difference between journal paper and research paper

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

Understanding the Difference Between Research Papers and Journals

Research papers and journals are two of the most important forms of academic writing, yet they remain misunderstood by many students. While there are distinct differences between research papers and journals, both share common features that contribute to their overall purpose in academia. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of these two types of written works in order to help professors effectively guide their students through the process of understanding them. It will discuss how each is structured, what kinds of information they contain, as well as provide examples for comparison purposes. In addition, this article will highlight the importance for researchers and instructors alike when considering appropriate methods for evaluating research papers and journals in an educational setting.

I. Introduction

Ii. definition of research papers and journals, iii. difference in content between a research paper and journal article, iv. length of a research paper compared to that of a journal article, v. difference in formatting between research papers and journals, vi. audience for the different types of writing pieces, vii. conclusion.

The Scope of Research

We are witnessing an unprecedented shift in the way research is conducted. With the increased availability of digital tools, researchers have new avenues to explore and harness information from a variety of sources. This shift has necessitated that our understanding of how best to access, analyze, and present data must be continually updated as well. In this paper we will examine one particular form: academic journals. By exploring what constitutes an effective journal article we can understand more about how modern research is disseminated and utilized by practitioners within various disciplines.

Features which Make Journals Special

Academic journals are unique among other forms of research presentation for several reasons; firstly they tend to feature a higher level analysis than popular media such as newspapers or magazines may provide. Journal articles also allow for peer-reviewed content which means topics featured are often discussed at length with multiple perspectives taken into account when forming conclusions or making recommendations related to topics under study . Additionally, due their greater depth and rigor authors who publish in journals can command much larger attention compared to works presented elsewhere thus resulting in potential impact not seen outside these publications.

• Extended discussion on topical issues.
• Peer review process before publication.

Definition of Research Papers and Journals Research papers are typically scholarly works published in academic journals or as stand-alone documents. They are often based on original research conducted by a student or scientist, providing new insights into an area of study. Generally, they include detailed literature reviews summarizing existing knowledge on the topic being discussed, present new data collected from primary sources such as experiments and surveys, discuss findings from both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods, and offer recommendations for future study.

Journals serve to document developments in science over time by publishing articles with information about experimental procedures used to conduct research studies. Unlike research papers which generally focus only on one particular piece of work at a time; journals publish several different types of content including short reports (‘mini-reviews’) book reviews conference proceedings editorials letters opinions interviews photographs charts diagrams tables etc., all related to advances within their field. So is “research paper” a journal? The answer depends upon how the term “journal” is defined: if it refers simply to any type of periodical publication then yes; however if it more specifically denotes peer reviewed publications that contain empirical data obtained through original investigations than no – because most research papers do not go through the same rigorous review process required for journal submissions.

• Research Paper: scholarly works published in academic journals or as stand-alone documents.
• Journal: publishes several different types of content including short reports mini reviews books conferences editors letter opinion interviews photos chart diagram table etc.

When considering the distinction between a research paper and journal article, two main points stand out. Firstly, the focus of each publication is different; secondly, there are also differences in content.

• Focus : While both publications may contain similar information on an academic topic or area of study, their purpose for existence differs greatly. The primary intent behind writing a research paper , often conducted by students at university level to fulfil certain requirements within a course program, will be directed towards improving understanding of particular theories or concepts and exploring any unresolved issues related thereto. On the other hand, journal articles , which have typically been written after more comprehensive analysis has taken place by experts in that field (and sometimes even over several years), are generally published with the intention of presenting new findings to peers – providing an opportunity for rigorous evaluation before wider acceptance as part of scholarly knowledge base.
• Content: The content contained within these types of publications follows along this same path. As such while research papers (especially those completed during undergraduate studies) may offer some basic results alongside general discussion based upon existing literature references; journal articles will include much deeper insights into any experiments performed (including details surrounding methodology used) along with far more comprehensive interpretations and conclusions from actual data generated during such processes – all intended to give greater clarity onto the subject matter being studied.

Length of Scholarly Writing: A research paper typically has longer content than a journal article. It usually covers much more detail and includes a wide range of sources, making it difficult to condense into the same length as an article. Research papers may also contain graphs and charts which can add length to the document too.

The other difference between research papers and journal articles is that journal articles are often written with the intention of being published in academic journals. Journals tend to have strict guidelines on word count or page limits, meaning they require concise writing for publication. In contrast, there is no set limit for how long a research paper should be – though most undergraduate papers will still be shorter than graduate-level work due to fewer resources available at this level.

A common question asked by students researching their topics is whether or not a research paper counts as a journal itself; unfortunately, no! While some student work may end up published one day in academic journals after rigorous review processes conducted by professionals within each field’s respective discipline, until then these works remain classified only as ‘research’ papers – unique pieces of scholarly writing created from personal investigations into specific topics using various resources throughout its development.

Formatting between research papers and journals

Research Papers and Journals have a few differences in terms of formatting, such as style, citation methods, structure etc. These two kinds of academic writing differ from each other based on their intended purpose.

• The typeface used for Research Papers is typically 12 point Times New Roman while the font size for Journals can vary.
• Another difference is that different citation methods are used; MLA format might be expected to be used with Research Paper whereas AMA or APA may be preferred by Journals.

Furthermore, there are some variations in the structure too. For instance, many Research Papers will include an abstract section which summarises what’s been written about before introducing the author’s findings but it isn’t necessary in a Journal article. It’s also important to note that although both involve using evidence-based information – such as quantitative data – they approach this differently when addressing topics: While almost all journals tend to focus on offering solutions derived through scientific experimentation/data analysis research paper focuses more heavily on critically analysing existing theories & concepts before considering possible solutions or suggestions towards improvement . So essentially when one wonders ‘is a research paper a journal?’ The answer would likely depend upon context & usage since these two types of documents serve distinct purposes despite having certain overlaps depending upon their subject matter

What Are the Different Types of Writing Pieces? Writing pieces come in a variety of forms and genres. We can categorize them into three main categories: academic writing, creative writing, and business/professional writing.

• Academic writings are usually essays or research papers written for college classes.
• Creative writings include short stories, novels, poetry, plays, etc., that are made up from imagination rather than based on facts or research.
• Business/professional writing is used to communicate information such as memos, reports and letters within an organization.

Who Is the Audience for Each Type of Writing Piece?

The audience for each type of piece varies depending on what it is being used for. For example:

In sum, this research paper has discussed the critical role of a journal in one’s learning journey. With its rich and diverse content, a journal can be used to track knowledge learned over time while also providing an invaluable opportunity for reflection on personal experiences. Through analysis of both existing literature and primary data collected from interviews conducted with experienced practitioners, it was found that journals offer individuals greater opportunities to gain deeper understanding of complex topics.

The evidence presented here provides us with valuable insights into how we can maximize our learning potential through the regular use of journals. Ultimately, by embracing this practice as part of our daily routine we will become better equipped to tackle any challenge or difficulty life throws at us; making it easier for us to achieve success in all areas including academic studies.

• Self-Awareness: Regularly writing allows people to look back on their thoughts objectively and thereby increase self-awareness.
• Creativity: By reflecting upon past ideas written down earlier creativity is unlocked allowing new possibilities.

English: This article has presented an overview of the difference between research papers and journals. By understanding these differences, students can develop strategies for more effectively reading and writing within these contexts. It is important to note that further study into the nuances of each format is needed in order to gain a comprehensive knowledge base. With this information, readers are better equipped to determine which type of document serves their particular needs most effectively.

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison

A journal article presents original research findings in a concise format, focusing on a specific topic within a broader field. It undergoes peer review before publication, ensuring quality and validity. On the other hand, a research paper is a comprehensive document that may include multiple experiments, analyses, and discussions, aimed at contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Key Takeaways A journal article is a shorter scholarly writing published in a specific academic journal. A research paper is a more extended, comprehensive academic writing presenting original research. Journal articles are more focused and present specific findings, while research papers are broader and present a more comprehensive study.

Journal Article vs Research Paper

A journal article is a piece of published work that presents the research findings and may include analysis, remark, or discussion. A research paper is a detailed account of the research that may be published or unpublished and includes an introduction, literature review, methods, results, and conclusion.

Comparison Table

What is journal article.

A journal article is a scholarly publication that presents the findings of original research, analysis, or review within a particular academic field. These articles serve as fundamental units of scholarly communication, disseminating new knowledge, theories, and insights to the academic community and beyond. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Content and Structure

1 Abstract: A journal article begins with an abstract, a concise summary of the study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The abstract provides readers with a quick overview of the article’s content and findings.

2 Introduction: Following the abstract, the introduction sets the context for the study by reviewing relevant literature, identifying gaps or controversies in existing knowledge, and stating the research objectives or hypotheses.

Similar Reads

• A Journal vs An Article: Difference and Comparison
• Wax Paper vs Baking Paper: Difference and Comparison
• Parchment Paper vs Wax Paper: Difference and Comparison
• Research Method vs Research Methodology: Difference and Comparison
• Marketing Research vs Market Research: Difference and Comparison

3 Methods: The methods section outlines the procedures, materials, and techniques used to conduct the study. It should provide sufficient detail to enable replication of the experiment or analysis by other researchers.

4 Results: This section presents the findings of the study, using tables, figures, or graphs to illustrate data. Authors describe the results objectively, without interpretation or speculation.

5 Discussion: In the discussion section, authors interpret the results in light of the study’s objectives and existing literature. They may address the implications of their findings, suggest future research directions, and discuss limitations or potential sources of bias.

6 Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and highlights their significance. It may also reiterate the study’s contribution to the field and offer final reflections or recommendations.

Peer Review Process:

1 Submission: Authors submit their articles to scholarly journals for publication consideration, adhering to the journal’s guidelines and formatting requirements.

2 Peer Review: Upon submission, the journal’s editor assigns the manuscript to peer reviewers—experts in the field—who evaluate the article’s quality, originality, methodology, and significance. Peer review helps ensure the rigor and credibility of the research.

3 Revision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, authors may revise their article to address any concerns or criticisms raised. This iterative process of revision and reevaluation continues until the article meets the journal’s standards for publication.

4 Acceptance and Publication: If the article meets the journal’s criteria, it is accepted for publication and undergoes final editing and formatting. Once published, the article becomes part of the journal’s archive and is accessible to readers worldwide.

What is Research Paper?

A research paper is a comprehensive document that presents the findings, analysis, and interpretations of original research conducted by the author(s) within a specific academic discipline. These papers serve as a means for scholars to contribute new knowledge, theories, and insights to their respective fields. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

1. Content and Structure

1 Introduction: The introduction of a research paper provides background information on the topic, reviews relevant literature, and outlines the research objectives or hypotheses. It establishes the context for the study and justifies its significance.

2 Methods: The methods section describes the procedures, materials, and techniques employed in the research. It should provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study and verify its results.

3 Results: This section presents the empirical findings of the research, using tables, figures, or graphs to illustrate data. Authors report their observations or measurements objectively, without interpretation or speculation.

4 Discussion: In the discussion section, authors interpret the results in light of the research questions or hypotheses, comparing them to previous studies and addressing their implications. They may also explore alternative explanations, limitations of the study, and avenues for future research.

5 Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the research and highlights their significance. It may reiterate the study’s contribution to the field, offer final reflections, and suggest directions for further inquiry.

Characteristics and Scope

1 Original Research: Unlike review papers or essays, research papers are based on original research conducted by the authors. They contribute new data, insights, or interpretations to the academic discourse.

2 Rigorous Methodology: Research papers adhere to rigorous scientific or scholarly methodologies, employing systematic approaches to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. They prioritize objectivity, validity, and reliability in their findings.

3 Length and Complexity: Research papers vary in length and complexity, depending on the scope of the study and the requirements of the target publication venue. They may range from concise reports of preliminary findings to comprehensive analyses of multi-year research projects.

4 Contribution to Knowledge: Research papers aim to advance knowledge within their respective fields by addressing research gaps, testing hypotheses, or generating new theories. They contribute to the cumulative growth of scholarship through the dissemination of original research findings.

Main Differences Between Journal Article and Research Paper

• Journal articles focus on a specific aspect or finding within a broader topic.
• Research papers provide a comprehensive analysis of a research project, including multiple experiments, analyses, and discussions.
• Journal articles are concise, containing essential findings, methods, and interpretations in a limited space.
• Research papers tend to be longer and more detailed, offering exhaustive exploration of the research topic, methodology, results, and implications.
• Journal articles undergo peer review by experts in the field before publication, ensuring quality and validity.
• Research papers may or may not undergo formal peer review, depending on the publication venue or academic requirements.
• Journal articles present findings objectively, without extensive interpretation or speculation.
• Research papers include in-depth interpretation of results, discussion of implications, and exploration of potential limitations or biases.
• Journal articles contribute to the scholarly conversation by presenting new findings, analyses, or reviews within a specific topic area.
• Research papers advance knowledge within a field by offering comprehensive analyses, testing hypotheses, or generating new theories through original research.

