- The approach description (§ 3) is partially difficult to follow and should be revised. The additional page of the camera-ready version should be used to extend the approach description (rather than adding more experiments).
- CSFCube results are not reported with the same metrics as in the original publication making a comparison harder than needed.
- The standard deviation from the Appendix could be added to Table 1 at least for one metric. There should be enough horizontal space.
- Notation of BERT_\theta and BERT_\epsilon is confusing. Explicitly calling them the co-citation sentence encoder and the paper encoder could make it clearer. - How are negative sampled for BERT_\epsilon?
Additional relevant literature: - Luu, K., Wu, X., Koncel-Kedziorski, R., Lo, K., Cachola, I., & Smith, N.A. (2021). Explaining Relationships Between Scientific Documents. ACL/IJCNLP.
- Malte Ostendorff, Terry Ruas, Till Blume, Bela Gipp, Georg Rehm. Aspect-based Document Similarity for Research Papers. COLING 2020.
Typos: -	Line 259: “cotation” -	Line 285: Missing “.”
- The approach description (§ 3) is partially difficult to follow and should be revised. The additional page of the camera-ready version should be used to extend the approach description (rather than adding more experiments).