Search D-Lib:
The Magazine of Digital Library Research

D-Lib Magazine

July/August 2017
Volume 23, Number 7/8
Table of Contents


RARD: The Related-Article Recommendation Dataset

Joeran Beel
Trinity College Dublin, Department of Computer Science, ADAPT Centre, Ireland
joeran.beel [at]

Zeljko Carevic
GESIS — Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Germany
zeljko.carevic [at]

Johann Schaible
GESIS — Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Germany
johann.schaible [at]

Gábor Neusch
Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Information Systems, Hungary
gneusch [at]



Recommender-system datasets are used for recommender-system offline evaluations, training machine-learning algorithms, and exploring user behavior. While there are many datasets for recommender systems in the domains of movies, books, and music, there are rather few datasets from research-paper recommender systems. In this paper, we introduce RARD, the Related-Article Recommendation Dataset, from the digital library Sowiport and the recommendation-as-a-service provider Mr. DLib. The dataset contains information about 57.4 million recommendations that were displayed to the users of Sowiport. Information includes details on which recommendation approaches were used (e.g. content-based filtering, stereotype, most popular), what types of features were used in content based filtering (simple terms vs. keyphrases), where the features were extracted from (title or abstract), and the time when recommendations were delivered and clicked. In addition, the dataset contains an implicit item-item rating matrix that was created based on the recommendation click logs. RARD enables researchers to train machine learning algorithms for research-paper recommendations, perform offline evaluations, and do research on data from Mr. DLib's recommender system, without implementing a recommender system themselves. In the field of scientific recommender systems, our dataset is unique. To the best of our knowledge, there is no dataset with more (implicit) ratings available, and that many variations of recommendation algorithms. The dataset is available at, and published under the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC-BY)" license.

Keywords: Recommender System, Dataset, Content-based Filtering, Digital Library, API


1 Introduction

Recommender-system datasets are available in many disciplines such as movies [Harper and Konstan, 2016], books [Ziegler et al., 2005], and music [Bertin-Mahieux et al., 2011]. The datasets can be used for offline evaluations, to train machine learning algorithms, and to explore the dataset-provider's users and items. The interest in such datasets may be immense: one of the most popular datasets, MovieLens, was downloaded 140,000 times in 2014 [Harper and Konstan, 2016], and Google Scholar lists 10,600 articles that mention the MovieLens dataset (see Figure 1).


Figure 1: Number of search results on Google Scholar for "MovieLens"

In this paper, we introduce a new dataset named RARD — the Related-Article Recommendation Dataset. RARD is based on the research-paper recommender system Mr. DLib [Beel, Aizawa, et al., 2017], and the digital library Sowiport [Hienert et al., 2015]. The dataset contains the delivery and click logs for 57 million displayed recommendations including information about the recommendation algorithms, as well as an implicit item-item ratings matrix based on the logs. The recommendation logs can be used to analyze how effective the recommendation algorithms and parameters are, and to write and publish research papers about the findings. The rating matrix may be used to train machine learning recommendation algorithms, and conduct offline evaluations.

Sowiport is one of the largest digital libraries for the social sciences in Germany. It enables users to search in a corpus of 9.5 million research articles. Each article's detail page features a list of related articles (see Figure 2). Sowiport, however, does not operate its own recommender system to calculate article relatedness. Instead, Sowiport uses Mr. DLib, which is a recommendation-as-a-service provider.


Figure 2: Screenshot of an article's detail page and related-article recommendations

Figure 3 illustrates the recommendation process: (1) A partner of Mr. DLib, such as Sowiport, requests a list of related articles for a source article that is currently browsed by a user. The request is sent as a HTTP GET request to Mr. DLib's RESTful Web Service. (2) Mr. DLib calculates a list of related articles and returns the articles' metadata in XML format. (3) The partner displays the articles on its website, and (4) when a user clicks on a recommendation, the partner sends a logging notification to Mr. DLib, so that Mr. DLib knows which recommendations were clicked by the users. To enable the calculation of recommendations, Sowiport provided Mr. DLib with metadata of its 9.5 million documents (title, abstracts etc.).


Figure 3: Illustration of the recommendation process

Between 18th of September 2016 and 8th of February 2017, Sowiport sent 7.36 million requests for related-article recommendations to Mr. DLib. Mr. DLib returned 57.4 million recommendations for related-articles (7.8 on average per request), of which 77,468 recommendations were clicked.

In the remainder of the article, we provide background information on Mr. DLib, related work, and describe the dataset including potential use cases.