• https://gssrr.org/index.php/gssrr/How-to-Publish-Research-Paper
• https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/types-of-journal-manuscripts/1356
• https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/research_papers/index.html

Last Updated : 05 March, 2024

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Emma Smith holds an MA degree in English from Irvine Valley College. She has been a Journalist since 2002, writing articles on the English language, Sports, and Law. Read more about me on her bio page .

Share this post!

21 thoughts on “journal article vs research paper: difference and comparison”.

The characteristics of a journal article outlined in the article shed light on the structured nature of these scholarly publications. It’s important to understand the components that make up a journal article to effectively communicate research findings.

Agreed, knowing the key components of a journal article is essential for researchers aiming to publish their work in reputable academic journals.

Absolutely, the detailed breakdown of the characteristics of a journal article provides valuable insights for aspiring authors.

This article provides a clear and concise comparison between journal articles and research papers. It’s informative and well-structured. I appreciate the detailed explanation of the characteristics of each type of publication.

I agree, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the differences between journal articles and research papers. It’s a valuable resource for researchers and academics.

The characteristics of a journal article and a research paper are clearly delineated in the article, providing an insightful comparison between the two types of scholarly publications.

Absolutely, the article offers a comprehensive comparison that highlights the unique features of journal articles and research papers.

The article effectively differentiates between journal articles and research papers, offering a comprehensive understanding of the distinct characteristics and purposes of each type of scholarly publication.

I concur, the article serves as an illuminating guide for researchers and scholars navigating the intricacies of academic writing and publication.

The article offers a thorough understanding of the significance of journal articles and research papers in the academic and professional spheres. It serves as a valuable resource for individuals engaged in scholarly writing and research.

I find the comparison table provided in the article particularly helpful. It offers a quick reference for distinguishing between journal articles and research papers based on publication outlet, content, target audience, peer review, length, structure, emphasis, and impact.

Yes, the comparison table is a useful tool for researchers to understand the key differences between journal articles and research papers at a glance.

The comparison table and detailed explanations in the article provide a nuanced understanding of the unique features of journal articles and research papers, making it a valuable resource for the academic community.

Absolutely, the article offers a comprehensive analysis that elucidates the differences and similarities between journal articles and research papers.

The distinction between journal articles and research papers is crucial for academic writing. This article does a great job of highlighting those differences and their respective characteristics.

Absolutely, understanding the nuances between these two types of publications is essential for academic and scholarly work. This article does an excellent job of breaking it down.

The structure of a research paper outlined in the article serves as a helpful guide for researchers looking to compose comprehensive and well-organized scholarly documents. It offers a clear framework for presenting original research findings.

I found the breakdown of the structure of a research paper to be particularly enlightening. It offers a roadmap for researchers to follow when crafting their academic work.

Yes, understanding the structure of a research paper is essential for effectively communicating the results of a study. This article provides a detailed overview of what to include in a research paper.

The detailed explanation of the structure and content of a journal article and a research paper is beneficial for researchers seeking to refine their academic writing skills and publish their work.

Indeed, the article provides valuable insights into the components and organization of journal articles and research papers, aiding researchers in producing high-quality scholarly publications.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want to save this article for later? Click the heart in the bottom right corner to save to your own articles box!

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

White papers, working papers, preprints, journal articles: What’s the difference?

In this updated piece, we explain the most common types of research papers journalists will encounter, noting their strengths and weaknesses.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource February 25, 2022

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/working-papers-research-articles/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This tip sheet, originally published in May 2018, has been updated to include preprint research, a type of research featured often in news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic.

Journalists rely most often on four types of research in their work. White papers, working papers, preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles.

How are they different? And which is best?

Below, we explain each, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. As always, we urge journalists to use care in selecting any research to ground their coverage and fact-check claims.

Peer-reviewed article

Peer-reviewed research — the kind that appears in academic journals and that we highlight here at The Journalist’s Resource — has undergone a detailed critique by scholars with expertise in the field. While peer-reviewed research is generally the most reliable, journalists should keep in mind that publication in a prestigious journal is no guarantee of quality and that no single university or research organization always does the best research on a given topic.

It is safe to assume, however, that articles published in top-tier journals have been reviewed and given a stamp of approval by a number of accomplished scholars. For journalists who are uncertain, we’ve put together a list of 13 questions  to ask to gauge the quality of a research article.

Keep in mind that not everything that appears in a scholarly journal has been peer reviewed. Journals publish various types of content, including book reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and, sometimes, even poetry.

Working paper

This broad category describes research papers that have not been peer reviewed or published in a journal. Working papers can be in various stages of completion. One might be ready for publication in a prestigious journal while another requires significant editing and other changes that could actually alter its main findings. Sometimes, working paper findings are so preliminary, authors will advise against citing their work .

Even so, working papers are a great way for journalists to gain access to new research quickly. The peer-review and publication process can take months to a year or longer, which means that by the time studies get published, their findings are sometimes not as useful or the data are old.

In choosing working papers, journalists should communicate with scholars about the progress of their research and how confident they are in their findings. It’s a good idea to seek corroboration from peer-reviewed research and to ask other researchers for help assessing a study.

A preprint is similar to a working paper in that it has not been vetted through a formal peer-review process. However, preprints tend to be more complete . Also, preprints submitted to public servers such as the Social Science Research Network and the health sciences server medRxiv get a cursory screening before they’re published online for public view.

Preprints, like academic journal articles, are assigned a Digital Object Identifier , or DOI, and become a permanent part of the scientific record.

White paper

A white paper is a report, often compiled by government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations, that outlines an issue and often explores possible solutions to a problem. For example, in November 2021, the federal Office of Community Oriented Policing Services released a white paper looking at factors that help or hinder law enforcement recruitment of Black Americans. Earlier in the year, the Advanced Technology Academic Research Center published a white paper on the American Rescue Plan ‘s widespread implications for government agencies.

In the business world, white papers also are used for marketing purposes — to describe a new product or approach, for instance, or diagnose a problem.

While a white paper can help journalists get up to speed quickly on an issue, it’s important to note some white papers advocate a specific position or policy change. Some rely on incomplete research or research that has not been peer reviewed.

Looking for more guidance on writing about research? Check out our tip sheets on covering biomedical research preprints amid the coronavirus and what journalists should know about peer review .

The Journalist’s Resource would like to thank Matthew Baum , the Marvin Kalb professor of global communications and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, for his help preparing this tip sheet.

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

International Journal of Research (IJR)

IJR Journal is Multidisciplinary, high impact and indexed journal for research publication. IJR is a monthly journal for research publication.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Difference between research paper and journal article.

Research Paper

Argumentative Research Paper

Analytical research paper, journal article, the differences, research paper:, journal article:.

• Share on Tumblr

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

CONFERENCE ALERTS

Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

By Conference Alerts

It is an absolute confusion and worry in some ways for a wannabe or a first-time researcher or a research scholar especially if you are still a student trying to work on a research project with your professor. Many of us get often confused when we hear the words research paper or a journal for the first time. The reason is that we have no or little idea what the words mean or we never looked into them even though we keep hearing them every once in a while. So, here are a few differences between a “ JOURNAL” and a “RESEARCH PAPER ”

A Journal is collection of articles on various topics. There are various types of journals such as personal journal, academic journal , creative journals etc. But in terms of academic we need to learn more about an academic journal. It is book that comprises articles on different variety of topics. It is an anthology of different work collections. Unlike a research paper it consists of articles on various topics. It is often used as a reference to write a research paper. It is a periodical publication based various topics and contexts are related or co-related to each other. The information provided in a journal is not as deep as it is in a paper. As already said, a journal acts as a reference point to various individuals or organizations who are carrying out a research.

A research paper is basically a sheet of information on a specific topic. If we look at the standard definition it says, “It is a descriptive context in the form of words or text”. It provides detailed and relevant information on a specific topic to its readers. It is a study on a specific problem and it intends to provide a possible practical solution at the end of it. It is a team work of two or three individuals mostly. It can be up to 20 pages long or even more and it is an extensive study on one specific topic. Nevertheless, it should be understood that its length depends on the context of the study.

However, the key difference between a journal and a research paper is that a journal is limited to 5,000 – 10,000 words unlike a research paper. A journal can provide you with a list of national and international conferences as it is a periodical publication. It also provides you with conference alerts as it is a periodical publication like already said. Journal publication is a dream to many students and research scholars especially if it is their first ever research paper.

In conclusion, a journal is a collection of articles on a various academic related topics with limited words whereas a research paper is extensive and detailed study on a specific topic. If you are one of those wannabe research scholars looking to get your first journal publications then conference alerts here have a list of journals and their details waiting for you.

Conference Alerts helps you to provide latest conference information's ,updates, seminars and online webinars. Follow our blog to know the latest conference information's.

Related Post

How to publish a research paper, upcoming conferences in india 2024 with journal publication, the 5 important reasons to attend international conference, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Conference Planning Tips and Checklist

International conferences in canada 2024-2025 with invitation letter, international conferences in lithuania 2024 with invitation letter, monthly published scopus indexed journals.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

• Privacy Policy

Difference Between Research Paper and Journal Paper

Whether you have been attending a university or college or planning to pursue the career in the trading such as medicine, there remains always a chance that you may hear a lot about the “journal papers” and “research papers”.

For having the complete knowledge regarding these two, it is important to know the basics of each of them and the difference amid them. So, lets dig deeper and get a glimpse of each form and its use.

Research Paper

The professor history named, Dr. Jane once said that “the design and work are created by your mind, however your mind can’t do it without depending on the wisdom and efforts of other minds”.

This is right as per Jane’s notion. The research papers are considered as a form of the writing, general utilized in academic world by the students in universities or colleges for investigating and doing research on a given topic, which they give a certain conclusion or findings.

Students are encouraged and also need some support for their findings using the facts taken from the reputable references. Typical research papers range 5 to 15 pages in length.

The work of students will get organize in a framework after compilation of all the proper info taken from the various sources. The instructors usually assign these tasks to the students for teaching them how to create balance in the writing skills, and encouraging the structural discipline as well as known formatting.

Moreover, as per the famous research guides for the students, the research papers usually gather the genuine info on the given topic and after then they gather data during the stage of investigation, a student has to sum up giving the concise and clear analysis or disposition.

The research papers use different major kinds of the citation formats like APA , Chicago, and MLA. The paper is provided with the consistent focus, clear research, and gives a deep understanding of the subject or topic while distinguishing the opinions and facts, and is reliable when it comes to findings and conclusion. Most of the times a research paper is also termed as the research project or term paper too.

For sure, most of the research papers have the thesis statements in accordance with the given topic. And, sometimes the students may need to write down any of the two kinds of the research papers given below;

Journal Paper

As per the definition given by the University of Simon Fraser, the journal paper is a piece of writing which is done on a particular topic. Moreover, you can see this usually written by the expert of the field. This type of writing is also known as the peer reviews.

The journal paper is the short writing on the specific topic which gets chiefly published in the periodicals and issues. It may also include the updated info and research regarding some particular topic including latest development, short paper reviewing ideas and reviews on the product or method.

With the journal paper, you can find info, for instance, regarding the recent medicine or the techniques of a certain subject, for example, “latest ways used for eradicating the medicine in 21 st century”.

Few other examples of the journal papers include the case studies, peer reviews, scholarly articles, social and scientific science articles. Journal paper are published in the publications after the extensive research done in the corresponding field. The Publication Manual can call journal papers as a way of categorizing the primary literature as well as review articles.

The Differences

Now, an important thing to know here is what is the difference between the two kinds of writing?

• The major difference amid research paper and journal paper is that you can call journal paper as an article which comprises of few particular criteria. While a research paper is like a sheet of information regarding particular topic.
• Meaning of the term ‘journal’ means the book in which you can write about the personal thoughts and experiences.

It is an article kind of content which comprises of the particular format where the thoughts are put in form of the words. It works like an experience booklet which gets updated on the regular basis. Journal papers are educational book logs. They can have a pre-defined kind of content which is needed to be monitored accordingly. They are mostly used for the referring purposes.

A journal paper comprises of the desired concentration of the info that can be utilized for the reference. They are also called as the reference books. After going through some particular contents, a content is done in the general form and give the shape of a journal. Journal papers are the particular records which are kept in form of booklets. They are like the periodicals which get published on a specific topic. They have reviews about the other researches and papers.

Talking about the research paper, it is just like a description. It consists of the detailed layout on a particular topic which is presented in form of a paper. It also possesses the related stuff and the explanation of the topic.

