BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Hamed Alhoori

Hamed Alhoori contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Digital LibrariesApplicationsArtificial Intelligencecs.CYHuman-Computer InteractionInformation RetrievalMachine LearningSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Reproducibility Signals in Science: A preliminary analysis

Reproducibility is an important feature of science; experiments are retested, and analyses are repeated. Trust in the findings increases when consistent results are achieved. Despite the importance of reproducibility, significant work is often involved in these efforts, and some published findings may not be reproducible due to oversights or errors. In this paper, we examine a myriad of features in scholarly articles published in computer science conferences and journals and test how they correlate with reproducibility. We collected data from three different sources that labeled publications as either reproducible or irreproducible and employed statistical significance tests to identify features of those publications that hold clues about reproducibility. We found the readability of the scholarly article and accessibility of the software artifacts through hyperlinks to be strong signals noticeable amongst reproducible scholarly articles.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Quantifying the Online Long-Term Interest in Research

Research articles are being shared in increasing numbers on multiple online platforms. Although the scholarly impact of these articles has been widely studied, the online interest determined by how long the research articles are shared online remains unclear. Being cognizant of how long a research article is mentioned online could be valuable information to the researchers. In this paper, we analyzed multiple social media platforms on which users share and/or discuss scholarly articles. We built three clusters for papers, based on the number of yearly online mentions having publication dates ranging from the year 1920 to 2016. Using the online social media metrics for each of these three clusters, we built machine learning models to predict the long-term online interest in research articles. We addressed the prediction task with two different approaches: regression and classification. For the regression approach, the Multi-Layer Perceptron model performed best, and for the classification approach, the tree-based models performed better than other models. We found that old articles are most evident in the contexts of economics and industry (i.e., patents). In contrast, recently published articles are most evident in research platforms (i.e., Mendeley) followed by social media platforms (i.e., Twitter).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Toward Systematic Design Considerations of Organizing Multiple Views

Multiple-view visualization (MV) has been used for visual analytics in various fields (e.g., bioinformatics, cybersecurity, and intelligence analysis). Because each view encodes data from a particular perspective, analysts often use a set of views laid out in 2D space to link and synthesize information. The difficulty of this process is impacted by the spatial organization of these views. For instance, connecting information from views far from each other can be more challenging than neighboring ones. However, most visual analysis tools currently either fix the positions of the views or completely delegate this organization of views to users (who must manually drag and move views). This either limits user involvement in managing the layout of MV or is overly flexible without much guidance. Then, a key design challenge in MV layout is determining the factors in a spatial organization that impact understanding. To address this, we review a set of MV-based systems and identify considerations for MV layout rooted in two key concerns: perception, which considers how users perceive view relationships, and content, which considers the relationships in the data. We show how these allow us to study and analyze the design of MV layout systematically.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Measuring the Diversity of Facebook Reactions to Research

Online and in the real world, communities are bonded together by emotional consensus around core issues. Emotional responses to scientific findings often play a pivotal role in these core issues. When there is too much diversity of opinion on topics of science, emotions flare up and give rise to conflict. This conflict threatens positive outcomes for research. Emotions have the power to shape how people process new information. They can color the public's understanding of science, motivate policy positions, even change lives. And yet little work has been done to evaluate the public's emotional response to science using quantitative methods. In this paper, we use a dataset of responses to scholarly articles on Facebook to analyze the dynamics of emotional valence, intensity, and diversity. We present a novel way of weighting click-based reactions that increases their comprehensibility, and use these weighted reactions to develop new metrics of aggregate emotional responses. We use our metrics along with LDA topic models and statistical testing to investigate how users' emotional responses differ from one scientific topic to another. We find that research articles related to gender, genetics, or agricultural/environmental sciences elicit significantly different emotional responses from users than other research topics. We also find that there is generally a positive response to scientific research on Facebook, and that articles generating a positive emotional response are more likely to be widely shared---a conclusion that contradicts previous studies of other social media platforms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access