- Citation type recognition is limited to two types –– dominant and reference –– which belies the complexity of the citation function, which is a significant line of research by other scholars. However this is more of a choice of the research team in limiting the scope of research.
- Relies on supplemental space to contain the paper. The paper is not truly independent given this problem (esp. S3.1 reference to Sup. Fig. 6) and again later as noted with the model comparison and other details of the span vs. sentence investigation.
- The previous report of SciBERT were removed, but this somewhat exacerbates the earlier problem in v1 where the analyses of the outcomes of the models was too cursory and unsupported by deeper analyses. However, this isn't very fair to write as a weakness because the current paper just simply doesn't mention this.
- Only having two annotators for the dataset is a weakness, since it's not clear how the claims might generalise, given such a small sample.
- A summative demographics is inferrable but not mentioned in the text. Table 1's revised caption mentions 2.9K paragraphs as the size.
This paper is a differential review given that I previously reviewed the work in the Dec 2021 version submitted to ARR.
There are minor changes to the introduction section, lengthening the introduction and moving the related work section to the more traditional position, right after the introduction.
There are no rebuttals nor notes from the authors to interpret what has been changed from the previous submission, which could have been furnished to ease reviewer burden in checking (I had to read both the new and old manuscripts side by side and align them myself) Many figures could be wider given the margins for the column. I understand you want to preserve space to make up for the new additions into your manuscript, but the wider margins would help for legibility.
Minor changes were made S3.3 to incorporate more connection to prior work. S4.1 Model design was elaborated into subsections, S5.2.1 adds an introduction to LED.
462 RoBERTa-base
- Relies on supplemental space to contain the paper. The paper is not truly independent given this problem (esp. S3.1 reference to Sup. Fig. 6) and again later as noted with the model comparison and other details of the span vs. sentence investigation.