• Journals may also consist of group of research papers arranged in quite systematic way, where each of the paper develops a systematic preview to the reader. Most of these papers together contribute to give a shape to the journal.
• Most of the research papers are done in a traditional way by the students at college or university, where the work is usually assigned. On the other hand, journal paper is a paper, regarding a topic which has researched or reviewed recently, and written by the experts of some field. Both of these kinds of paper use same kind of techniques, the research papers are done and evaluated by the instructors or teachers.
• A small difference between two is an extent of references utilized. More often, the journal papers are expected to have the extensive bibliographies, whereas the research paper don’t have an extensive list of references.
• The research paper doesn’t get published in any of the publications unless it has some reference of how to write a research paper, whereas journal paper is submitted to the magazines or periodicals.
• A journal paper reviews a current or possible idea and is related to the impact. While a research paper also offers a thesis, however it is not as deep as an actual thesis paper.
• The lengths and format of two are opposite traditionally. A journal paper can reach up to 15 pages – but usually it doesn’t. while the range of length of research paper is 3 pages to 10 pages. The way of delivering the research paper also looks different as compared to journal paper – including indenting and spacing.
• At last, a research paper has no authority to present the original research, but it can show empirical data, whereas a journal paper has the explanation for the readers about its original research.

Research Paper and Journal Paper Comparison

Along with the differences amid these writing methods, there remains some similarities too like both of these have concise and clear grammatical structure or formatting along with the conclusions and list of references.

Examples of the differences between two are given below:

Research Paper:

A research paper can have the name of student with date, and name of instructor, everything written on the left side of paper, with the title in center.

Journal Paper:

A journal paper can have a title on the top center of paper. Name of author is written below the title and whole format is kept same like the one in magazine article’s format.

A main difference is the usage of each paper. Research paper is for practical writing while other one is for practicing by the fellow practitioners.

Other than this a research paper is utilized as the method for educating students about how to do writing clearly and efficiently regarding a topic, while journal paper is done for educating the reader about the subject.

Related Posts

Research paper example, how to write a motivational statement, how to write a good psychology research proposal, how to write a mechanical engineering research paper, apa research paper parts and sections, how to research a topic, how to write a personal essay, research project outline example, research paper format, what is a dissertation paper, leave a comment cancel reply.

Please enter an answer in digits:

Conference Paper vs. Journal Paper: Learn the difference

Discover conference papers and how to tell them from journal papers. Check out tips for writing a high-quality conference paper.

A major dilemma frequently arises for an academic subject: should it be a conference paper or a journal paper? That is why, in order to do and refer to the right framework, you must first comprehend the essential distinction concerning the smallest things in papers.

This article will explain more about conference papers , the differences between them and journal papers, and how to write a high-quality one.

What is a conference paper?

To begin, a conference is a place where academics, researchers, experts, and professionals deliver and present information after doing thorough research. As a result, a conference paper is essentially a mixture of a written document and an oral presentation. 

Conference papers are brief and precise documents with a limited number of pages in which academics present the findings of their research investigations. In certain cases, conference papers are published in the conference proceedings, and in others, only chosen papers are published in the conference proceedings.

Conference Paper vs. Journal Paper

The primary distinction between a journal paper and a conference paper is that, while both require writing, journal papers are intended for publication in journals, whereas conference papers are intended for presentation at conferences and may be published in conference proceedings. 

There are also significant distinctions in the reviewing process, with journal papers requiring a considerably more thorough and strict review. Furthermore, conference papers have fewer pages than journal papers, often limited to four to ten pages.

Types of conference paper

Each presentation may necessitate a different sort of conference paper since there are many. Learn about a few of them below.

• Respondent: A speaker provides a thirty-minute paper in this sort of presentation. A respondent then replies to the article for fifteen minutes. The speaker thereafter provides a fifteen-minute response to the response.
• Panel: This sort of presentation has three to four presenters, each of whom speaks for 15-20 minutes. Panels may additionally include a discussant who provides both individual and group feedback on the papers.
• Poster: This form of presentation is designed to graphically express information. Some presenters display a three to eight-page document outlining their research, providing their ideas and an explanation of their findings. Charts, graphs, illustrations or artwork are among the most visually attractive posters. 
• Roundtable: Consists of five or more presenters, each of whom speaks for 5-10 minutes.
• Workshops: Workshops might last anything from 90 minutes to a whole day. Before engaging the audience in some form of action, workshop speakers make brief comments. 

Conference paper format

In terms of formatting, the best method is to check with the conference to which your work is being submitted, since they may have specific formatting standards for the paper and abstract, such as margin size, page number usage, page limitation, and other aspects. Just remember that your conference paper should proceed logically from abstract to conclusions. 

Tips on writing a high-quality conference paper

• Start with a strong abstract, as you might need to present it before it’s accepted for the conference. 
• Get to know your audience in order to make it appealing.
• Create an outline of your work to assist you in organizing your ideas and material.
• Create an introduction that will pique the reader’s curiosity.
• Find easy methods to communicate complicated concepts. Use simple metaphors and analogies. 
• Use your ear to write. When you’ve finished a draft, read it aloud. Remove any uncomfortable parts.
• Long quotations should be avoided. They shorten listeners’ attention spans and break the flow of your statement.
• Use proper punctuation. The audience will not see dashes, semicolons, or parentheses.
• Take your time with results and conclusions, and include facts to back up your statements.
• Remember to include any references you might have used. The more thorough the references are, the better.
• Prepare for questions. Attend conferences the day before your own to see what kinds of questions people ask and to get a sense of it.

Integrate information and illustrations into beautiful and impactful slides

Remember to include graphic materials in your slides while creating a conference paper. Graphs, illustrations, and infographics can help you offer comprehension of the data you’re presenting. To improve your work, use the Mind The Graph tool.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

• Trending Now
• Foundational Courses
• Data Science
• Practice Problem
• Machine Learning
• System Design
• DevOps Tutorial

Difference between Research Papers and Technical Articles for Journal Publication

• Difference between Paper and Article for Scientific Writings
• Difference between Vertical search and Horizontal search
• Difference between Software Inspection and Technical Review
• Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper
• Difference between Data Science and Operations Research
• Difference between <article> tag and <section> tag
• Difference between Qualitative research and Quantitative research
• Difference between Fundamental and Technical Analysis
• Difference between Information System and Information Technology
• Difference Between Article and Essay
• Difference between Project Report and Research Report
• Difference between Functional Testing and Implementational Testing Approach
• Difference between Project Engineer and Mechanical Engineer
• Difference between Elasticsearch and Solr
• Difference between semantic and non-semantic elements
• Differences between Interface and Integration Testing
• Technical Product Manager vs Product Manager | Difference Between
• Difference Between Journal and Ledger
• What Is The Difference Between NATA And JEE Paper 2?

Research Papers: Research Papers are write-ups which record the result/report examinations tired specific zone. For the most part, they take an up to this point obscure issue in a given field, propose an arrangement for it and assess the status of the arrangement in comparison with other modern solutions. In this way, in a sense, they move the wilderness of information within the field. Based on the nature and reason of the movement carried out, and the way the write-up is composed. Technical Articles: A technical article is an editorial for a magazine or an internet benefit that’s about a specialized point, and regularly the article drills down into a few low-level of detail. May be computers, maybe material science or chemistry or any other science. It can be around math. It can be approximately pharmaceutical or wellbeing or diet. It can be around the material science of cooking. There are truly thousands of potential points of specialized articles. Below is a table of differences between Research Papers and Technical Articles: 

.Difference-table { border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; } .Difference-table td { text-color: black !important; border: 1px solid #5fb962; text-align: left !important; padding: 8px; } .Difference-table th { border: 1px solid #5fb962; padding: 8px; } .Difference-table tr>th{ background-color: #c6ebd9; vertical-align: middle; } .Difference-table tr:nth-child(odd) { background-color: #ffffff; } 

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Difference Between

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Journal vs conference papers: Key differences & advice

Journal and conference papers are not the same, and both formats have advantages and disadvantages. A good understanding of the key differences between journal and conference papers avoid s pitfalls, such as copyright issues when wanting to turn a conference into a journal paper at a later stage.

Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you make a purchase using the links below at no additional cost to you . I only recommend products or services that I truly believe can benefit my audience. As always, my opinions are my own.

What is a journal paper?

What is a conference paper, advantages of journal papers, disadvantages of journal papers, advantages of conference papers, disadvantages of conference papers, differences between journal and conference papers, questions to ask yourself before submitting a conference paper, is conference paper better than journal paper, can you use a conference paper in a journal, are all conference papers automatically published in conference proceedings, do conference papers count as publications.

A journal paper is a written piece of academic work – presenting empirical research, a theoretical discussion, or both – published in an academic journal. Most journal papers or articles are peer-reviewed , meaning they undergo a rigorous review process involving several stages and rounds of revisions before they are published.

Most academic journals have an impact factor, which is an index calculated based on the number of citations of articles published within a specific journal. The higher the impact factor of a journal, the wider the (potential) reach of journal papers that it publishes. And the better the reputation of the journal.

Therefore, authors of journal papers tend to target journals with a high impact factor to publish their work. There are other criteria that play a role when selecting a journal to publish research . However, the impact factor remains a crucial one, as publications in high-impact factor journals strongly influence academic promotions.

A conference paper is a piece of academic work that is specifically written for an academic conference, and mostly accompanies a conference presentation. While there are some exceptions, most conference papers are not peer-reviewed.

Conference papers are usually submitted several weeks before the actual conference, and circulated among conference participants in preparation for the actual presentations. However, not all conferences require conference papers. And some conferences make the submission of a conference paper optional.

Many conferences that require or allow the submission of a conference paper have ‘best conference paper’ awards, rewarding outstanding submissions. Furthermore, some conferences publish a collection of conference papers after the event, in the so-called conference proceedings. Many conference proceedings do not have an impact factor.

If you are looking to elevate your writing and editing skills, I highly recommend enrolling in the course “ Good with Words: Writing and Editing Specialization “, which is a 4 course series offered by the University of Michigan. This comprehensive program is conveniently available as an online course on Coursera, allowing you to learn at your own pace. Plus, upon successful completion, you’ll have the opportunity to earn a valuable certificate to showcase your newfound expertise!

Advantages and disadvantages of journal and conference papers

The choice between a journal or a conference paper should be a careful one. Both formats fulfill important but different roles in academia. Therefore, a good understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of both formats can help to make an informed decision.

Please notice that the following points are developed from a social sciences perspective. Other fields and specific disciplines may have different standards.

• Journal papers are more prestigious in academia. Especially if you strive for an academic career , publishing peer-reviewed journal papers in high-impact journals should be your priority.
• Journal papers are more frequently cited than conference papers. Journal impact factors are not the only metric that strongly influences academic promotions: The so-called h-index is a metric that measures your ‘impact’ in terms of how often your publications have been cited. And journal papers are cited more often than conference papers, as they are considered more reputable.
• Journal papers undergo revisions, which often means they are of higher quality. Due to the rigorous peer-review process that most journal papers are subjected to, the quality of journal papers tends to be better than that of conference papers. During peer review, experts on a topic point out flaws in the draft paper, challenge your thinking and provide suggestions for improvement. While dealing with peer review comments can be a tedious process, the final result is often a much better paper compared to the initial manuscript.
• Publishing a journal paper takes time. The whole process from manuscript to published paper can be lengthy, and take from anywhere between several months to several years.
• Most journals do not publish preliminary results. Even if you make a groundbreaking discovery in your preliminary analysis, most journals will not consider it worthy of a publication before more final conclusions can be drawn.
• There is a risk of outdated data in journal papers. For instance, if you want to publish your academic work to contribute to a current societal discussion, a journal paper may not be the best option. In the worst case, the publishing process takes more than a year and by the time of publication, your data may be outdated. Furthermore, your conclusions may be irrelevant for practice as a lot can change in a year.
• Journal papers have to follow strict rules set by journals. Journals set, for example, rules in terms of length, structure, or reference style that have to be followed. Conference papers, on the other hand, are often more flexible.
• Conference papers tend to have a lower threshold of acceptance than journal papers. It is much easier to publish a conference paper in conference proceedings than publish academic work in a high-impact journal. Therefore, conference papers can be a valuable option to learn about paper writing and publishing, and an easier way for early career researchers to get their name on a publication.
• Conference papers are published relatively fast. Some conference papers undergo peer review before being published in conference proceedings, but many don’t. In general, conference proceedings are published relatively soon after the actual conference takes places. Thus, a conference paper can be a good way to publish fast.
• Conference papers can discuss ongoing research and preliminary results. Contrary to journal papers, conference papers often address ongoing research and tentative conclusions. Furthermore, the format tends to be more open than in journal papers, providing authors of conference papers more freedom in terms of content and structure.
• Conference papers can often compete for ‘best conference paper’ aw ards . And having such an award to your name certainly looks good on your academic CV !
• Conference papers do not count as much as journal publications for career advancement. This is because many conference papers are not peer-reviewed and because many conference proceedings do not have an impact factor. Thus, in terms of career promotion or trajectories, conference papers are less relevant than journal papers.
• Conference papers can create copyright issues. It is a very common scenario: an author writes a conference paper first, then makes some edits and submits it to an academic journal for publication. If the conference paper has been published in conference proceedings, it will likely be flagged as plagiarised by the journal. Journals do not like to publish articles which have been published elsewhere in a similar fashion, and some use any indication of plagiarism (even if it is self-plagiarism) as a reason to desk-reject a manuscript.
• Sharing great ideas prematurely in a conference paper can make you vulnerable. Unfortunately, there is a lot of competition in academia, and not everyone plays by the rules. Therefore, you should always carefully consider how much of your work you share, without linking it to a publication of your own. Sharing an excellent idea that is sent around to hundreds of conference participants creates a risk that someone copies or steals your idea or approach, and tries to publish it faster in a journal article than you do.

