Przemyslaw A. Grabowicz

In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, it is important to understand the drivers of high-impact research, to equip scientists with actionable strategies to enhance the reach of their work, and to understand trends in the use of modern scientific publishing tools to inform their further development. Here, based on a dataset of over 0.5 million publications in computer science and physics, we study trends in the use of early preprint publications and revisions on ArXiv and the use of X (formerly Twitter) for promotion of such papers. We find that early submissions to ArXiv and promotion on X have soared in recent years. Estimating the effect that the use of each of these modern affordances has on the number of citations of scientific publications, we find that peer-reviewed conference papers in computer science that are submitted early to ArXiv gain on average 21.1 ± 17.4 more citations, revised on ArXiv gain 18.4 ± 17.6 more citations, and promoted on X gain 44.4 ± 8 more citations in the first 5 years from an initial publication. In contrast, journal articles in physics experience comparatively lower boosts in citation counts, with increases of 3.9 ± 1.1, 4.3 ± 0.9, and 6.9 ± 3.5 citations respectively for the same interventions. Our results show that promoting one's work on ArXiv or X has a large impact on the number of citations, as well as the number of influential citations computed by Semantic Scholar, and thereby on the career of researchers. These effects are present also for publications in physics, but they are relatively smaller. The larger relative effect sizes, effects of promotion accumulating over time, and elevated unpredictability of the number of citations in computer science than in physics suggest a greater role of world-of-mouth spreading in computer science than in physics. We discuss the far-reaching implications of these findings for future scientific publishing systems and measures of scientific impact.

Social media platforms allow users to create polls to gather public opinion on diverse topics. However, we know little about what such polls are used for and how reliable they are, especially in significant contexts like elections. Focusing on the 2020 presidential elections in the U.S., this study shows that outcomes of election polls on Twitter deviate from election results despite their prevalence. Leveraging demographic inference and statistical analysis, we find that Twitter polls are disproportionately authored by male Republicans and exhibit a large bias towards candidate Donald Trump in comparison to mainstream polls. We investigate potential sources of biased outcomes from the point of view of inauthentic, automated, and counter-normative behavior. Using social media experiments and interviews with poll authors, we identify inconsistencies between public vote counts and those privately visible to poll authors, with the gap potentially attributable to purchased votes. We find that election polls tend to be more biased, contain more questionable votes, and attract more bots before the election day than after. We highlight and compare key factors contributing to biased poll outcomes. Finally, we identify instances of polls spreading voter fraud conspiracy theories and estimate that a couple of thousand such polls were posted in 2020. The study discusses the implications of biased election polls in the context of transparency and accountability of social media platforms.

Understanding the writing frame of news articles is vital for addressing social issues, and thus has attracted notable attention in the fields of communication studies. Yet, assessing such news article frames remains a challenge due to the absence of a concrete and unified standard dataset that considers the comprehensive nuances within news content. To address this gap, we introduce an extended version of a large labeled news article dataset with 16,687 new labeled pairs. Leveraging the pairwise comparison of news articles, our method frees the work of manual identification of frame classes in traditional news frame analysis studies. Overall we introduce the most extensive cross-lingual news article similarity dataset available to date with 26,555 labeled news article pairs across 10 languages. Each data point has been meticulously annotated according to a codebook detailing eight critical aspects of news content, under a human-in-the-loop framework. Application examples demonstrate its potential in unearthing country communities within global news coverage, exposing media bias among news outlets, and quantifying the factors related to news creation. We envision that this news similarity dataset will broaden our understanding of the media ecosystem in terms of news coverage of events and perspectives across countries, locations, languages, and other social constructs. By doing so, it can catalyze advancements in social science research and applied methodologies, thereby exerting a profound impact on our society.

News coverage profoundly affects how countries and individuals behave in international relations. Yet, we have little empirical evidence of how news coverage varies across countries. To enable studies of global news coverage, we develop an efficient computational methodology that comprises three components: (i) a transformer model to estimate multilingual news similarity; (ii) a global event identification system that clusters news based on a similarity network of news articles; and (iii) measures of news synchrony across countries and news diversity within a country, based on country-specific distributions of news coverage of the global events. Each component achieves state-of-the art performance, scaling seamlessly to massive datasets of millions of news articles. We apply the methodology to 60 million news articles published globally between January 1 and June 30, 2020, across 124 countries and 10 languages, detecting 4357 news events. We identify the factors explaining diversity and synchrony of news coverage across countries. Our study reveals that news media tend to cover a more diverse set of events in countries with larger Internet penetration, more official languages, larger religious diversity, higher economic inequality, and larger populations. Coverage of news events is more synchronized between countries that not only actively participate in commercial and political relations---such as, pairs of countries with high bilateral trade volume, and countries that belong to the NATO military alliance or BRICS group of major emerging economies---but also countries that share certain traits: an official language, high GDP, and high democracy indices.

News coverage profoundly affects how countries and individuals behave in international relations. Yet, we have little empirical evidence of how news coverage varies across countries. To enable studies of global news coverage, we develop an efficient computational methodology that comprises three components: (i) a transformer model to estimate multilingual news similarity; (ii) a global event identification system that clusters news based on a similarity network of news articles; and (iii) measures of news synchrony across countries and news diversity within a country, based on country-specific distributions of news coverage of the global events. Each component achieves state-of-the art performance, scaling seamlessly to massive datasets of millions of news articles. We apply the methodology to 60 million news articles published globally between January 1 and June 30, 2020, across 124 countries and 10 languages, detecting 4357 news events. We identify the factors explaining diversity and synchrony of news coverage across countries. Our study reveals that news media tend to cover a more diverse set of events in countries with larger Internet penetration, more official languages, larger religious diversity, higher economic inequality, and larger populations. Coverage of news events is more synchronized between countries that not only actively participate in commercial and political relations -- such as, pairs of countries with high bilateral trade volume, and countries that belong to the NATO military alliance or BRICS group of major emerging economies -- but also countries that share certain traits: an official language, high GDP, and high democracy indices.

Supervised learning systems are trained using historical data and, if the data was tainted by discrimination, they may unintentionally learn to discriminate against protected groups. We propose that fair learning methods, despite training on potentially discriminatory datasets, shall perform well on fair test datasets. Such dataset shifts crystallize application scenarios for specific fair learning methods. For instance, the removal of direct discrimination can be represented as a particular dataset shift problem. For this scenario, we propose a learning method that provably minimizes model error on fair datasets, while blindly training on datasets poisoned with direct additive discrimination. The method is compatible with existing legal systems and provides a solution to the widely discussed issue of protected groups' intersectionality by striking a balance between the protected groups. Technically, the method applies probabilistic interventions, has causal and counterfactual formulations, and is computationally lightweight - it can be used with any supervised learning model to prevent discrimination via proxies while maximizing model accuracy for business necessity.