2 Mr. DLib

Whenever a partner requests recommendations, Mr. DLib uses an A/B engine that randomly picks a recommendation approach and varies the approach's parameters. The current distribution among the recommendation approaches is 90% content-based filtering, 4.9% stereotyping, 4.9% most-popular recommendations, and 0.2% random recommendations [Beel, Dinesh, et al., 2017].1

Content-based filtering (CBF) is implemented via Apache Solr/Lucene's2 More-like-this function that uses BM25. Before Mr. DLib can apply CBF, partners submit their documents' metadata to Mr. DLib, and Mr. DLib indexes the data in Lucene. Metadata includes title, abstract, keywords, author names, and journal names. Sowiport provided Mr. DLib with metadata of 9.5 million documents, of which 56% are English, 22% German, 15% unknown, and 7% other languages. Forty percent of the documents have an abstract, 60% do not have an abstract. Most documents are journal articles (61%) and books (24%) (see Table 1).

Table 1: Document Types in the Sowiport Corpus

Journal Article Book Conference Article Monograph Website Other Unknown
61.56% 24.13% 3.79% 3.68% 0.07% 5.06% 1.71%

To enhance Lucene's standard CBF, we experiment with key-phrases that we extract from English documents' metadata and index in Lucene. Key-phrases are stemmed nouns, on which part-of-speech tagging and some statistical analyses are applied [Ferrara et al., 2011]. Overall, we calculated 13 million unique key-phrases for 5.3 million English documents. For most documents (61.5%) Mr. DLib could extract between 2 and 20 key-phrases (see Figure 4). The maximum key-phrase count for one document is 118.


Figure 4: Number of key-phrases

When the A/B engine chooses content-based filtering, it randomly selects whether to use "normal terms" or key-phrases for calculating document similarity. When key-phrases are chosen, the engine randomly selects if key-phrases from the 'abstract' or 'title and abstract' are used. Subsequently, the system randomly selects if unigrams, bigrams, or trigrams are used as key-phrases. Finally, the system randomly selects if one, two, ... or twenty key-phrases are used to calculate document relatedness.

The stereotype approach is adopted from the reference manager Docear [Beel et al., 2015]. To create stereotype recommendations, we assume that most Sowiport users — who are primarily students and researchers — are interested in the topics "academic writing", "research methods", and "peer review & research evaluation". We used Sowiport's search function to find 16 documents that we considered relevant for the three topics. These documents are flagged in Mr. DLib's database, and recommended if the stereotype approach is chosen by the A/B engine.

The most-popular approach recommends the most-popular documents from Sowiport. "Popularity" is measured by "Views", i.e. the most viewed articles on Sowiport's website, and by "Exports", i.e. the most exported documents on Sowiport's website.

If the A/B engine selects "random recommendations", the system randomly picks documents from the corpus. The random recommendations only serve as a baseline.

Once a list of recommendation candidates is created, the A/B engine chooses if it will re-rank the candidates based on bibliometrics/altmetrics that we calculate with readership statistics from Mendeley [Siebert et al., 2017]. This means, from the top x candidates, those documents with the highest bibliometric relevance scores are eventually recommended. The readership data is not included in RARD, but probably will be in a subsequent release.

After the algorithm is assembled, and a list of recommendation candidates has been identified and re-ranked, the A/B engine randomly selects how many recommendations to return to the partner (1...15), and if it will shuffle the recommendations in the set. We speak of a "recommendation set" to describe the number of recommendations that Mr. DLib returns for a request by Sowiport.

The A/B engine records all details about the algorithms, as well as additional information such as when a request was received, when the response was returned, and if a recommendation was clicked. All this information is contained in the dataset. For a more detailed description of Mr. DLib's architecture and algorithms, please refer to Beel, Aizawa, et al. [2017], Beel and Dinesh [2017a; 2017b], Beel, Dinesh, et al. [2017], Beierle et al. [2017], Feyer et al. [2017] and Siebert et al. [2017].


3 Related Work

As mentioned, there are recommendation datasets in many disciplines such as movies, books, and music. Some datasets contain only a few thousand ratings of some hundreds of users; other datasets contain millions of ratings (cf. Table 2). The information-retrieval community has made significant efforts to create datasets and test corpora for enabling the evaluation of information-retrieval systems, especially in the field of search. Some examples include TREC [Harman, 1992; Voorhees and Ellis, 2016], NTCIR [Aizawa et al., 2013; Zanibbi et al., 2016], and CLEF [Hopfgartner et al., 2016; Koolen et al., 2016] under whose umbrella several datasets were released. For academic search, the 'TREC OpenSearch — Academic Search Edition' provides datasets and a living lab that allows for the evaluation of academic search algorithms [Balog et al., 2016].