Based on the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of journal and conference papers above, the following key differences come to light:

• Content and requirements : Conference papers are more open to include preliminary results and are more flexible in terms of requirements than journal papers. The target audience of conference papers are conference participants, while journal papers target the wider academic community.
• Submission and peer review process : Journal papers tend to be submitted via an online system and undergo a structured peer review process. Conference papers are often simply sent to the conference organisers by email and are not peer-reviewed.
• Time to publication: Conference papers are often published more quickly in conference proceedings than journal papers are published in academic journals.
• Career relevance: Journal papers are much more relevant for academic careers than conference papers. Most journals have impact factors, while most conference proceedings do not have impact factors.

Even though journal papers are more important for academic promotions, submitting a conference paper is not per se the wrong choice. A ‘best conference paper’ award, for instance, can make you stand out when applying for academic jobs.

When embarking on writing a conference paper, it is better to be safe than sorry: At times, it may require reaching out to conference organisers or target journals to make sure that you will not run into copyright or plagiarism issues at a later point.

Oftentimes, conferences still allow you to present even without submitting a conference paper. Or you can ask the conference organisers not to include your paper in the conference proceedings. Furthermore, some journals are okay with publishing a paper that has been published in a conference proceeding earlier. Just make sure to ask in advance to prevent bad surprises!

Thus, when considering a conference paper, first answer the following questions:

• What are the benefits of submitting a conference paper to the specific conference, and do they outweigh the drawbacks?
• How can I mitigate the drawbacks? (Would my conference paper be published in the conference proceedings and can I opt out? Can I participate in the conference without a conference paper?)
• Do I share too many original ideas in my conference paper, which someone could copy without referring to my work as I haven’t published on the topic yet?
• Could I face copyright issues if I want to turn my conference paper into a journal paper at a later point?

Frequently Asked Questions

In academia, journal papers are considered ‘better’ than conference papers because they have a stronger positive impact on academic careers. Reasons for this are the more rigorous peer-review process that journal papers tend to undergo before publication, the higher standards of journals compared to conference proceedings, and the impact factor of journals.

You should never simply submit a conference paper to a journal without making substantial edits beforehand. That said, it is okay to use similar data or arguments. If your conference paper has been published in conference proceedings, it is best to inform the journal about it in your letter to the editor , which accompanies your journal paper submission. Otherwise, it may be flagged as plagiarised and immediately desk-rejected by the journal editors before it even has the chance to enter the peer-review process.

Not all conference papers are automatically published in conference proceedings. Different conferences have different rules when it comes to publishing papers in conference proceedings. Therefore, you should check the rules and procedures of a specific conference in advance. If you cannot find the information online, you can send an email to the conference organisers. You can also always ask if it is possible to present without submitting a conference paper or to not have your conference paper published in the conference proceedings.

Conference papers often do not count as academic publications. Therefore, on academic CVs, conference papers tend to be listed under ‘Conferences’ instead of ‘Publications’. Alternatively, they are listed as a separate sub-category under ‘Publications’, but in a way that they are clearly differentiated from other (peer-reviewed) publications.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

The best answers to "What are your plans after graduation?"

How many people have a phd data from oecd countries, related articles.

The best online courses for PhD researchers in 2024

How to address data privacy and confidentiality concerns of AI in research

The 11 best AI tools for academic writing

ChatGPT for academics? Ethical considerations of AI in research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 01 May 2024

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

• Jackson Ryan 0

Jackson Ryan is a freelance science journalist in Sydney, Australia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Time pressures and a lack of confidence could be prompting reviewers to plagiarize text in their reports. Credit: Thomas Reimer/Zoonar via Alamy

Mikołaj Piniewski is a researcher to whom PhD students and collaborators turn when they need to revise or refine a manuscript. The hydrologist, at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences, has a keen eye for problems in text — a skill that came in handy last year when he encountered some suspicious writing in peer-review reports of his own paper.

Last May, when Piniewski was reading the peer-review feedback that he and his co-authors had received for a manuscript they’d submitted to an environmental-science journal, alarm bells started ringing in his head. Comments by two of the three reviewers were vague and lacked substance, so Piniewski decided to run a Google search, looking at specific phrases and quotes the reviewers had used.

To his surprise, he found the comments were identical to those that were already available on the Internet, in multiple open-access review reports from publishers such as MDPI and PLOS. “I was speechless,” says Piniewski. The revelation caused him to go back to another manuscript that he had submitted a few months earlier, and dig out the peer-review reports he received for that. He found more plagiarized text. After e-mailing several collaborators, he assembled a team to dig deeper.

Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers

The team published the results of its investigation in Scientometrics in February 1 , examining dozens of cases of apparent plagiarism in peer-review reports, identifying the use of identical phrases across reports prepared for 19 journals. The team discovered exact quotes duplicated across 50 publications, saying that the findings are just “the tip of the iceberg” when it comes to misconduct in the peer-review system.

Dorothy Bishop, a former neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, UK, who has turned her attention to investigating research misconduct, was “favourably impressed” by the team’s analysis. “I felt the way they approached it was quite useful and might be a guide for other people trying to pin this stuff down,” she says.

Peer review under review

Piniewski and his colleagues conducted three analyses. First, they uploaded five peer-review reports from the two manuscripts that his laboratory had submitted to a rudimentary online plagiarism-detection tool . The reports had 44–100% similarity to previously published online content. Links were provided to the sources in which duplications were found.

The researchers drilled down further. They broke one of the suspicious peer-review reports down to fragments of one to three sentences each and searched for them on Google. In seconds, the search engine returned a number of hits: the exact phrases appeared in 22 open peer-review reports, published between 2021 and 2023.

The final analysis provided the most worrying results. They took a single quote — 43 words long and featuring multiple language errors, including incorrect capitalization — and pasted it into Google. The search revealed that the quote, or variants of it, had been used in 50 peer-review reports.

Predominantly, these reports were from journals published by MDPI, PLOS and Elsevier, and the team found that the amount of duplication increased year-on-year between 2021 and 2023. Whether this is because of an increase in the number of open-access peer-review reports during this time or an indication of a growing problem is unclear — but Piniewski thinks that it could be a little bit of both.

Why would a peer reviewer use plagiarized text in their report? The team says that some might be attempting to save time , whereas others could be motivated by a lack of confidence in their writing ability, for example, if they aren’t fluent in English.

The team notes that there are instances that might not represent misconduct. “A tolerable rephrasing of your own words from a different review? I think that’s fine,” says Piniewski. “But I imagine that most of these cases we found are actually something else.”

The source of the problem

Duplication and manipulation of peer-review reports is not a new phenomenon. “I think it’s now increasingly recognized that the manipulation of the peer-review process, which was recognized around 2010, was probably an indication of paper mills operating at that point,” says Jennifer Byrne, director of biobanking at New South Wales Health in Sydney, Australia, who also studies research integrity in scientific literature.

Paper mills — organizations that churn out fake research papers and sell authorships to turn a profit — have been known to tamper with reviews to push manuscripts through to publication, says Byrne.

The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

However, when Bishop looked at Piniewski’s case, she could not find any overt evidence of paper-mill activity. Rather, she suspects that journal editors might be involved in cases of peer-review-report duplication and suggests studying the track records of those who’ve allowed inadequate or plagiarized reports to proliferate.

Piniewski’s team is also concerned about the rise of duplications as generative artificial intelligence (AI) becomes easier to access . Although his team didn’t look for signs of AI use, its ability to quickly ingest and rephrase large swathes of text is seen as an emerging issue.

A preprint posted in March 2 showed evidence of researchers using AI chatbots to assist with peer review, identifying specific adjectives that could be hallmarks of AI-written text in peer-review reports .

Bishop isn’t as concerned as Piniewski about AI-generated reports, saying that it’s easy to distinguish between AI-generated text and legitimate reviewer commentary. “The beautiful thing about peer review,” she says, is that it is “one thing you couldn’t do a credible job with AI”.

Preventing plagiarism

Publishers seem to be taking action. Bethany Baker, a media-relations manager at PLOS, who is based in Cambridge, UK, told Nature Index that the PLOS Publication Ethics team “is investigating the concerns raised in the Scientometrics article about potential plagiarism in peer reviews”.

How big is science’s fake-paper problem?

An Elsevier representative told Nature Index that the publisher “can confirm that this matter has been brought to our attention and we are conducting an investigation”.

In a statement, the MDPI Research Integrity and Publication Ethics Team said that it has been made aware of potential misconduct by reviewers in its journals and is “actively addressing and investigating this issue”. It did not confirm whether this was related to the Scientometrics article.

One proposed solution to the problem is ensuring that all submitted reviews are checked using plagiarism-detection software. In 2022, exploratory work by Adam Day, a data scientist at Sage Publications, based in Thousand Oaks, California, identified duplicated text in peer-review reports that might be suggestive of paper-mill activity. Day offered a similar solution of using anti-plagiarism software , such as Turnitin.

Piniewski expects the problem to get worse in the coming years, but he hasn’t received any unusual peer-review reports since those that originally sparked his research. Still, he says that he’s now even more vigilant. “If something unusual occurs, I will spot it.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01312-0

Piniewski, M., Jarić, I., Koutsoyiannis, D. & Kundzewicz, Z. W. Scientometrics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04960-1 (2024).

Article   Google Scholar  

Liang, W. et al. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.07183 (2024).

Download references

Related Articles

• Peer review
• Research management

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer

News 29 APR 24

Recruitment of Principal Investigators by the School of Life Sciences, Peking University

The School of Life Sciences at Peking University is actively seeking talents, with an emphasis on bioinformatics/computational biology/AI/RNA biology.

Beijing (CN)

School of Life Sciences, Peking University

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Head of Operational Excellence

In this key position, you’ll be responsible for ensuring efficiency and quality in journal workflows through continuous improvement and innovation.

United States (US) - Remote

American Physical Society

Rowland Fellowship

The Rowland Institute at Harvard seeks outstanding early-career experimentalists in all fields of science and engineering.

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Rowland Institute at Harvard

Postdoctoral Fellowship: Chemical and Cell Biology

The 2-year fellowship within a project that will combine biochemical, cell biological and chemical genetic approaches to elucidate migrasome biology

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Data Science Journal

• Download PDF (English) XML (English)
• Alt. Display

Research Papers

Harmonizing gcw cryosphere vocabularies with envo and sweet. towards a general model for semantic harmonization.

• Pier Luigi Buttigieg
• Gary Berg Cross
• Kai Lewis Blumberg
• Brandon Whitehead
• Nancy Wiegand

This paper presents the specific process used by members of the Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) Semantic Harmonization Cluster, to harmonize cryospheric terms gathered by the Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW) with two leading semantic resources used in the Earth and Environmental science communities—the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET) and the Environment Ontology (ENVO). This process led to updates to both ENVO and SWEET as well as the development of an alignment file relating cryospheric terms in ENVO to those in SWEET. In addition, we summarize several leading practices which may be applied to other projects/realms within Earth and Environmental science and perhaps beyond, as well as suggest a generalized process for doing so. This paper describes the history of the effort, the technical and decision-making processes used to resolve differences between semantic resources, and describes several issues encountered, with a focus on those that were addressed during the effort. Lessons learned, examples of the problems encountered and a summary of resulting leading practices growing out of this work is provided.

• semantic resource
• semantic harmonization
• lessons learned
• leading practices

Introduction

Over the last decades it has become apparent that to solve any of humanity’s pressing issues, inter- and trans-disciplinary research is needed. This requires that data that are collected, developed, and described for one community become readily accessible and understandable by other communities, that the data become globally FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) ( Wilkinson et al. 2016 ).

