GotFunding: A grant recommendation system based on scientific articles

Read original: arXiv:2405.12840 - Published 5/22/2024 by Tong Zeng, Daniel E. Acuna

🚀

Overview

This paper presents a recommendation system called "GotFunding" that helps match researchers' publications to the most relevant funding opportunities from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The system achieves high performance by learning to rank publications based on factors like the time difference between the publication and grant, the amount of information in the publication, and the relevance of the publication to the grant.
The goal is to help junior faculty more efficiently find funding opportunities that align with their research profiles, as obtaining funding is crucial for scientific success.

Plain English Explanation

Becoming a successful scientist often requires securing funding, which can be a time-consuming process for junior faculty. <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/public-private-funding-models-open-source-software">Finding the right funding agencies and programs</a> that match their research can be challenging. Some universities employ specialists to help with this, but not all institutions can afford that.

The researchers in this study wanted to understand the factors that influence how well a researcher's publications are matched to the grants they receive. They analyzed historical records of publications funded by NIH grants to develop a recommendation system called "GotFunding" that can suggest relevant funding opportunities.

The system works by "learning to rank" the publications based on several key factors:

The time difference between when the publication was produced and when the grant was awarded
The amount of information provided in the publication
How relevant the publication is to the grant

By considering these factors, the GotFunding system can make highly accurate recommendations, helping researchers more efficiently find funding that aligns with their work. This could be especially useful for junior faculty who are just starting to build their research profiles and need to secure funding to continue their important scientific contributions.

Technical Explanation

The researchers framed the problem of matching publications to grants as a "learning to rank" task, where the goal is to predict the most relevant grants for a given publication. They trained the GotFunding recommendation system on historical data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which included records of publications that were funded by NIH grants.

The system achieved a high performance, with a Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG@1) score of 0.945. This metric evaluates how well the top-ranked recommendation matches the true "best" grant for a publication.

By analyzing the features used by the GotFunding system, the researchers found that the most important factors were:

The time difference between when the publication was produced and when the grant was awarded
The amount of information provided in the publication (e.g., length, keywords)
The relevance of the publication's content to the grant

These insights suggest that the recommendation algorithm is effectively capturing the nuances of how publications are matched to grants, which can vary based on factors like timeliness and the level of detail provided.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge some limitations of their approach. For example, the study was limited to NIH grant data, so the findings may not generalize to other funding agencies or domains. Additionally, the system relies on historical data, which may not fully capture emerging research trends or new funding priorities.

Further research could explore incorporating additional features, such as <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/hierarchical-tree-structured-knowledge-graph-academic-insight">the broader research context and collaborations</a> of the authors, or <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/kg-ctg-citation-generation-through-knowledge-graph">the citation patterns of the publications</a>. There may also be opportunities to <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/disentangling-potential-impacts-papers-into-diffusion-conformity">better understand the potential impacts</a> of the recommended funding matches on the researchers' future work and contributions to the field.

Overall, the GotFunding system represents a promising step towards automating the critical task of matching researchers to funding opportunities, which could greatly benefit early-career scientists. Continued refinement and expansion of the approach could lead to more accessible and effective tools for navigating the complex funding landscape.

Conclusion

This paper presents a recommendation system called GotFunding that can effectively match researchers' publications to relevant funding opportunities from the National Institutes of Health. By analyzing historical grant-publication data, the system identifies key factors that influence the best matches, such as the timeliness of the publication, the level of detail provided, and the relevance of the content to the grant.

