Henrique Lemos dos Santos, Cristian Cechinel and Ricardo Matsumura Araújo
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a comparison among three different approaches for recommending learning objects (LO) inside a repository. The comparison…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a comparison among three different approaches for recommending learning objects (LO) inside a repository. The comparison focuses not only on prediction errors but also on the coverage of each tested configuration.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors compared the offline evaluation by using pure collaborative filtering (CF) algorithms with two other different combinations of pre-processed data. The first approach for pre-processing data consisted of clustering users according to their disciplines resemblance, while the second approach consisted of clustering LO according to their textual similarity regarding title and description. The three methods were compared with respect to the mean average error between predicted values and real values. Moreover, we evaluated the impact of the number of clusters and neighborhood size on the user-coverage.
Findings
Clustering LO has improved the prediction error measure with a small loss on user-coverage when compared to the pure CF approach. On the other hand, the approach of clustering users failed in both the error and in user-space coverage. It also became clear that the neighborhood size is the most relevant parameter to determine how large the coverage will be.
Research limitations
The methods proposed here were not yet evaluated in a real-world scenario, with real users opinions about the recommendations and their respective learning goals. Future work is still required to evaluate users opinions.
Originality/value
This research provides evidence toward new recommendation methods directed toward LO repositories.
Details
Keywords
Allan Farias Fávaro, Roderval Marcelino and Cristian Cechinel
This paper presents a review of the state of the art on the application of blockchain and smart contracts to the peer-review process of scientific papers. The paper seeks to…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper presents a review of the state of the art on the application of blockchain and smart contracts to the peer-review process of scientific papers. The paper seeks to analyse how the main characteristics of the existing blockchain solutions in this field to detect opportunities for the improvement of future applications.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review of the literature on the subject was carried out in three databases recognized by the research community (IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science) and the Frontiers in Blockchain journal. A total of 1,967 articles were initially found, and after the exclusion process, the 26 remaining articles were classified according to the following dimensions: System Type, Open Access, Review Type, Reviewer Incentive, Token Economy, Blockchain Access, Blockchain Identification, Blockchain Used, Paper Storage, Anonymity and Maturity of the solution.
Findings
Results show that the solutions are normally concerned on offering incentives to the reviewers' work (often monetary). Other common general preferences among the solutions are the adoption of open reviews, the use of Ethereum, the implementation of publishing ecosystems and the use of InterPlanetary File System to the storage of the papers.
Originality/value
There are currently no studies covering the main aspects of blockchain solutions in the field of scientific peer review. The present study provides an overall review of the topic, summarizing important information on the current research and helping new adopters to develop solutions grounded on the existing literature.