Research paper recommender system evaluation: a quantitative literature survey

RepSys '13 Pub Date : 2013-10-12 DOI:10.1145/2532508.2532512
Joeran Beel, Stefan Langer, Marcel Genzmehr, Bela Gipp, Corinna Breitinger, A. Nürnberger
{"title":"Research paper recommender system evaluation: a quantitative literature survey","authors":"Joeran Beel, Stefan Langer, Marcel Genzmehr, Bela Gipp, Corinna Breitinger, A. Nürnberger","doi":"10.1145/2532508.2532512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over 80 approaches for academic literature recommendation exist today. The approaches were introduced and evaluated in more than 170 research articles, as well as patents, presentations and blogs. We reviewed these approaches and found most evaluations to contain major shortcomings. Of the approaches proposed, 21% were not evaluated. Among the evaluated approaches, 19% were not evaluated against a baseline. Of the user studies performed, 60% had 15 or fewer participants or did not report on the number of participants. Information on runtime and coverage was rarely provided. Due to these and several other shortcomings described in this paper, we conclude that it is currently not possible to determine which recommendation approaches for academic literature are the most promising. However, there is little value in the existence of more than 80 approaches if the best performing approaches are unknown.","PeriodicalId":398648,"journal":{"name":"RepSys '13","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"149","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RepSys '13","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2532508.2532512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 149

Abstract

Over 80 approaches for academic literature recommendation exist today. The approaches were introduced and evaluated in more than 170 research articles, as well as patents, presentations and blogs. We reviewed these approaches and found most evaluations to contain major shortcomings. Of the approaches proposed, 21% were not evaluated. Among the evaluated approaches, 19% were not evaluated against a baseline. Of the user studies performed, 60% had 15 or fewer participants or did not report on the number of participants. Information on runtime and coverage was rarely provided. Due to these and several other shortcomings described in this paper, we conclude that it is currently not possible to determine which recommendation approaches for academic literature are the most promising. However, there is little value in the existence of more than 80 approaches if the best performing approaches are unknown.
论文推荐系统评价研究:定量文献综述
目前存在80多种学术文献推荐方法。这些方法在170多篇研究论文、专利、演讲和博客中被介绍和评估。我们回顾了这些方法,发现大多数评估都存在重大缺陷。在提出的方法中,21%没有进行评估。在评估的方法中,19%没有根据基线进行评估。在进行的用户研究中,60%的参与者少于15人,或者没有报告参与者的数量。关于运行时和覆盖率的信息很少被提供。由于本文中描述的这些和其他几个缺点,我们得出结论,目前不可能确定哪种学术文献推荐方法最有前途。然而,如果最好的方法是未知的,那么超过80种方法的存在就没有什么价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信