The high performance of the GotFunding system demonstrates its potential to help junior faculty more efficiently find funding that aligns with their research profiles, which is crucial for scientific success. While the current study is limited to NIH data, the general approach could be expanded to other funding agencies and research domains, potentially transforming how early-career scientists navigate the complex funding landscape.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

🚀

GotFunding: A grant recommendation system based on scientific articles

Tong Zeng, Daniel E. Acuna

Obtaining funding is an important part of becoming a successful scientist. Junior faculty spend a great deal of time finding the right agencies and programs that best match their research profile. But what are the factors that influence the best publication--grant matching? Some universities might employ pre-award personnel to understand these factors, but not all institutions can afford to hire them. Historical records of publications funded by grants can help us understand the matching process and also help us develop recommendation systems to automate it. In this work, we present textsc{GotFunding} (Grant recOmmendaTion based on past FUNDING), a recommendation system trained on National Institutes of Health's (NIH) grant--publication records. Our system achieves a high performance (NDCG@1 = 0.945) by casting the problem as learning to rank. By analyzing the features that make predictions effective, our results show that the ranking considers most important 1) the year difference between publication and grant grant, 2) the amount of information provided in the publication, and 3) the relevance of the publication to the grant. We discuss future improvements of the system and an online tool for scientists to try.

5/22/2024

Predicting Award Winning Research Papers at Publication Time

Riccardo Vella, Andrea Vitaletti, Fabrizio Silvestri

In recent years, many studies have been focusing on predicting the scientific impact of research papers. Most of these predictions are based on citations count or rely on features obtainable only from already published papers. In this study, we predict the likelihood for a research paper of winning an award only relying on information available at publication time. For each paper, we build the citation subgraph induced from its bibliography. We initially consider some features of this subgraph, such as the density and the global clustering coefficient, to make our prediction. Then, we mix this information with textual features, extracted from the abstract and the title, to obtain a more accurate final prediction. We made our experiments considering the ArnetMiner citation graph, while the ground truth on award-winning papers has been obtained from a collection of best paper awards from 32 computer science conferences. In our experiment, we obtained an encouraging F1 score of 0.694. Remarkably, The high recall and the low false negatives rate, show how the model performs very well at identifying papers that will not win an award. This behavior can help researchers in getting a first evaluation of their work at publication time. Lastly, we made some first experiments on interpretability. Our results highlight some interesting patterns both in topological and textual features.

6/19/2024

Chain-of-Factors Paper-Reviewer Matching

Yu Zhang, Yanzhen Shen, SeongKu Kang, Xiusi Chen, Bowen Jin, Jiawei Han

With the rapid increase in paper submissions to academic conferences, the need for automated and accurate paper-reviewer matching is more critical than ever. Previous efforts in this area have considered various factors to assess the relevance of a reviewer's expertise to a paper, such as the semantic similarity, shared topics, and citation connections between the paper and the reviewer's previous works. However, most of these studies focus on only one factor, resulting in an incomplete evaluation of the paper-reviewer relevance. To address this issue, we propose a unified model for paper-reviewer matching that jointly considers semantic, topic, and citation factors. To be specific, during training, we instruction-tune a contextualized language model shared across all factors to capture their commonalities and characteristics; during inference, we chain the three factors to enable step-by-step, coarse-to-fine search for qualified reviewers given a submission. Experiments on four datasets (one of which is newly contributed by us) spanning various fields such as machine learning, computer vision, information retrieval, and data mining consistently demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed Chain-of-Factors model in comparison with state-of-the-art paper-reviewer matching methods and scientific pre-trained language models.

8/15/2024

🧪

Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References

Cong Qi, Qin Liu, Kan Liu

Influence prediction plays a crucial role in the academic community. The amount of scholars' influence determines whether their work will be accepted by others. Most existing research focuses on predicting one paper's citation count after a period or identifying the most influential papers among the massive candidates, without concentrating on an individual paper's negative or positive impact on its authors. Thus, this study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not, which can provide feedback to the authors before they publish their papers. First, we presented the self-adapted ACC (Average Annual Citation Counts) metric to measure authors' impact yearly based on their annual published papers, paper citation counts, and contributions in each paper. Then, we proposed the RD-GAT (Reference-Depth Graph Attention Network) model to integrate heterogeneous graph information from different depth of references by assigning attention coefficients on them. Experiments on AMiner dataset demonstrated that the proposed ACC metrics could represent the authors influence effectively, and the RD-GAT model is more efficiently on the academic citation network, and have stronger robustness against the overfitting problem compared with the baseline models. By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future.

6/27/2024