What is often not understood by researchers is that for data to be FAIR, both the data and its metadata must be amenable to reasoning by both humans and computers ( ‘FAIR Principles’ 2015 ). This implies that formally defined language be used to describe the structure and content of both the data and its metadata ( ‘FAIR Principle I1’ 2015 ). Consequently, understanding and harmonizing disciplinary semantic resources with those in other fields is necessary ( Gil et al. 2018 ).

Historically, the data systems used by the research community were independently developed and customized to suit their requirements. Underpinning these systems are a variety of semantically heterogeneous resources, including controlled vocabularies, glossaries, thesauri, and ontologies (see Figure 1 and section Types of Semantic Resources). Moreover, these underlying resources come in a wide variety of formats, including spreadsheets, documents, programming languages, and schemas, which are typically embedded with a non-trivial amount of tacit domain knowledge. Consequently, these data systems, which may support large, well-established user communities such as those of the Global Cryosphere Watch, are unlikely to naturally merge with those of other disciplines without a great deal of effort. In light of this problem, it is increasingly clear there is a pressing need for a sound and sustainable way to align and harmonize these underlying semantic resources in order to allow for inter-, cross- and trans-disciplinary data discovery and use .

A depiction of the semantic ladder illustrating the extent of machine-aided interoperability of semantic resources, loosely based on Dan McCreary’s 2006 presentation ( McCreary 2006 ).

The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW) supports many historical, or legacy, discipline-specific research data. The term ‘cryosphere’ refers collectively to the portions of the earth where water is in solid form, including snow and ice cover, sea ice, river ice, lake ice, glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, and seasonally and perennially frozen ground (permafrost). Given the geographic scope of the cryosphere, its data comprise several scientific and sociological disciplines and is thus extremely heterogeneous. A few examples include remotely sensed data acquired by satellites, airplanes, and drones; long-term time-series data gathered at stations such as permafrost borehole temperature profiles and ship-born sea ice and ocean temperature profiles; ‘in-situ’ sample data such as snow depth, density and water equivalent, ice cores, sea ice, or permafrost soil samples; laboratory measurements and experimentally derived data; and computational environmental models.

The cryosphere is an integral part of the global climate system. The presence or absence of snow and ice affects heating and cooling over the Earth’s surface, influencing the entire planet’s energy balance. Indeed, as the 2023 Global Tipping Points Report ( Lenton et al. 2023 ) notes, of the five major systems currently at risk of crossing tipping points, four of them—the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre circulation and permafrost regions—all have cryospheric components. Thus, harmonizing the semantic resources underlying data systems holding cryospheric data is critical to enabling the inter-, cross-, and trans-disciplinary research needed to understand the impacts of and to mitigate climate change .

The Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) is a non-profit organization with a mission to ‘empower innovative use and stewardship of Earth Science data to solve our planet’s greatest challenges’ ( ESIP 2023 ). Supported by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Geological Survey (USGS), and with more than 130 member organizations, ESIP provides a neutral, open, and welcoming space for collaboration between researchers, educators, industry, and government agencies to accomplish these goals.

In 2009, ESIP convened a Semantic Web Cluster to help its community adopt a wide range of technologies to digitally represent knowledge from diverse scientific domains and bridge between them. As the popularity and importance of semantic technologies grew, this cluster was promoted to become the Semantic Technologies Committee in 2016 to address needs in this operational space. In ESIP, Committees can convene their own clusters, and as recognition of the substantial expertise and domain knowledge present within the ESIP community, several subsidiary clusters were formed to address specific aspects of semantics.

One of these clusters was the ESIP Semantic Harmonization Cluster which was formed in 2018 to propose a route towards sustainably bridging terminologies across the Earth Sciences to other domains, as well as to disseminate best practices for harmonizing semantic resources . Successful bridges need to be usable across implementation scenarios and user communities, as well as applicable across the spectrum of semantic resource types—that is, from resources with weak expressivity such as controlled vocabularies and glossaries (see Figure 1 ), through those that support best practices for publishing structured scientific data on the Web ( Shepherd et al. 2022 ), and to those that enable computational reasoning—that is, ontologies.

In this paper, we describe the methods used to harmonize cryosphere terms from the 27 semantic resources in the Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW) glossary compilation with two major Earth science ontologies, ENVO and SWEET, and propose a general process for harmonizing semantic resources across the semantic ladder. This work was done as a project through ESIP to fulfill the mandate of the ESIP Semantic Harmonization Cluster .

Background: Types of Semantic Resources

In the Earth Sciences there is no single semantic resource or semantic resource type to rule them all. The phrase semantic resource typically refers to a spectrum of artifacts ranging from simple controlled vocabularies (e.g., term lists) to complex, logically consistent, and formally rigorous structures (e.g., ontologies), each providing a level of interoperability to innumerable applications (see Figure 1 ). The terminology describing semantic resources varies significantly depending on the community with which it is employed. As such, the following are the types of semantic resources considered during this work along with our definitions for each.

• Example: AGU Index of terms ( AGU 2021 )
• Example: Glossary of Geology ( Neuendorf, Mehl, Jr., and Jackson 2011 )
• Example: The USGS Thesaurus ( “USGS Thesaurus” 2023 )
• Example: The classification of living organisms by their Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species
• Example: ENVO ( Buttigieg et al. 2023 )

Each type of semantic resource defined above has been placed on the semantic ladder depicted in Figure 1 along with the three resources used in this work (GCW glossaries, SWEET, and ENVO).

As previously described, the ESIP Semantic Harmonization Cluster was formed to develop processes for sustainably bridging terminologies across the Earth Sciences and to other related domains, as well as to disseminate best practices for harmonizing semantic resources. Figure 2 depicts the general process used here, which is reproducible across other projects and disciplines.

Overview of the harmonization process used in the project and described below.

Step 1: Find and compile existing resources

The first task was to select the set of semantic resources to harmonize and the discipline to cover. Given the expertise within the group and the critical importance of the cryosphere to climate change impacts, we agreed that cryospheric terminology would be our focus.

This task was greatly aided by previous work commissioned by the GCW to analyze the 27 cryospheric semantic resources they had gathered ( Duerr 2018b ; 2018a ). One result of that work are tables containing terms:

• In this case usually because only one of the glossaries defined the term or where multiple definitions are exact copies of each other and therefore do not conflict.
• For example, the term adfreezing is defined as ‘the process by which two objects are bonded together by ice formed between them’ in the International Permafrost Association’s glossary ( van Everdingen 2005 ) and as ‘the process by which one object becomes adhered to another by the binding action of ice’ in the AMS Glossary of Meteorology ( American Meteorological Society 2024 ). These two definitions were combined into the ENVO definition ‘a freezing process during which two objects adhere to each other via ice.’
• For example, the term ‘blizzard’ is defined as ‘violent and very cold wind which is loaded with snow, some of which has been raised from snow covered ground’ by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ( Australian Government, n.d. ); as ‘a severe weather condition characterized by reduced visibility from falling and/or blowing snow and strong winds that may be accompanied by low temperatures’ by Canada ( Government of Canada n.d. ); and having ‘sustained wind or frequent gusts of 16 m per second (30 kt or 35 mi per hour) or greater, accompanied by falling and/or blowing snow, frequently reducing visibility to less than 400 m (0.25 mi) for 3 hours or longer’ by the US National Weather Service ( NOAA/NWS 2009 ). There are additional definitions for other regions such as France, England, and Russia as well, each with some distinguishing set of criteria that usually differs in some way from the examples given here. This example is discussed further below.
• See the detailed discussion of the term calving and the calving process in the Results section and in Figure 5 .

Terms from the categories above formed the initial scope of this project.

A recent survey identified both the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET) and the Environment Ontology (ENVO) as amongst the five most important semantic resources within the community ( Whitehead 2022 ). Of the other three resources in the group, neither QUDT ( FAIRsharing Team 2015 ) nor the Sensor, Observation, Sampler, and Actuator/Semantic Sensor Network (SOSA/SSN) ( Haller et al. 2019 ; Janowicz et al. 2019 ) contains cryospheric terminology. The last member, the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC Vocabularies) ( British Oceanographic Data Centre 2023 ), is focused on marine science but not the cryosphere. Moreover, Wolodkin, Welland, and Grieb explicitly mention the need to bridge between SWEET and ENVO in order to facilitate reuse of biodiversity data ( Wolodkin, Weiland & Grieb 2023 ). The previously mentioned survey also noted that SWEET should be harmonized with other semantic resources. Consequently, the cluster agreed to harmonize GCW terminology within and between both SWEET and ENVO.

SWEET ( McGibbney et al. 2022 ) organizes over 11,000 Earth and Environmental concepts into roughly 200 separate ontology modules based on nine top-level categories (below), some of which contain subcategories with cryosphere-related terms ( Table 1 ):

• Representation – Math, Space, Science, Time, Data,
• Realm – Ocean, Land Surface, Terrestrial Hydrosphere, Atmosphere, Heliosphere, Cryosphere, Geosphere,
• Phenomena (macro-scale) – Ecological, Physical,
• Process (micro-scale) – Physical, Biological, Chemical, and Mathematical,
• Matter – Living Thing, Material Thing, Chemical,
• Human Activities – Decision, Commerce, Jurisdiction, Environmental, Research,
• Property (observation) – Binary Property, Quantity, Categorical Property, Ordinal Property
• State (adjective, adverb) – Role, Biological, Physical, Space, Chemical, and
• Relation (verb) – Human, Chemical, Physical, Space, Time

SWEET files addressed during this work.

Initially developed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab ( Raskin & Pan 2005 ) and originally based on the Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) keywords ( Nagendra et al. 2001 ), SWEET is now officially under the governance of the ESIP federation. Despite the broad coverage, historically, SWEET did not include terminology definitions or their equivalent machine readable axioms, so despite routinely being referred to as a set of ontologies in relation to the semantic spectrum, in many areas SWEET is more along the lines of a taxonomy or lightweight ontology ( Giunchiglia & Zaihrayeu 2017 ).

ENVO was initially created to represent environmental characteristics in which biological entities are found. ENVO includes, for example, descriptions of physical environments such as geological, ecological, or astronomical ( Buttigieg et al. 2013 ; 2016 ). As such, expanding ENVO to include cryospheric terms enhances ENVO’s coverage of physical environments.

In relation to the semantic ladder (see Figure 1 ), ENVO is an ontology with both human and machine-readable axiomatic definitions. It is being developed following the recommendations and principles of the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) Foundry and Library ( OBO Technical Working Group 2022 ) and can be formally represented in the Ontology Web Language (OWL) or OBO formats. ENVO is aligned with the Basic Formal Ontology ( Arp, Smith & Spear 2015 ; Brochhausen et al. 2019 ) at an upper level, so that ENVO is interoperable with other OBO ontologies. Compared to SWEET, ENVO has numerous defining axioms and overall is a more formally rigorous ontology.

Step 2: Semantic harmonization

Work proceeded by identifying SWEET terms that were cryospheric from within that subset of SWEET files whose name indicated that they were likely to contain relevant terms (see the list of files addressed in Table 1 ). A Google sheet containing the relevant SWEET terms was created for each SWEET file addressed ( Semantic Harmonization Cluster 2023 ).

For each SWEET term on the spreadsheets, the team determined whether there were equivalent terms in the GCW compilation. If not, the term was not addressed further. If the SWEET term was found in the GCW compilation, then we searched for the term in the ENVO ontology. If found, we paid attention to which hierarchy, that is, superclass, it was under compared to SWEET’s hierarchies to be sure we had a match. Then additions or updates to ENVO were made using guidelines developed by Seppälä et al. ( Seppälä, Ruttenberg & Smith 2017 ) and extended for ENVO ( Buttigieg 2021 ). This included creating minimal but robust definitions following the genus-differentia model which produces definitions of the form ‘X is a Y that Zs’ and numbering each discrete differentia in the definition (see Figure 4 for an example) as well as ensuring that the axioms for the term reflect the differentia in the definition (see Figure 3 for an example).

Term ice fog added to the ENVO ontology using a GCW derived definition showing parallel definition and axioms.

Term ice shelf added to ENVO with numbered differentia and added GCW comments.

Many of the terms in the GCW compilation included additional information that went well beyond a definition. These extra materials were not included as part of the ENVO definition, but instead kept as separate annotating comments on the ENVO term (see Figure 4 for an example). When revising definitions or adding terms to ENVO, we paid special attention to the taxonomically inherited axioms of each class, correcting issues higher in the ontology hierarchy or adding additional levels to the hierarchy as needed.

