论文标题
裁判员的哪些学术文章结构更加关注？：同行评审的观点和学术文章的全文
Which structure of academic articles do referees pay more attention to?: perspective of peer review and full-text of academic articles
论文作者
论文摘要
目的 本文的目的是探讨哪些学术文章裁判的结构将更加关注，具体内容裁判的重点是哪些特定内容，以及中国的分布是否与引用有关。设计/方法/方法 首先，利用节标题和分层注意网络模型（HAN）的特征单词来识别学术文章结构。其次，根据PRC中规则提取的位置信息在不同结构中的分布。第三，分析通过卡方检验和TF-IDF在不同结构中提取的PRC特征单词的分布。最后，使用四种相关分析方法来分析PRC在不同结构中的分布是否与引用相关。发现 在材料和方法和结果部分中分布的PRC计数远远超过了介绍和讨论的结构，这表明裁判员更多地关注材料，方法和结果。中国在不同结构中的特征单词的分布显然是不同的，这可以反映裁判员关注的内容。中国在不同结构中的分布与引用之间没有相关性。研究局限性/含义 由于裁判员写同行评审报告的方式有所不同，因此用于提取职位信息的规则不能涵盖所有中国。独创性/价值 本文在不同的学术文章结构中发现了中国分布的一种模式，证明了长期经验理解。它还提供了对学术文章写作的洞察力：研究人员应在撰写学术文章时确保方法的科学性和结果的可靠性，以获得裁判的高度认可。
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore which structures of academic articles referees would pay more attention to, what specific content referees focus on, and whether the distribution of PRC is related to the citations. Design/methodology/approach Firstly, utilizing the feature words of section title and hierarchical attention network model (HAN) to identify the academic article structures. Secondly, analyzing the distribution of PRC in different structures according to the position information extracted by rules in PRC. Thirdly, analyzing the distribution of feature words of PRC extracted by the Chi-square test and TF-IDF in different structures. Finally, four correlation analysis methods are used to analyze whether the distribution of PRC in different structures is correlated to the citations. Findings The count of PRC distributed in Materials and Methods and Results section is significantly more than that in the structure of Introduction and Discussion, indicating that referees pay more attention to the Material and Methods and Results. The distribution of feature words of PRC in different structures is obviously different, which can reflect the content of referees' concern. There is no correlation between the distribution of PRC in different structures and the citations. Research limitations/implications Due to the differences in the way referees write peer review reports, the rules used to extract position information cannot cover all PRC. Originality/value The paper finds a pattern in the distribution of PRC in different academic article structures proving the long-term empirical understanding. It also provides insight into academic article writing: researchers should ensure the scientificity of methods and the reliability of results when writing academic article to obtain a high degree of recognition from referees.