Table 2: Key characteristics of some popular datasets

Dataset Users Items Ratings Density Rating Scale
Movielens 1M 6,040 3,883 1,000,209 4.26% [1-5]
Movielens 10M 69,878 10,681 10,000,054 1.33% [0.5-5]
Movielens 20M 138,493 27,278 20,000,263 0.52% [0.5-5]
Jester 124,113 150 5,865,235 31.50% [-10, 10]
Book-Crossing 92,107 271,379 1,031,175 0.0041% [1, 10], and implicit 1,892 17,632 92,834 0.28% Play Counts
Wikipedia 5,583,724 4,936,761 417,996,366 0.0015% Interactions
OpenStreetMap (Azerbaijan) 231 108,330 205,774 0.82% Interactions
Git (Django) 790 1,757 13,165 0.95% Interactions

In the field of scientific recommender systems, there are rather few attempts to publish datasets. Lykke et al. published the iSearch collection, a dataset with around 450 thousand monographs, and journal articles, including a classification and relevance assessment for 65 topics [Lykke et al., 2010]. Sugiyama and Kan released two small datasets, which they created for their academic recommender system [Sugiyama and Kan, 2010]. The datasets include some research papers, and the interests of 50 researchers. Gipp et al. [2015] created CITREC, a framework and dataset for evaluating recommendation algorithms for scientific literature. They use 170,000 open access articles in the life sciences and provide two gold standards — one derived automatically from subject descriptors assigned to the articles and one created manually in an earlier TREC task. They also provide source code and the results of 35 citation-based and text-based recommendation algorithms.

Several reference managers published datasets that can be used for recommender-system research. CiteULike and Bibsonomy published datasets containing the social tags that their users added to research articles. Although not always intended for it, the datasets are often used to evaluate research-paper recommender systems [Caragea et al., 2013; Dong et al., 2009; He et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2012; Kataria et al., 2010; Pennock et al., 2000; Rokach et al., 2013; Torres et al., 2004; Zarrinkalam and Kahani, 2013]. Similarly, Jack et al. compiled a dataset based on the reference-management software Mendeley [Jack et al., 2012]. The dataset includes 50,000 randomly selected personal libraries from 1.5 million users. These 50,000 libraries contain 4.4 million articles with 3.6 million of them being unique. These datasets can be used for evaluating, for example, (item-based) collaborative filtering algorithms. The developers of the reference-management software Docear published a dataset from their recommender system [Beel et al., 2014]. The dataset contains metadata of 9.4 million academic articles, the citation network, information about 8,000 users and their 52 thousand personal libraries, and details on 300,000 recommendations that the recommender system delivered. The existing datasets are frequently used and discussed, for instance by Abbasi and Frommholz [2015], Hagen et al. [2016], White [2017], Michelbacher et al. [2011] and Stiller et al. [2014].


4 The Dataset

The RARD dataset is somewhat similar to the dataset of Docear [Beel et al., 2014]. To the best of our knowledge, the Docear dataset was the first dataset (and until the release of RARD also the only dataset) that contains information about recommendations being created with variations of different recommendation approaches, and that were delivered to real users. The RARD dataset contains similar information. However, the Docear dataset focused on the user modelling process based on mind-maps [Beel et al., 2015], which was very specific to the Docear software. The RARD dataset focuses on related-article recommendation in general, and is hence potentially relevant for a broader audience. We do not claim that RARD is better (or worse) than the Docear and other existing datasets. Each of the existing datasets has its unique features, and may be useful in some scenario. We consider RARD to be an additional dataset in the domain of scientific recommender systems that may complement the existing datasets.

RARD is available on Harvard's Dataverse, and published under "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC-BY)" license. If a user feels that our license is not appropriate for his or her purposes, we are open to discuss alternatives. Due to copyright restrictions, we are not able to publish the documents' metadata. However, we publish a list of the original document IDs, which allows for the request of metadata for many of the documents from Sowiport's OAI-PMH interface.

The RARD dataset consists of tab-separated plain-text CSV files that relate to 1) the recommendation logs, 2) an implicit item-item rating matrix, and 3) a list of external IDs to lookup additional information. Each of the three sub-datasets is explained in the following.


