IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v116y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-018-2778-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI

Author

Listed:
  • Omar Mubin

    (Western Sydney University)

  • Dhaval Tejlavwala

    (Western Sydney University)

  • Mudassar Arsalan

    (Western Sydney University)

  • Muneeb Ahmad

    (Western Sydney University)

  • Simeon Simoff

    (Western Sydney University)

Abstract

The overall readability of CHI publications is not known. In addition, little is understood about what lexical or demographic characteristics are unique to award winning papers at CHI and if they are significantly different from non award winning papers. We therefore carry out an exploration and assessment into the readability metrics as well as a meta analysis of 382 full papers and 54 notes from the 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 editions at CHI. Our results illustrate that notes did not have any significant trends whatsoever. On the other hand, award winning full papers were shown to have lower readability as compared to non award winning full papers. The type of research contribution played an important role; such that award winning full papers were significantly more likely to have a theoretical contribution as compared to non award winning full papers and full papers that presented an artifact as their contribution were more readable than other full papers. Our demographic analysis of authors indicated that the experience of authors nor their region of affiliation were not associated with the likelihood of their full paper being awarded. The experience of authors did not effect the overall readability of full papers however the region of affiliation did have a significant influence on the overall readability of full papers. In conclusion, we speculate on our obtained results through linkages with prior work in readability analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Omar Mubin & Dhaval Tejlavwala & Mudassar Arsalan & Muneeb Ahmad & Simeon Simoff, 2018. "An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1181-1201, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2778-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2778-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2778-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-018-2778-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Lee & Nick French, 2011. "The readability of academic papers in theJournal of Property Investment & Finance," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(6), pages 693-704, September.
    2. Amnah Alluqmani & Lior Shamir, 2018. "Writing styles in different scientific disciplines: a data science approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1071-1085, May.
    3. James Hartley & James W. Pennebaker & Claire Fox, 2003. "Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 389-398, July.
    4. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2013. "Cluttered writing: adjectives and adverbs in academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 679-681, September.
    5. Dolnicar, Sara & Chapple, Alexander, 2015. "The readability of articles in tourism journals," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 161-166.
    6. John D. Lee & Kim J. Vicente & Andrea Cassano & Anna Shearer, 2003. "Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton"s model of creative productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 223-232, February.
    7. Omar Mubin & Abdullah Al Mahmud & Muneeb Ahmad, 2017. "HCI down under: reflecting on a decade of the OzCHI conference," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 367-382, July.
    8. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen & María Bordons, 2012. "Referencing patterns of individual researchers: Do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2433-2450, December.
    9. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. James Hartley & Guillaume Cabanac, 2016. "Are two authors better than one? Can writing in pairs affect the readability of academic blogs?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2119-2122, December.
    11. Lei Lei, 2016. "When science meets cluttered writing: adjectives and adverbs in academia revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1361-1372, June.
    12. Lei Lei & Sheng Yan, 2016. "Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1155-1169, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    2. Frode Eika Sandnes, 2021. "A bibliometric study of human–computer interaction research activity in the Nordic-Baltic Eight countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4733-4767, June.
    3. Amon, Julian & Hornik, Kurt, 2022. "Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    2. Lei Lei & Sheng Yan, 2016. "Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1155-1169, September.
    3. Shan Wang & Xiaojun Liu & Jie Zhou, 2022. "Readability is decreasing in language and linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4697-4729, August.
    4. Xi Zhao & Li Li & Wei Xiao, 2023. "The diachronic change of research article abstract difficulty across disciplines: a cognitive information-theoretic approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    6. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    7. Song, Ningyuan & Chen, Kejun & Zhao, Yuehua, 2023. "Understanding writing styles of scientific papers in the IS-LS domain: Evidence from abstracts over the past three decades," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    8. Edoardo Magnone, 2014. "A novel graphical representation of sentence complexity: the description and its application," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1301-1329, February.
    9. Don Watson & Manfred Krug & Claus-Christian Carbon, 2022. "The relationship between citations and the linguistic traits of specific academic discourse communities identified by using social network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1755-1781, April.
    10. António Correia & Hugo Paredes & Benjamim Fonseca, 2018. "Scientometric analysis of scientific publications in CSCW," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 31-89, January.
    11. Diego Marino Fages, 2020. "Write better, publish better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1671-1681, March.
    12. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.
    13. Melissa A. Wheeler & Ekaterina Vylomova & Melanie J. McGrath & Nick Haslam, 2021. "More confident, less formal: stylistic changes in academic psychology writing from 1970 to 2016," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9603-9612, December.
    14. Amnah Alluqmani & Lior Shamir, 2018. "Writing styles in different scientific disciplines: a data science approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1071-1085, May.
    15. Rahman, Shaikh Moksadur, 2020. "Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Bangladesh," Asian Business Review, Asian Business Consortium, vol. 10(2), pages 99-108.
    16. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.
    17. Bridgelall, Raj & Stubbing, Edward, 2021. "Forecasting the effects of autonomous vehicles on land use," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    18. Bevilacqua, Maurizio & Ciarapica, Filippo Emanuele, 2018. "Human factor risk management in the process industry: A case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 149-159.
    19. Naveena Prakasam & Louisa Huxtable-Thomas, 2021. "Reddit: Affordances as an Enabler for Shifting Loyalties," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 723-751, June.
    20. Colin Jerolmack & Alexandra K. Murphy, 2019. "The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(4), pages 801-827, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2778-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.