We initially intended to update SWEET directly as well—adding definitions and relationships to the equivalent terms from ENVO directly into SWEET. However, during the project a SWEET roadmap was debated within the larger ESIP Semantic Technologies Committee which might have invalidated our work. Instead, we opted to create GitHub Issues for anything related to SWEET, to defer the addition of definitions to after completion of the roadmap, and to record SWEET and ENVO term relationships using the recently developed Simple Standard for Sharing Ontological Mappings (SSSOM) ( Matentzoglu et al. 2022 ) (see Step 4 below).

Step 3: Encode in ontologies (OWL)

Initially, the examination of terms in ENVO occurred using the Protégé ontology editor ( Musen 2015 ) and the development branch of ENVO available from the ENVO GitHub repository. We were editing/updating ENVO one term at a time. However, later in the project, after having worked through many terms using this process, we switched to using a ROBOT spreadsheet ( Jackson et al. 2019 ; Overton et al. 2015 ) to automate the process of updating ENVO in bulk.

ROBOT is a general-purpose command-line tool for working with ontologies and is used by many projects contributing to the OBO Foundry. It provides commands for merging ontologies, extracting subsets, filtering for selected axioms, running reasoners, and converting between file formats. ROBOT commands can be chained together to form powerful, repeatable workflows.

In this work, we created the ENVO ROBOT template and merge workflow, which allowed us to update existing as well as to add new terms to ENVO. The workflow enables the use of collaborative spreadsheets to add information into ENVO. A generalized version of the workflow is available from the ENVO wiki ( Blumberg & Duerr 2022 ) involving the following steps:

• Creating a GitHub issue detailing the material to be added.
• Making a copy of the template spreadsheet formatted with headers necessary to compile a ROBOT template.
• Preparing new terminology by filling out the spreadsheet following the best documented practices ( Blumberg, Chong & Buttigieg 2021 ).
• Compiling the ROBOT template spreadsheet into OWL code.
• Using a GitHub pull request to merge the OWL code into the main ENVO codebase.

The spreadsheets we created while using the new workflow for this material added to ENVO discussed in this paper are available from our GitHub site ( Duerr 2023 ). Once finalized, the new information added to ENVO though the ROBOT template and merge workflow was made publicly available within a new release of ENVO using the standard ENVO release process.

Using ROBOT improved overall efficiency as well as decreased the conceptual workload for those team members without a great deal of ontology engineering experience, though it did not decrease the time required to assess the GCW definitions or any existing ENVO definitions and axioms.

Step 4: Technical harmonization

Finally, to formally record the relation between ENVO and SWEET terms, we used the recently developed Simple Standard for Sharing Ontological Mappings (SSSOM) ( Matentzoglu et al. 2022 ) to document the relationships between the identified SWEET terms and their related ENVO terms.

To use SSSOM, we first populated a spreadsheet with our newly entered ENVO terms alongside potential matching terms in SWEET. For each term, we determined a potential relationship that we expressed using Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) predicates ( Miles & Bechhofer 2009 ), by analyzing the placement of the SWEET and ENVO terms in their class hierarchies, and comparing any available definitions and axioms (see the last column of Figure 2 for examples). While time consuming, this human curated approach proved to be much more accurate than other approaches which generally ignore both differences in the organization of the hierarchies of different resources as well as the richness of the subclasses and axioms underlying the mapped terms (see Results section below).

In addition to the SKOS relationship between terms, such as skos:broadMatch or skos:relatedMatch, we recorded a comment explaining the reasoning behind the type of match assigned. In many cases, these comments also include suggestions for future work and/or conditions for changing the type of match if either ontology is updated. For example, for the term Arete we recorded a comment to the effect that in SWEET an arete is a type of plain, but in ENVO an arete is a kind of ridge; so the SWEET hierarchy needed to be changed. The SSSOM file generated was added to the ENVO repository on GitHub and the ESIP Community Ontology Repository ( ESIPFed 2023 ).

Of the 626 terms currently in the polar subset of ENVO, a total of 302 terms were added or updated as a part of this work. This represents roughly 15% of the unique terms in the GCW compilation; though it should be noted that many of the other GCW terms had been addressed in ENVO prior to this project. Of these terms, 151 were mapped from ENVO to SWEET using the SSSOM mapping standard, mapping available in the ENVO GitHub repository ( Buttigieg et al. 2023 ).

Table 1 contains a list of the SWEET ontology files addressed during this work, the number of cryosphere terms identified in each file, the number of these that were also present in the GCW compilation and the number that were common between all three sources.

Of the almost 500 terms in the 12 SWEET files identified as containing some cryospheric terms, 124 or 26% of those were cryospheric terms. And, of those 124 cryosphere terms, 81 or 65% were also found in the Global Cryosphere Watch, and 70 or 56% were found among all three resources. Again, this overlap of similar terms found in multiple resources as well as the lack of comprehensiveness of terms relevant for a domain in any one resource shows the need and value of our work.

Figure 5 provides a graphic representation of the results of harmonizing ENVO terms related to the ‘ice calving process.’ This has the advantage of showing terms and relationships that are not immediately obvious when looking at one term at a time. In ENVO, ‘ice calving process’ is represented as a form of (subclass of) mass wasting. The subclasses of ice calving process captured differentia noted during our glossary review, in particular, ‘where’ the ice was calved, either into water or upon land, and ‘from’ which entity it was calved, that is, an iceberg or glacier. The definitions of these terms often reveal semantics which are implicitly obvious for domain scientists, but not apparent from their commonly used labels. Similarly, Land ice , is a term used to refer to ice formed over land masses, rather than present upon them, thus allowing marine icebergs to be a valid (sub)subclass. That is, by definition, icebergs come from land ice versus ice floes which are an expanse of sea ice. So, a marine iceberg is an iceberg which is a type of land ice mass, even though it’s no longer on land. Relationships between terms (i.e., axioms such as ‘has participant’) come from another OBO Foundry ontology, the Relations Ontology ( Huntley et al. 2014 ; Mungall et al. 2020 ), which supports reasoning and verifies logical coherence.

A partial ENVO representation of harmonized ‘ice calving process’ terms. Blue boxes represent terms within the ontology, the lines indicate subclass (i.e., is a) and other relationships between terms, while dotted gray boxes indicate that the enclosed terms inherit the relationships from other levels within the ontology.

As mentioned earlier, SSSOM was used to document the relationship between cryospheric terms in SWEET and ENVO. In total, 151 relationships between terms were developed. As you can see from Figure 6 , roughly 40% of the terms were categorized as being a skos:closeMatch which typically implies that positioning within each hierarchy is comparable but that SWEET’s lack of definitions inhibited assumptions of exact equivalence. An additional 40% of the terms were categorized as being related matches, which typically implies that while the terms are in some way related, that positioning within each hierarchy is sufficiently different to eliminate there being any possibility that the terms are equivalent. For example, if a term was considered to be a process in ENVO and a landform in SWEET, the match was deemed a related match. The remaining 20% of the terms were either categorized as being skos:broad or skos:narrow matches indicating that one of the terms is less specific than the other. skos:broad matches provided the bulk of these types of matches indicating that the ENVO term was more specific than the SWEET term.

Match types in the SSSOM created for ENVO and SWEET.

It is quite common in the field for folks to attempt lexical matching of concepts from multiple ontologies ( Euzenat & Shvaiko 2013 ; X. Liu et al. 2021 ), that is, matching based on similarity of the un-defined concept label only (or where the concept label is the most heavily weighted feature of the matching algorithm). To investigate the impact that this would have had on the ontology term relationships developed here, the match types assigned to the 61 lexically equivalent strings in the SSSOM file were examined. Figure 7 provides a summary of the match types found. Roughly half of the terms matched closely; while the other half did not; indicating that a purely lexical match would be wrong in our case roughly half the time. Moreover, we note that the majority of the terms for which we assigned a relationship could not be matched based on their labels, since they had little or no lexical similarity.

Match types for Lexically Equivalent Strings.

As summarized in Figure 8 , we also characterized the reasons for the match types chosen for those 61 lexically equivalent strings. While these characterizations are subjective and the number of terms addressed is small, the results are still instructive. As you might expect, most of the lexically equivalent terms rated as being close matches did not have definitions in SWEET (25 terms). However, there were six such terms where it also was not clear that the placement of the term in each hierarchy was equivalent. For example, SWEET considers fiords to be a type of estuary, while ENVO doesn’t. Similarly, ENVO considers rime to be a type of frost; while in SWEET frost and rime are parallel concepts placed in different parts of the overall hierarchy. In addition, there were 21 terms where the type of the term in each ontology was different. For example, in SWEET, terms such as permafrost are three-dimensional geometric objects, while in ENVO they are environmental materials. Moreover, in nine cases, the reasons for not equating the SWEET and ENVO terms were complex, typically involving both definitional and structural differences between the two resources. In one such case, the term had been deprecated in SWEET. In another such case, SWEET had two identical terms defined in different branches of the SWEET hierarchy. In five cases, the existing SWEET hierarchy was called into question. GitHub Issues have been created to address the concerns identified from these cases.

Reasons why lexically equivalent terms were not said to be semantically equivalent.

Lastly, over the last year interactions with other communities, both within ESIP and beyond, spurred us to generalize the harmonization process so that it could be tailored to the needs of other communities. Figure 2 depicts this general process using the GCW glossaries, ENVO and SWEET purely as examples of the types of resources that can be harmonized. A summary of the general process we developed follows:

• Existing thematic semantic resources in a variety of formats of term-definition pairs are identified by domain experts, who work together with semantic technology and ontology experts.
• Domain experts identify source/target terms for harmonization; usually those required to advance their work. If definitions, comments, or provenance do not accompany terms, more work will be needed to understand and describe each term. Semantic technology and ontology experts work with the domain experts to reduce ambiguity by comparing terms and definitions, splitting, or merging terms, and updating targets and formalizing definitions where necessary (see Discussion).
• The resulting terms and definitions can then be encoded in one or more semantic resources (including their provenance). To allow machine-actionable search and understanding of terms, formal axioms need to be written. This is best done by a collaboration of domain experts who know the field along with semantic technology and ontology experts who know the logic and technology. The result is a domain-correct and machine-readable final set of terms described and expressed with formal axioms. If OWL is used, reasoners can be used for quality assurance and control (QA/QC) and other logical analyses.
• Lastly, multiple semantic/ontology resources can be formally aligned, in our case documented with SSSOM.

Here, we discuss issues found regarding harmonizing terminology and definitions, harmonizing across different ontology hierarchies, and finally sociotechnical issues.

Harmonizing glossaries and ontologies

Harmonizing semantic resources developed by different groups over different periods of time is fraught with issues. However, using analysis methods such as those promulgated by the semantics community ( Seppälä, Ruttenberg & Smith 2017 ) can help clarify, simplify, and resolve many issues. Broadly over the course of this project two major kinds of glossary inconsistencies were encountered: terminology incoherence and imprecise definitions. How we dealt with each is described in the following sections.

Terminology differences

First, we need to simply acknowledge the fact that language is fluid, in some sense alive. Terminology meaning and usage varies and drifts over time, place, and community. Consequently, there may be multiple meanings for a term depending on the exact discipline or subdiscipline defining it. For example, in the permafrost community hummocks are ‘small lumps of soil pushed up by frost action, often found uniformly spaced in large groups’ ( NSIDC n.d. ), while in the sea ice community a hummock is ‘a hillock of broken ice that has been forced upwards by pressure’ ( WMO/OMM/BMO 1970 ). Both definitions are equally valid but specific to usage within a particular community. It would be pointless to argue about which of these is the right definition, since both clearly are ‘right’ and useful in their specific community. However, semantically speaking, these are two distinct terms that can each have their own unique identifier. For example, ENVO handles this by including the terms sea ice hummock (ENVO:01001537) and frost-formed hummock (ENVO:01001538) both under its elevated landforms branch.

Similarly, it is often the case that a term’s meaning depends either on the organization providing the definition or the region of the world from which the definition came. In either case, arguing over who is right is still pointless; simply acknowledging and understanding the differences and generating multiple terms in an ontology appropriately is sufficient. For example, there are differences in the definition of the term ‘blizzard’ depending on which country or continent the definition came from. Thus, in the US the Weather Service definition is not the same as that of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The real issue here becomes simply ensuring that there is a superclass concept able to account for all the variation and nuance of the more precise local variations as subclasses (in this case for any differences in the definition of the term blizzard from other meteorological services around the world).

Another case that often occurs is where the definitions of a term are not parallel concepts but are completely different but still related. For example, the term thermokarst can either be a type of landform or the process that results in those kinds of landforms. In these types of cases, resolution is simple – define multiple terms accordingly! In the case of thermokarst, the ENVO ontology includes the term thermokarst (ENVO:03000085) as ‘an irregular land surface which consists of marshy hollows, hummocks, thermokarst depressions and thermokarst lakes formed from the erosion of ice-rich thawing permafrost areas’ and the term thermokarst formation process (ENVO:01001498), which is ‘a process by which landforms are formed from the thawing of ice-rich permafrost or the melting of massive ground ice.’ The thing to remember here is that the labels thermokarst and thermokarst formation process are just that—labels—and as such are easily changed without impacting in any way the organization or structure of the ontology. The only reason why the label for the term ENVO:03000085 is not something like thermokarst landform is simply that it was inserted into the ontology first and the label wasn’t updated when the formation process was added to the ontology later on.