4.1 Recommendation Logs and Statistics

The file recommendation_log.csv (7 GB) contains information about 7,360,026 related-article requests from Sowiport, and the corresponding recommendation sets that Mr. DLib returned. The 7.36 million recommendation sets contained 57,435,086 recommendations in total (7.8 recommendations on average). Each of the 57.4 million recommendations is represented by one row in the dataset. For each row, the dataset provides the following details/columns:

Overall, recommendations were requested at least once for 2,176,984 documents (23%) of the 9.5 million documents in the corpus. Of the 57 million recommendations, 77,468 were clicked, which results in a click-through rate (CTR) of 0.135%. A CTR of 0.135% may seem low compared to click-through rates of 5% and higher in, for instance, Docear [Beel, 2015; Beel et al., 2014]. However, we expected low CTRs for three reasons. First, Mr. DLib also delivers recommendations when web crawlers index the website of Sowiport. This means that an unknown fraction of the 57 million recommendations was not shown to humans but to bots. In contrast, clicks are logged with JavaScript, which is usually not executed by web crawlers. Consequently, the number of recommendations contains some noise, while the click counts should be mostly reliable. Second, recommendations on Sowiport typically open in a new browser tab in the foreground. This means that users who want to click a second recommendation need to go back to the original tab. This is a rather high burden and we assume that many users do not do this. Third, Sowiport shows related-article recommendations on every article's detail page. Consequently, users looking at several articles, receive many recommendations, which might lead to a decreased attention level for recommendations after a while.

The recommendation logs enable researchers to conduct research on data from a production recommender system, without implementing a recommender system themselves, and without doing any user studies. Researchers could re-do the analyses we already did [Beel, Aizawa, et al., 2017; Beel and Dinesh, 2017a; Beel and Dinesh, 2017b; Beel, Dinesh, et al., 2017; Beierle et al., 2017] but with more advanced statistical methods. For instance3, researchers can calculate click-through rates for content-based filtering (0.145%), stereotype recommendations (0.124%), most-popular recommendations (0.11%), and random recommendations (0.12%), and conclude that content-based filtering is the best performing recommendation approach in Mr. DLib. This analysis would be performed by counting the delivered recommendations, i.e. the rows in the dataset where algorithm_class equals cbf, strtp, mstp, and rndm respectively. Clicked recommendations are identified by counting the rows where recommendation_class equals cbf, strtp, ...AND clicked != NULL. Researchers could also explore the time Mr. DLib needed to generate recommendations. They would only have to substract time_request_received from time_response_delivered for each row. This would lead to a chart as shown in Figure 5, and show that 34% of Mr. DLib's recommendations required between one and two seconds to calculate.


Figure 5: Time to calculate recommendations

Researchers could also conduct completely new analyses. Some analyses we have not yet conducted include research on position bias (analyze if and to what extent recommendations shown first in the recommendation list are clicked more often than documents at the lower ranks); analyze if normal terms or key-phrases are more effective, and which parameters of key-phrases should be chosen (e.g. uni-grams bi-grams, or tri-grams; one, two, ... or twenty key-phrases); analyze if content-based filtering based on the title, or title and abstract is more effective; and analyze how well Lucene text relevance scores and click-through rates correlate.


4.2 Implicit Rating Matrix

The file rating_matrix.csv (429 MB) contains 2,176,984 million rows. Each row represents a source document, i.e. a document for which Sowiport requested recommendations, and the document IDs of the returned related-article recommendations. The file represents an implicit item-item rating matrix, which was calculated based on the recommendation log. The matrix was calculated based on the assumption that a click [non-click] on a recommendation can be considered as implicit positive [negative] rating of how relevant the recommendation was, given a specific source document.

Table 3: Implicit Rating Matrix (Illustration)4

  Triplet 1 Triplet 2  ...  Triplet i
source_document_id recommended_
Click Count Non-Click Count recommended_
Click Count Non-Click Count  ...  recommended_
Click Count Non-Click Count
2 1 2 1 8 1 0  ...  143 1 13
5 534555 1 1 NULL NULL NULL  ...  NULL NULL NULL
6 42334 1 0 5343 1 2  ...  NULL NULL NULL
7 3 0 2 4 5 0  ...  7565 5 0
12 34 2 0 423 0 8  ...  12 12 43
15 423 1 8 5521 1 1  ...  NULL NULL NULL
 ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ... 

The concept is illustrated in Table 3. The first column contains the source document ID (source_document_id). The following columns contain i triples, one for each document that Mr. DLib recommended as related-article for the source document. Each triple contains a) the ID of the recommended document (recommended_document_id), b) a count of how often the document was recommended as related to the source document and clicked (Click Count), and c) a count of how often the document was recommended as related to the source document and not clicked (Non-Click Count). For instance, based on Table 3, Sowiport has requested recommendations for document ID=15 several times (the precise number cannot be inferred from this dataset but from the recommendation log). Mr. DLib has returned document ID=423 nine times as recommendations, and from these nine times, the document has (not) been clicked 1 (8) times. Mr. DLib also returned document 5521 as recommendation twice, whereas this recommendation was once clicked, and once not clicked.


