enterprise annually. There is growing alarm that a significant portion of this investment is wasted because of problems in reproducibility of research findings and in the rigor and integrity of research conduct and reporting. Recent years have seen a flurry of activities focusing on standardization and guideline development to enhance the reproducibility and rigor of biomedical research. Research activity is primarily communicated via textual artifacts, ranging from grant applications to journal publications. These artifacts can be both the source and the manifestation of practices leading to research waste. For example, an article may describe a poorly designed experiment, or the authors may reach conclusions not supported by the evidence presented. In this article, we pose the question of whether biomedical text mining techniques can assist the stakeholders in the biomedical research enterprise in doing their part toward enhancing research integrity and rigor. In particular, we identify four key areas in which text mining techniques can make a significant contribution: plagiarism/fraud detection, ensuring adherence to reporting guidelines, managing information overload and accurate citation/enhanced bibliometrics. We review the existing methods and tools for specific tasks, if they exist, or discuss relevant research that can provide guidance for future work. With the exponential increase in biomedical research output and the ability of text mining approaches to perform automatic tasks at large scale, we propose that such approaches can support tools that promote responsible research practices, providing significant benefits for the biomedical research enterprise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bib/bbx057

Cites

185 of 186 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 188 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Rosso P, Rangel F, Potthast M, et al. Overview of PAN'16- new challenges for authorship analysis: cross-genre profil- ing, clustering, diarization, and obfuscation. In: Fuhr N, Quaresma P, Larsen B et al. (eds), 7th International Conference of the CLEF Initiative (CLEF 16), Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2016.
  2. Ne ´ve ´ol A, Wilbur WJ, Lu Z. Extraction of data deposition statements from the literature. Bioinformatics 2011a;27(23): 3306-12.
  3. Kilicoglu H, Fiszman M, Rodriguez A, et al. Semantic MEDLINE: a web application to manage the results of PubMed searches. In: Salakoski T, Schuhmann DR, Pyysalo S, (eds), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Semantic Mining in Biomedicine (SMBM 2008), Turku Centre for Computer Science (TUCS), Turku, Finland, 2008, 69-76.
  4. Bjo ¨rne J, Salakoski T. Generalizing biomedical event extrac- tion. In: Proceedings of BioNLP Shared Task 2011 Workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, USA, 2011, 183-191.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kilicoglu, H.
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2017-06-13
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
1400-1414
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W2952174148
Cited by
61
References
188
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
biomedical text mining, research integrity, research rigor, reproducibility, research waste, plagiarism detection, reporting guidelines adherence, information overload, citation analysis, bibliometric analysis, responsible conduct of research, grant applications, scholarly publishing
MeSH terms
Natural Language Processing, Publications, Reproducibility of Results, Biomedical Research, Data Mining

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