Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) have evolved enormously as interrelated research areas and disciplines. Many researchers interested in these areas may wonder why there are two different communities, whether they are the same concept or not, and the differences between them, which is key information for designing their research and publication strategies. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of academic papers about the differences between LA and EDM following the Preferred Reporting Method for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected 10 research works and identified 11 differences. Our conclusions are that, although both use the same data and share similar goals and interests, EDM and LA are different research communities with different origins and focuses, with their respective conferences and journals. However, there is active collaboration between the two communities and their members often tend to publish in both fields' conferences and journals. Additionally, none of the differences are apparently large enough to conclude that LA and EDM follow different paths for improving the teaching-learning process, but rather the opposite. Following a common future line, it seems that the two "sister" communities are working together with the same perspective, along with some "cousin" communities such as AIED (Artificial Intelligence in Education), L@S (Learning at Scale), Learning Science (LS), etc. in the same area that could be called Educational Data Science (EDS). We propose using the term EDS to integrate both LA and EDM with all these related communities. [Display omitted] • Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) are interrelated and sometimes interchanged terms. • Five original differences between EDM and LA have been identified. • Other six new differences have emerged since these initial five differences. • The term Educational Data Science (EDS) is proposed to integrate EDM and LA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]