4.3 Filtered Implicit Rating Matrix

When interpreting non-clicks as negative ratings, it must be kept in mind that an unknown amount of recommendations was delivered to web crawlers, i.e. the non-clicks contain noise. Therefore, we created a second implicit item-item rating matrix, and excluded recommendation sets in which not at least one recommendation was clicked. The rationale is that when no recommendation in a set was clicked, we do not know if the recommendations were just not relevant, or if recommendations were delivered to a web crawler. In contrast, when at least one recommendation was clicked in a set, we assume that a real user has looked at the recommendations and decided to click at least one of them. Consequently, also the non-clicks in these sets are more meaningful. The resulting matrix is provided in the file rating_matrix_fitered.csv (7 MB). It contains 63,923 rows, i.e. unique source documents for which recommendations were delivered and at least one recommendation in the set was clicked.


4.4 External IDs (Sowiport, Mendeley, arXiv, ...)

The file external_IDs.csv (280 MB) contains Mr. DLib's document IDs, the original document IDs from Sowiport (100%), Mendeley IDs (18%), ISSN (16%), DOI (14%), Scopus IDs (13%), ISBN (11%), PubMed IDs (7%) and arXiv IDs (0.4%). The file external_IDs.csv allows for the lookup of further information (e.g. metadata) on the documents from Sowiport's API, Scopus, PubMed, Mendeley, etc. All IDs, except Sowiport IDs, were retrieved from Mendeley's API by sending document titles to the API and parsing the response. Some documents might be assigned with incorrect IDs (except Sowiport IDs) because Mendeley only had the title for document identification. Hence, it might be that Mendeley returned IDs for a document that was not the same document as in our database, but only had the same, or very similar, title. Mendeley's data is also available under the CC-BY license.


5 Limitations and Outlook

We introduced RARD, a novel dataset in the domain of scientific recommender systems. RARD contains information about 57,435,086 million recommendations of which 77,468 were clicked. The dataset can be used for various analyses of Mr. DLib's recommendation algorithms, to evaluate collaborative filtering recommendation approaches, and train machine learning recommendation algorithms. Clicks are only a weak measure of relevance, and the number of clicks in the dataset is rather low (77 thousand), while the number of items is high (9.5 million). Hence, we do not claim that our dataset is as good as, for instance, the MovieLens dataset with millions of explicit user ratings. However, in the field of scientific recommender systems, our dataset is quite unique. To the best of our knowledge, there is no dataset with more (implicit) ratings available, and with as many variations of recommendation algorithms.

We plan to release annual updates of the dataset, and to address the following issues.

Data quality: The biggest limitation of our dataset is that we do not detect web crawlers. Hence, the value of the non-clicks is reduced as are statements about how many recommendations Mr. DLib delivers. To overcome that limitation, we currently implement a logging mechanism based on JavaScript. This allows for identifying non-clicks from real users, while excluding web crawlers.

Data quantity and variety: We aim to deliver more data and variety in the next dataset. We plan to implement new algorithms e.g. to enable cross-lingual recommendations [Zhou et al., 2012], enrich metadata [Stiller et al., 2014], vary more parameters, include readership statistics from Mendeley, record more statistics, import an additional 20 million open access documents [Knoth and Pontika, 2016; Knoth and Zdrahal, 2012; Pontika et al., 2016], and integrate Mr. DLib in two new partners' products, one of them being JabRef, one of the most popular open-source reference managers [Feyer et al., 2017]. In addition, we are currently discussing connecting external recommender systems such as the CORE recommender [Knoth et al., 2017], to Mr. DLib. This means that the next release of RARD will provide more data in terms of more content, more algorithms, more partners, and more recommendations and clicks.

Scope: In the long run, Mr. DLib will not only recommend research-articles, but also other items relevant in Academia, such as citations [Chakraborty et al., 2015], reviewers [Wang et al., 2010], calls for papers [Beierle et al., 2016], research grants, and university courses.

Document Metadata: We hope that in our next dataset, we can include the documents' metadata. We believe this would greatly enhance the value of the dataset and allow many additional analyses. However, this eventually depends on our partner's licenses. Currently we are discussing this option with the operator of Sowiport. Nevertheless, we want to emphasize that the documents' metadata is mostly already available through Sowiport's OAI interface, and additional usage data is available [Mayr, 2016]. Hence, interested researchers can download the documents' metadata and usage data and link that data with our dataset.