The situation when a term’s meaning changes over time is more complicated, for example, semantic drift. For example, when discussing snow and ice processes prior to 1980, the term ablation did not include mechanical removal of either snow or ice by processes such as wind erosion, avalanches, or calving. Now it does. While semantic technologies and languages such as OWL can deal with temporal and numeric constraints, their inclusion in ontologies such as those within the OBO Foundry has not yet been standardized. Even if such usage were standardized, it isn’t clear how such a temporal constraint could be operationalized without explicitly capturing the date the term was used wherever that term was used. For example, in natural language applications, associating the date when a particular text including that term was written, would be needed, and there would always be edge cases where it would be unclear which definition was used (e.g., papers written during or near 1980).

Worst yet are cases where there are disagreements over concepts. Unfortunately, ontology modeling cannot resolve disputes in the domain of discourse. In these situations, resolution will ultimately require discussion within the various communities involved. For example, within the cryospheric community as a whole there are disagreements about whether an ice sheet is a glacier, a glacier is an ice sheet or whether these are parallel concepts (A more complex case of calving is discussed in the next subsection). In these cases, there are two courses of action, with only one being considered practical. The practical alternative involves 1) acknowledging the problem, 2) include terms in ontologies wherever their inclusion is absolutely required and 3) include a note with the term itself, possibly as a skos:scopeNote, as well as to the editor of the ontology, about the problem and the likelihood that the term’s placement, axiomatization, and/or inclusion may need to change in the future. The other option would be to create a separate ontology capturing the alternate world view, but this option is often considered wildly impractical.

Precise definitions and their axiomatization

While scientists are often accused of using jargon and trying to be very precise, sometimes inhumanely so, it is surprising that many of the definitions in the various disciplinary glossaries and other vocabulary resources developed are often not semantically consistent or complete. This is one reason why formal semantics calls for 1) the careful creation of definitions using analysis methods such the genus-differentia definitional form (that is, dividing terms into classes and subclasses differentiated by properties) complemented by 2) machine-actionable axiomatization which uses a logical language to formally specify the vocabulary of concepts and the relationships among them and 3) by ensuring that the human-readable definition and the corresponding machine-actionable axioms are equivalent ( Seppälä, Ruttenberg & Smith 2017 ). Doing so can both call out and/or fix problems with existing glossaries. Inconsistencies between axioms represented in OWL, for example, can be shown by theorem provers available in tools like Protégé ( Musen 2015 ). However, it is up to the ontology developer(s) to ensure that the human readable definitions and their machine-actionable counterparts actually are equivalent, so that any machine made logical inferences are as expected by humans.

Let’s return to our example in Figure 5 . The term calving is an ablative process where chunks of ice fall off a parent body (e.g., a calving glacier). There is ambiguity in the existing dozen definitions in the GCW compilation for both the process and the resulting chunks of ice. Some definitions assume that the calving process can only happen going into water while others allow calving on land. Also some definitions allow calving to occur from any form of ice of land origin (e.g., ice sheets, ice caps, ice shelves), while others restrict it to glaciers or some other subset of all of the types of ice of land origin. What ice calved onto land would be called is not obvious, especially since the only definition of calved ice in the GCW compilation excludes ice falling onto land. To resolve the ambiguity with process terminology, we defined four subclasses in ENVO under the class ‘ice calving process’: calving of ice from an iceberg, calving of ice into water, calving of ice onto land (i.e., dry calving or terrestrial calving), and glacial ice calving process. While it is unlikely that there will ever be a need for other terms for what ice is falling onto (can ice fall onto or into anything other than water or land?), there may well be the need to add terms for other sources of the falling ice (e.g., ice sheet, ice cap, thick permafrost embedded in an eroding cliff, etc.) in the future, provided of course that there are use cases where such distinctions are important.

As an example of the genus-differentia definitional form, the definition of the term calving of ice into water is ‘An ice calving process during which a mass of ice falls from a larger mass into a body of water’ where ice calving process is the parent, more general class. The rest of the sentence describes how this term is specialized from its parent. In terms of the machine-actionable axiomatization of the term, the only difference in axiomatization of the term and its parent is the addition of a water body as a participant in the process (i.e., ‘has participant’ some ‘water body’).

Another example of axiomatization of an ENVO term is permafrost . We created formally defined axioms that specify that permafrost is a type of ‘environmental material’ which ‘has quality some decreased temperature’ and is ‘composed primarily of some (sediment or soil or rock).’ One of its sub-types is ‘ice-bearing permafrost’ which ‘has part some water ice.’ Permafrost also has a human-readable definition of ‘Soil or rock and included ice or organic material at or below the freezing point of water (0 degrees Celsius or 32 degrees Fahrenheit) for two or more years.’ This is a case where the human readable definition is more precise than the axiomatization. Clearly, when or if the larger semantic community promulgates a standard way of including numeric constraints into axioms, these axioms will need to be updated, perhaps as ‘has quality some freezing years’ >=2; where ‘freezing years’ axioms are something like ‘has quality maximum temperature < 0C’ and ‘has quality minimum duration.’

Mapping across inconsistent ontology hierarchies

Given the issues with harmonizing terms in glossaries as discussed above, and the vast number of glossaries, it would be surprising if two ontologies created by different groups, for different purposes at possibly different times had internal hierarchies that were the same. Yet, that doesn’t mean that it is impossible to harmonize across such resources; it is just not as straightforward as simply mapping lexically equivalent terms.

Consequently, when adding terms to an existing ontology the resulting contextual structure/hierarchy for the added terms may not necessarily be the same as would occur if adding to a different ontology or if creating a new and independent ontology, say a stand-alone cryosphere ontology. But, even when creating a new ontology, the order of adding classes can result in a functionally similar but different ontology structure. That is, which terms were added first can influence where later terms are placed. So, as we added cryosphere terms one by one to ENVO, the terms were subclassed into the most relevant existing classes. This scattered some terms that, on later inspection, could have been more closely related, and the initial result may eventually be slightly changed. The piecemeal process of adding terms and creating a new whole that makes sense is difficult regardless of creating a new ontology or adding to an existing ontology and is probably non-deterministic regarding the exact same hierarchical result. Accuracy can be retained, however. A few examples follow.

For example, the concept ‘greenhouse gas’ encompasses both a role and a material entity. In ENVO there is no material entity that is a ‘greenhouse’ gas, but certain gasses can bear this role. So in ENVO, greenhouse gas is a term from the Chemical Entities of Biological Interest (ChEBI) ontology (i.e., CHEBI_76413) and not a term under ‘gas molecular entity.’ However, in SWEET, greenhouse gas is a both a subclass of ‘chemical substance’ and a subclass of ‘chemical.’

As another example, in the ENVO ontology, ‘cryosol’ is a subclass of frozen soil, and ‘part_of’ is its relationship to ‘permafrost’; but in SWEET ‘cryosol’ is a ‘categorical property,’ specifically a subclass of ‘soil order.’ Also, in SWEET, ‘gelisol’ is listed as a sibling of ‘cryosol,’ whereas ‘gelisol’ is a synonym of ‘cryosol’ in ENVO.

‘Snowpack’ is a subclass under ‘thickness’ in SWEET, although immediately under ‘snow cover.’ In ENVO, ‘snowpack’ is under ‘snow mass,’ which is under ‘mass of compounded environmental materials.’ Given that SWEET considers the term to be a thickness and ENVO currently considers it a mass of snow, there is a mismatch. The definition in ENVO does refer to size, however, as in being large enough and persisting long enough to form layers under its own weight. Overall, the GCW analysis found eight definitions of snowpack over multiple glossaries, with many commonalities but also disagreements.

In ENVO, proglacial (ENVO:01001853) is a ‘positional quality which inheres in a bearer by virtue of the bearer in being in physical contact with, or close to, a glacial margin.’ But, in SWEET, ‘proglacial’ is not a concept that refers to being, say, in front of a glacier, but instead is a process, that is, found under ‘glacial process’ along with other processes such as ‘accumulation,’ ‘calving,’ and ‘glacial retreat’.

In each of the examples above, it was possible to generate a SSSOM relationship between the terms despite their differences.

In summary, the definitions and uses of terms can vary across ontologies such that hierarchies and conceptualizations differ. This makes alignment or harmonization imprecise. Delving into these differences, however, can expand one’s knowledge across disciplines and perspectives and may help the expert community reassess and standardize its definitions.

Sociotechnical issues

In addition to issues related to the often ambiguous or incomplete definitions, difficulties with inconsistent ontology structures and current limitations in axiomatization, we encountered several issues that were more on the social side of the sociotechnical spectrum that needed to be resolved.

First, many GCW terms are entirely missing from either ENVO or SWEET or both. Simply put, the GCW provides a much more comprehensive compilation of terms in use within this discipline. The question then becomes one of scoping—how much coverage of the terms in the GCW would be appropriate for this work? We decided to limit ourselves to terms that were present in SWEET or ENVO and to add related terms to ENVO as were judged relevant to the existing ENVO community. For example, several compaction and erosion related terms were added to ENVO because material transformation processes having inputs and outputs are an important branch of the ENVO ontology. This decision constrained the work to the limited bandwidth available within the ESIP harmonization cluster membership.

Second, this work reflects the understanding that practical and resource limitations mean that collaborative development of a single encompassing semantic resource for a domain is likely to be impossible. A better target is harmonizing semantic resources within a defined scope of work, the scope of work that participants in the harmonization process care about. This can start at the lower end of the semantic spectrum by harvesting well-established and well-defined terminologies as was done in this work. Agreement on the meaning of termed concepts is a first step toward alignment across the semantic spectrum and its impact on the overall ontological structure can be judged as work continues. A degree of interoperability, though minimal, is the reward.

In practice, what this also means is that it is likely that semantic modeling of any term in any ontology will only be as deep as is necessary to satisfy current use cases. For example, the term snow water equivalent describes the output of a method used to determine how much water is present in a given volume of snow. Snow covering a defined area is collected and then melted. The depth of the resulting snowmelt is measured after it has been transferred to a standardized container. A value for snow water equivalent (SWE) can also be inferred via remote sensing technologies. Complete semantic modeling of this term would require that the processes of identifying, collecting, and melting a volume of snow and subsequently measuring the volume of the resulting water be modeled for ground-based methods and the algorithms used to infer SWE from remote sensing observations also be modeled. Neither SWEET nor ENVO currently model this term or many comparable terms to that level of detail; though either could be updated to include deeper modeling if and when new use cases surfaced that require it.

In general, semantic resources of any type are living objects, subject to change over time, just as all languages in use (i.e., living languages) change over time. Both ENVO and SWEET have existed for more than a decade and some of the glossaries compiled by the GCW are well over 60 years old. What this meant in practical terms was that we needed to review the history of each term and its placement within the ENVO and SWEET hierarchies for every term addressed. In some cases this meant we needed to change an ontology to use better and more recently defined terms. For example, we switched to using the Chemical Entities of Biological Interest Ontology term for water, CHEBI:water, rather than the original ENVO term for water to handle issues of the hydrological precipitation process that arose when revising hailfall and snowfall in a systematic way.

As a corollary to these last several issues and given the hierarchy inconsistencies evident in comparing ontologies such as ENVO and SWEET, it should be noted that the need for semantic harmonization will only grow as long as people continue to reinvent the wheel each and every time they need to use semantic resources within their work. Currently the norm within the Earth and Environmental sciences is for folks who need to use semantics to invent their own semantic resources no matter how many resources either partially or totally covering that topic already exist. A better use of these people’s time would be for them to collaborate with the communities currently maintaining existing semantic resources and determining what extensions, refactoring, and so on of those resources are needed and contributing their efforts to the larger community. Having a well-maintained repository and ontology/term discovery resource for the Earth sciences, akin to the OBO Foundry and BioPortal resources in the Biomedical community, might go a long way to helping resolve this problem which is currently inhibiting uptake of semantics in our field.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Many lessons were learned along the way, with some noted as part of the previous discussion. The following are some of the main lessons along with recommendations for managing semantic harmonization.

