Which structure of academic articles do referees pay more attention to?: perspective of peer review and full-text of academic articles

TL;DR

This study investigates which sections of academic articles referees focus on most, revealing that referees pay more attention to Materials, Methods, and Results, with implications for effective scientific writing.

Contribution

The paper introduces a hierarchical attention network model to identify article structures and analyzes referee attention patterns and their relation to citations.

Findings

Referees focus more on Materials and Methods, and Results sections.

Feature words of PRC differ across article sections, reflecting referee concerns.

No correlation found between PRC distribution and citation counts.

Abstract

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.