Relevance feedback beyond clicks: Currently, Mr. DLib only records clicks, i.e. implicit relevance feedback. We plan to enhance Mr. DLib and allow users to directly rate the quality of recommendations on a five-star scale. In addition, we plan to record more meaningful relevance feedback such as if a recommended document was exported, printed, or added to the user's favorites. One of the two new partners (JabRef) will also enable us to monitor if a recommended document was added to a user's collection.

User sessions: We plan to enable the logging of user sessions. In that case, we would not only know that a set of documents was recommended (and clicked) for a particular source document, but which source documents were viewed by a user within a session, and which number of recommendation sets and recommendations were displayed to a user during a session. Such data will allow us to implement more sophisticated recommendation approaches, more detailed analyses of the users' behavior, and create a more comprehensive rating matrix.

Personalized recommendations: Currently, Mr. DLib focuses on related-article recommendations. In the long-run, we aim to provide personalized recommendations, maybe even across different partner websites [Koidl et al., 2013]. This requires Mr. DLib to access users' personal document collections, which is not only technically more challenging to implement, but also challenging from a data privacy perspective.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that we are open to cooperation and to including further data sources in the dataset. Therefore, if you are interested in a cooperation, in using the dataset, or if you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.



This publication emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number 13/RC/2106. We are further grateful for the support of Philipp Meyer, Sophie Siebert, Siddharth Dinesh, and Andrew Collins.



1 We picked this distribution because content-based filtering is currently the best performing approach, and the A/B engine varies many parameters for the content-based filtering recommendation approach. We want a higher proportion for the content-based filtering recommendations than for the other approaches.
2 We use Solr version 5.5.3.
3 All examples provided in this section have already been published. The purpose of describing them here again is to demonstrate what the dataset can be used for.
4 The table contains NULL values for illustrational purposes. The actual dataset contains only the NOT NULL values.


