The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lexicon-based sentiment analysis: Comparative evaluation of six sentiment lexicons
Abstract
This article introduces a new general-purpose sentiment lexicon called WKWSCI Sentiment Lexicon and compares it with five existing lexicons: Hu & Liu Opinion Lexicon, Multi-perspective Question Answering (MPQA) Subjectivity Lexicon, General Inquirer, National Research Council Canada (NRC) Word-Sentiment Association Lexicon and Semantic Orientation Calculator (SO-CAL) lexicon. The effectiveness of the sentiment lexicons for sentiment categorisation at the document level and sentence level was evaluated using an Amazon product review data set and a news headlines data set. WKWSCI, MPQA, Hu & Liu and SO-CAL lexicons are equally good for product review sentiment categorisation, obtaining accuracy rates of 75%–77% when appropriate weights are used for different categories of sentiment words. However, when a training corpus is not available, Hu & Liu obtained the best accuracy with a simple-minded approach of counting positive and negative words for both document-level and sentence-level sentiment categorisation. The WKWSCI lexicon obtained the best accuracy of 69% on the news headlines sentiment categorisation task, and the sentiment strength values obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.57 with human-assigned sentiment values. It is recommended that the Hu & Liu lexicon be used for product review texts and the WKWSCI lexicon for non-review texts.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Wu, Y. (1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1999.10485951 · Cited by 27,221
Mining and summarizing customer reviews
Hu, M., & Liu, B. (2004) · Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1014052.1014073 · Cited by 7,793
Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography
Church, K., & Hanks, P. (1990) · doi:10.5555/89086.89095 · Cited by 3,590
Natural language processing with Python
Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 3,468
Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis
Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M. (2011) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00049 · Cited by 3,301
The teacher's word book of 30,000 words.
Witty, P. (1945) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0050354 · Cited by 2,661
CROWDSOURCING A WORD–EMOTION ASSOCIATION LEXICON
Mohammad, S. M., & Turney, P. D. (2013) · Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x · Cited by 2,634
SENTIWORDNET: A Publicly Available Lexical Resource for Opinion Mining
Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F. (2006) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/54vo5wjya4cw · Cited by 2,480
Cited by
Yang, L., Li, Y., Wang, J., & Sherratt, R. S. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2969854 · Cited by 573
Metadata
- Authors
- Khoo, C. S., & Johnkhan, S. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-04-19
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 491-511
- ISSN
- 0165-5515 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-6485
- OpenAlex
- W2606902231
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 7.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lexicon-based sentiment analysis: Comparative evaluation of six sentiment lexicons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0165551517703514
- The paper
- Khoo, C. S., & Johnkhan, S. B. (2018). Lexicon-based sentiment analysis: Comparative evaluation of six sentiment lexicons. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517703514
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.