title: Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?
abstract: Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances-sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances.
authors.affiliation: Pingar Research, Pingar, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
authors.forename: Anna
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Divoli
authors.forename: Preslav
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Nakov
authors.forename: Marti A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Hearst