[1] Muhammad Kamran Abbasi and Ingo Frommholz. 2015. Cluster-based polyrepresentation as science modelling approach for information retrieval. Scientometrics 102, 3 (2015), 2301-2322.
[2] Aizawa, A., Kohlhase, M., & Ounis, I. 2013. NTCIR-10 Math Pilot Task Overview. In NTCIR.
[3] Krisztian Balog et al. 2016. Overview of the trec 2016 open search track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2016). NIST.
[4] Joeran Beel. 2015. Towards Effective Research-Paper Recommender Systems and User Modeling based on Mind Maps. PhD Thesis. Otto-von-Guericke Universität Magdeburg (2015).
[5] Joeran Beel, Akiko Aizawa, Corinna Breitinger, and Bela Gipp. 2017. Mr. DLib: Recommendations-as-a-Service (RaaS) for Academia. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL).
[6] Joeran Beel and Siddharth Dinesh. 2017a. Real-World Recommender Systems for Academia: The Gain and Pain in Developing, Operating, and Researching them. In Philipp Mayr, Ingo Frommholz, & Guillaume Cabanac, eds. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval (BIR) co-located with the 39th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR 2017). 6-17.
[7] Joeran Beel and Siddharth Dinesh. 2017b. Real-World Recommender Systems for Academia: The Gain and Pain in Developing, Operating, and Researching them [Long Version]. In arXiv pre-print.
[8] Joeran Beel, Siddharth Dinesh, Philipp Mayr, Zeljko Carevic, and Jain Raghvendra. 2017. Stereotype and Most-Popular Recommendations in the Digital Library Sowiport. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI).
[9] Joeran Beel, Stefan Langer, Bela Gipp, and Andreas Nürnberger. 2014. The Architecture and Datasets of Docear's Research Paper Recommender System. D-Lib Magazine 20, 11/12 (2014).
[10] Joeran Beel, Stefan Langer, Georgia M. Kapitsaki, Corinna Breitinger, and Bela Gipp. 2015. Exploring the Potential of User Modeling based on Mind Maps. In Francesco Ricci, Kalina Bontcheva, Owen Conlan, & Séamus Lawless, eds. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on User Modelling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP). Lecture Notes of Computer Science. Springer, 3-17.
[11] Felix Beierle, Akiko Aizawa, and Joeran Beel. 2017. Exploring Choice Overload in Related-Article Recommendations in Digital Libraries. In 5th International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval (BIR) at the 39th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR).
[12] Felix Beierle, Julian Tan, and Kai Grunert. 2016. Analyzing social relations for recommending academic conferences. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Workshop on Hot Topics in Planet-scale mObile computing and online Social neTworking. ACM, 37-42.
[13] Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel P.W. Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. 2011. The Million Song Dataset. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR 2011).
[14] Cornelia Caragea, Adrian Silvescu, Prasenjit Mitra, and C. Lee Giles. 2013. Can't See the Forest for the Trees? A Citation Recommendation System. In iConference 2013 Proceedings. 849-851.
[15] Tanmoy Chakraborty, Natwar Modani, Ramasuri Narayanam, and Seema Nagar. 2015. Discern: a diversified citation recommendation system for scientific queries. In 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE, 555-566.
[16] R. Dong, L. Tokarchuk, and A. Ma. 2009. Digging Friendship: Paper Recommendation in Social Network. In Proceedings of Networking & Electronic Commerce Research Conference (NAEC 2009). 21-28.
[17] Felice Ferrara, Nirmala Pudota, and Carlo Tasso. 2011. A Keyphrase-Based Paper Recommender System. In Proceedings of the IRCDL'11. Springer, 14-25.
[18] Stefan Feyer, Sophie Siebert, Bela Gipp, Akiko Aizawa, and Joeran Beel. 2017. Integration of the Scientific Recommender System Mr. DLib into the Reference Manager JabRef. In Proceedings of the 39th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR).
[19] Bela Gipp, Norman Meuschke, and Mario Lipinski. 2015. CITREC: An Evaluation Framework for Citation-Based Similarity Measures based on TREC Genomics and PubMed Central. In Proceedings of the iConference 2015. Newport Beach, California.
[20] Matthias Hagen, Anna Beyer, Tim Gollub, Kristof Komlossy, and Benno Stein. 2016. Supporting Scholarly Search with Keyqueries. In Nicola Ferro et al., eds. Advances in Information Retrieval: 38th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2016, Padua, Italy, March 20-23, 2016. Proceedings. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 507-520.
[21] Donna Harman. 1992. Overview of the First Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-1). In NIST Special Publication 500-207: The First Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-1).
[22] F. Maxwell Harper and Joseph A. Konstan. 2016. The movielens datasets: History and context. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 5, 4 (2016), 19.
[23] Qi He, Jian Pei, Daniel Kifer, Prasenjit Mitra, and Lee Giles. 2010. Context-aware citation recommendation. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 421-430.
[24] Daniel Hienert, Frank Sawitzki, and Philipp Mayr. 2015. Digital Library Research in Action — Supporting Information Retrieval in Sowiport. D-Lib Magazine 21, 3/4 (2015).
[25] Frank Hopfgartner et al. 2016. Benchmarking news recommendations: The clef newsreel use case. In ACM SIGIR Forum. ACM, 129-136.
[26] Wenyi Huang, Saurabh Kataria, Cornelia Caragea, Prasenjit Mitra, C. Lee Giles, and Lior Rokach. 2012. Recommending citations: translating papers into references. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 1910-1914.
[27] Kris Jack, Maya Hristakeva, Rosario Garcia de Zuniga, and Michael Granitzer. 2012. Mendeley's Open Data for Science and Learning: A Reply to the DataTEL Challenge. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4, 1/2 (2012), 31-46.
[28] S. Kataria, P. Mitra, and S. Bhatia. 2010. Utilizing context in generative bayesian models for linked corpus. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1340-1345.
[29] Petr Knoth et al. 2017. Towards effective research recommender systems for repositories. In Proceedings of Open Repositories 2017. Open Repositories.
[30] Petr Knoth and Nancy Pontika. 2016. Aggregating Research Papers from Publishers' Systems to Support Text and Data Mining: Deliberate Lack of Interoperability or Not? In Proceedings of INTEROP2016. INTEROP2016.
[31] Petr Knoth and Zdenek Zdrahal. 2012. CORE: three access levels to underpin open access. D-Lib Magazine 18, 11/12 (2012).
[32] Kevin Koidl, Owen Conlan, and Vincent Wade. 2013. Towards cross site personalisation. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT)-Volume 01. IEEE Computer Society, 542-548.
[33] Marijn Koolen et al. 2016. Overview of the CLEF 2016 Social Book Search Lab. In International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages. Springer, 351-370.
[34] Marianne Lykke, Birger Larsen, Haakon Lund, and Peter Ingwersen. 2010. Developing a test collection for the evaluation of integrated search. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 627-630.
[35] Philipp Mayr. 2016. Sowiport User Search Sessions Data Set (SUSS). GESIS Datorium (2016).
[36] Lukas Michelbacher, Alok Kothari, Martin Forst, Christina Lioma, and Hinrich Schutze. 2011. A Cascaded Classification Approach to Semantic Head Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 793-803.
[37] David M. Pennock, Eric Horvitz, Steve Lawrence, and C. Lee Giles. 2000. Collaborative filtering by personality diagnosis: A hybrid memory-and model-based approach. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 473-480.
[38] Nancy Pontika, Petr Knoth, Matteo Cancellieri, and Samuel Pearce. 2016. Developing Infrastructure to Support Closer Collaboration of Aggregators with Open Repositories. LIBER Quarterly 25, 4 (April 2016).
[39] Lior Rokach, Prasenjit Mitra, Saurabh Kataria, Wenyi Huang, and Lee Giles. 2013. A Supervised Learning Method for Context-Aware Citation Recommendation in a Large Corpus. In Proceedings of the Large-Scale and Distributed Systems for Information Retrieval Workshop (LSDS-IR). 17-22.
[40] Sophie Siebert, Siddarth Dinesh, and Stefan Feyer. 2017. Extending a Research Paper Recommendation System with Bibliometric Measures. In 5th International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval (BIR) at the 39th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR).
[41] Juliane Stiller, Marlies Olensky, and Vivien Petras. 2014. A Framework for the Evaluation of Automatic Metadata Enrichments. In Sissi Closs, Rudi Studer, Emmanouel Garoufallou, & Miguel-Angel Sicilia, eds. Metadata and Semantics Research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014. Proceedings. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 238-249.
[42] Kazunari Sugiyama and Min-Yen Kan. 2010. Scholarly paper recommendation via user's recent research interests. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE Annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). ACM, 29-38.
[43] Roberto Torres, Sean M. McNee, Mara Abel, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl. 2004. Enhancing digital libraries with TechLens+. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries. ACM New York, NY, USA, 228-236.
[44] Ellen M. Voorhees and Angela Ellis eds. 2016. The Twenty-Fifth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2016) Proceedings, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
[45] Fan Wang, Ning Shi, and Ben Chen. 2010. A comprehensive survey of the reviewer assignment problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 9, 04 (2010), 645-668.
[46] Howard D. White. 2017. Relevance theory and distributions of judgments in document retrieval. Information Processing & Management 53, 5 (2017), 1080–1102.
[47] Richard Zanibbi, Akiko Aizawa, Michael Kohlhase, Iadh Ounis, G. Topi, and K. Davila. 2016. NTCIR-12 MathIR task overview. NTCIR, National Institute of Informatics (NII) (2016).
[48] Fattane Zarrinkalam and Mohsen Kahani. 2013. SemCiR — A citation recommendation system based on a novel semantic distance measure. Program: electronic library and information systems 47, 1 (2013), 92-112.
[49] Dong Zhou, Mark Truran, Tim Brailsford, Vincent Wade, and Helen Ashman. 2012. Translation Techniques in Cross-language Information Retrieval. ACM Comput. Surv. 45, 1 (2012), 1:1-1:44.
[50] Cai-Nicolas Ziegler, Sean M. McNee, Joseph A. Konstan, and Georg Lausen. 2005. Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 22-32.

About the Authors

Joeran Beel is Assistant Professor in Intelligent Systems at Trinity College Dublin, and member of the ADAPT Center. His research focuses on recommender systems: recommendations as a service, recommender-system evaluation, and user modelling in the domain of digital libraries. Joeran has published three books and over 50 peer-reviewed articles, and has been awarded various grants for research projects, patent applications, and prototype development as well as some business start-up funding. He is involved in the development of several open-source projects such as Docear, Mr. DLib, JabRef, and Freeplane, some of which he initiated. Joeran founded two successful IT start-ups and received multiple awards and prizes for each.


Zeljko Carevic is a research associate at GESIS — Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Cologne Germany. He has been a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Duisburg-Essen since 2015. His research focuses on exploratory search in digital libraries with a special interest in bibliometrics, citation analyses as well as personalization and contextualization incorporated in Sowiport.


Johann Schaible is a postdoctoral researcher and team leader of team Knowledge Discovery at the GESIS Computational Social Science department. His research focuses on Semantic Web, Linked Data, and recommender systems, specifically based on association rule mining and learning to rank approaches. Johann has published over ten peer-reviewed articles at leading international conferences (e.g. Extended Semantic Web Conference) as well as journals (e.g. Semantic Web Journal) and is currently involved in several grant proposals considering Open Access transformation in digital libraries.


Gábor Neusch obtained his MSc degree in Business Information Technology at the Corvinus University of Budapest in 2014. In the same year, he started his PhD studies in the same field at the Department of Information Systems of Corvinus. His research area is knowledge management, more precisely ontology based adaptive learning solutions. The focus of his work lies in ontology mapping at this time. He works as a consultant and researcher for the Future Internet Living Lab Association.