Proper scope and interdisciplinary teams are needed

From a project perspective, starting with the right scope and an adequate, interdisciplinary team is important. Selecting a proper set of terms is important as is the value of building a coalition of interested parties around the selected set of concepts to harmonize. This starts with clearly identifying the conceptual space you are trying to describe and define. With the help of definitions one can analyze the conceptual space to understand the key concepts and relationships that are contained in a core subset of the terms looked at. Next is to evaluate the feasibility of a preliminary scope based on factors such as available resources and time constraints and prioritize a final set of semantic resources that need to be included in the scope based on the targeted conceptual space, stakeholders’ needs, domain analysis, and feasibility considerations. It is also important to identify the stakeholders who will likely use the harmonized vocabulary and ensure that the team has a good balance of domain and semantic technology experts with good communication skills for effective collaboration and resolving any conflicts that may arise.

Glossary harmonization is foundational

Merging and splitting of glossary terms at lower levels of the semantic ladder (as well as identification of sub meanings) is needed before the more difficult alignment at higher levels of the semantic ladder because many terms can have a variety of synonyms and closely related terms that make them similar. For example, the term tabular iceberg can be found in glossaries under the synonyms tabular berg and table iceberg , and it was formerly called a barrier iceberg . Similarly, ensuring that the same label is not re-used for another term within an ontology is important for minimizing confusion. This problem can be easily prevented simply by adding disambiguating phrases to the term, for example, thermokarst landscape and thermokarst process , as discussed earlier. Once mapped, the alignment of textual definitions with axiomized representations in ontologies can be performed. For all these reasons and to make the sequence of changes to the ontology clear (i.e., its provenance), there should be an item by item commit to updates and documentation of the changes made.

Use tools whenever possible

The well-documented ROBOT Templates ( Jackson et al. 2019 ) and their supporting scripts, described in Step 3 above, allow shared best practices with spreadsheet-like editing modality for more inclusivity. These tools help cross the domain expert to ontologist divide by allowing routine, asynchronous work within domain communities without relying on a trained ontology engineer.

Human expertise is important

A central lesson is that while automation, such as simple label matching and tools like ROBOT can help with routine tasks, a human-in-the-loop for things like ontology curation was needed. While time consuming, this human curated approach proved to be much more accurate than other approaches which generally ignore both differences in the organization of the hierarchies of different resources as well as the richness of the subclasses and axioms underlying the mapped terms.

As seen in the Discussion, there were many lessons learned in assigning the type of SKOS match between terms, especially when there is not an adequate definition in one of the ontologies. The most important lesson is that when alternate definitions exist from different points of view, arguing over who is right is less useful than simply acknowledging, understanding, and documenting the differences by appropriately generating multiple terms in an ontology.

Future Work

Based on the results of this work, the ESIP semantic community expects to continue working in three areas: 1) pushing the greater OBO Foundry and general semantics community to formalize the handling of numeric values and ranges in ontologies; 2) evolving the SWEET ontology in support of harmonization and 3) pursuing related semantic harmonization work in several other ESIP clusters. These topics are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Formalizing the handling of numeric values and ranges in ontologies

As has been mentioned previously it is often the case in science that the definition of a concept will include numeric values. For example, the composite definition for the term ice pellet from the 27 glossaries in the GCW compilation and included in the ENVO ontology is ‘An ice mass which is 1) transparent or translucent, 2) rounded, spherically, or cylindrically shaped, and 3) less than 5 millimeters in diameter.’ Similarly, nearly all of the terms in the WMO Sea Ice Nomenclature ( WMO/OMM/BMO 1970 ) include numeric criteria related to the age of the ice, the size of the floe, and so on. Currently, there is no agreement as to a uniform way of adding numeric values, with units, as an axiom. This is critical if ontologies are to be useful for characterizing and understanding scientific data. In particular, for this project it would have been very useful if the OBO Foundry consortium had agreed to a convention for this, since, as is, many terms within ENVO currently have incomplete axiomatization where the human readable definition is more accurate and complete than the computer processable axiomatization.

The SWEET ontology suite is a long-standing community resource and continues to evolve. Pursuant to the work described here, the harmonized GCW definitions now in ENVO are also being added to SWEET. As such, SWEET developers and the broader community of practice will soon be able to utilize SSSOM mappings to cross-reference back to ENVO and/or add further definition annotations which include the provenance available from that resource.

In addition to the SSSOM mappings, updates to the curation process, creation and enhancement of domain and observational concepts and properties, as well as the underlying technology stack supporting the resource, it was determined by the community that SWEET could fill a current gap by housing textual concept definitions from disparate Earth and Environmental science resources, thus making SWEET a hub for domain relevant concepts including, potentially, multiple independently sourced definitions which are not semantically equivalent. In this context, resources for definitions could be established vocabularies—for example, GCMD, USGS Thesaurus, and so on—as well as resources which currently exist in a static, unstructured format—for example, Dictionary of Geologic Terms ( Bates & Jackson 1984 ) or Glossary of Geology ( Neuendorf, Mehl, Jr., & Jackson 2011 ) currently available in hard copy format, or other resources perhaps only available as a PDF. Each candidate definition is to be added using annotation properties (i.e., it will not affect any axioms in the initial investigation) with proper citation and contributor information (i.e., creator and reviewer) attached to each recorded textual definition.

It is the hope that using SWEET as hub for concept definitions will highlight similarities and gaps in Earth science conceptual descriptions and knowledge as well as provide the groundwork for making concepts more precise and increasing their expressivity. This latter point will be crucial for the future development of the resource.

Future harmonization work

We believe that semantic harmonization is an important and often missing ingredient to help find, make sense of, and usefully employ digital data as well as being critical to making data FAIR. Our outcomes and progress with the cryosphere have motivated us to begin work with other ESIP clusters in harmonizing key terminological resources in the following domains (see Table 2 ).

Future harmonization work by Earth and Environmental science domain.

Alignment and semantic harmonization across the growing types of semantic resources is important for data interoperability and reuse, thus satisfying FAIR principles. In this work we have shown how a focused interdisciplinary team of domain experts and semantic technology developers can effectively harmonize semantic resources using a standard method. The process developed is to review and synthesize content in a stepwise fashion from a collection of thematic glossaries into a harmonized collection and then to align these and further document them along with richer, more machine-actionable resources higher on the semantic ladder (i.e., here, SWEET, and ENVO).

In piloting this process we encountered several issues and documented the lessons learned from these experiences. This includes many examples that we hope will help other communities attempting to perform similar activities.

Data Accessibility Statements

All of the data associated with this work is publicly available on Zenodo ( Semantic Harmonization Cluster 2023 ) as well as on the ESIP github ( Duerr 2023 ). The ENVO ontology can be found on the OBO Foundry ( OBO Technical Working Group 2024 ); while the SWEET ontology can be found on the ESIP Community Ontology Repository (COR) ( ESIPFed 2023 ).

Acknowledgements

This work is based on materials, programs, collaboration platform, and meeting spaces provided by the ESIP Community with support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). We’d especially like to thank Chantelle Verhey for her very helpful comments on drafts of this work and Mark Schildhauer and Anne Thessen for their insights and suggestions in defining the challenges and approaches early in the project. Some of the work included here was conducted using Protégé.

Funding Information

Pier Luigi-Buttigieg was supported by the Helmholtz Metadata Collaboration and the Frontiers in Arctic Marine Monitoring Programme of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Institute for Polar and Marine Research. Brandon Whitehead was supported by New Zealand’s Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Infrastructure Platform. Kate Rose was supported by the Northern Gulf Institute under a grant from NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Ruth Duerr, Gary Berg-Cross, Brandon Whitehead, Mark Schildhauer, Anne Thessen, Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Data curation: Ruth Duerr

Formal analysis: Ruth Duerr, Gary Berg-Cross, Nancy Wiegand, Brandon Whitehead, Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Investigation: Ruth Duerr, Gary Berg-Cross, Nancy Wiegand, Brandon Whitehead, Anne Thessen, Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Methodology: Ruth Duerr, Gary Berg-Cross, Brandon Whitehead, Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Resources: Ruth Duerr, Pier Luigi-Buttigieg, ESIP

Software: Kai Blumberg, Pier Luigi-Buttigieg, Ruth Duerr, Brandon Whitehead

Validation: Ruth Duerr

Visualization: Ruth Duerr, Kate Rose, Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Writing, original draft: Gary Berg-Cross, Nancy Wiegand, Brandon Whitehead, Kate Rose, Ruth Duerr, Pier Luigi Buttigieg

Writing, review and editing: Gary Berg-Cross, Nancy Wiegand, Brandon Whitehead, Kate Rose, Ruth Duerr, Chantelle Verhey

AGU. 2021. Index of terms. American Geophysical Union. https://www.agu.org/Publish-with-AGU/Publish/Author-Resources/Index-terms .  

American Meteorological Society. 2024. Glossary of meteorology. AMS. https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/glossary-of-meteorology/ .  

Arp, R, Smith, B and Spear, AD. 2015. Building ontologies with basic formal ontology . London, UK: The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262527811.001.0001  

Australian Government. n.d. Bureau of Meteorology Glossary. Bureau – Glossary of Terms. corporateName=Bureau of Meteorology. Accessed February 16, 2024. http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/glossary/ .  

Bates, RL and Jackson, JA. (eds) 1984. Dictionary of geological terms . Third. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.  

Blumberg, K, Chong, S and Buttigieg, PL. 2021. Adding classes to ENVO. GitHub . February 5, 2021. https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/wiki/Adding-classes-to-ENVO .  

Blumberg, K and Duerr, R. 2022. ENVO Robot template and merge workflow. GitHub . August 11, 2022. https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/wiki/ENVO-Robot-template-and-merge-workflow .  

British Oceanographic Data Centre. 2023. The NERC vocabulary server. Natural Environment Research Council . https://vocab.nerc.ac.uk .  

Brochhausen, M, Ceusters, W, Courtot, M, Dipert, R, Hastings, J, Mungall, C, Natale, D, et al. 2019. Basic formal ontology. https://github.com/BFO-ontology/BFO .  

Buttigieg, PL. 2021. Creating good definitions. EnvironmentOntology/Envo Wiki. March 1, 2021. https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/wiki/Creating-good-definitions .  

Buttigieg, PL, Morrison, N, Smith, B, Mungall, CJ, Lewis, SE and the ENVO Consortium. 2013. The environment ontology: Contextualising biological and biomedical entities. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 4(1): 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-4-43  

Buttigieg, PL, Mungall, C, Duncan, B, Blumberg, K, Wilkie, I, meichen-liu, Meyer, R, et al. 2023. EnvironmentOntology/Envo: 2023-02-13 release. Zenodo . DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7636736  

Buttigieg, PL, Pafilis, E, Lewis, SE, Schildhauer, MP, Walls, RL and Mungall, CJ. 2016. The environment ontology in 2016: Bridging domains with increased scope, semantic density, and interoperation. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 7(1): 57–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-016-0097-6  

Duerr, R. 2018a. WMO GCW glossary terms and their alignment with terms in leading semantic resources. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26770.12489  

Duerr, R. 2018b. WMO GCW nomenclature assessment. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35158.73284  

Duerr, R. 2023. ESIPFed/CRYO-Harmonization: Repository for ESIP semantic harmonization work on cryosphere terms. ESIPFed/CRYO-Harmonization. 2023. https://github.com/ESIPFed/CRYO-Harmonization .  

ESIP. 2023. About ESIP. About ESIP . 2023. https://www.esipfed.org/about .  

ESIPFed. 2023. ESIP federation community ontology repository services. ESIP Community Ontology Repository. March 8, 2023. http://cor.esipfed.org/ .  

Euzenat, J and Shvaiko, P. 2013. Ontology matching. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38721-0  

Everdingen, Rv. (ed.) 2005. Multi-Language glossary of permafrost and related ground-ice terms. NSIDC/WDC-A Glaciology. https://globalcryospherewatch.org/reference/glossary_docs/Glossary_of_Permafrost_and_Ground-Ice_IPA_2005.pdf .  

FAIR Principle I1. 2015 I1: (Meta)Data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation. March 1, 2015. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ .  

‘FAIR Principles’. 2015. FAIR Principles – GO FAIR. March 1, 2015. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ .  

FAIRsharing Team. 2015. FAIRsharing record for: Quantities, units, dimensions and types. FAIRsharing . DOI: https://doi.org/10.25504/FAIRSHARING.D3PQW7  

Gil, Y, Pierce, SA, Babaie, H, Banerjee, A, Borne, K, Bust, G, Cheatham, M, et al. 2018. Intelligent systems for geosciences: An essential research agenda. Commun. ACM , 62(1): 76–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3192335  

Giunchiglia, F and Zaihrayeu, I. 2017. Lightweight ontologies. In Liu, L and Tamer Özsu, M (eds.), Encyclopedia of database systems . New York, NY, USA: Springer. pp. 1613–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7993-3_1314-2  

Government of Canada. n.d. Glossary – Climate – Environment and Climate Change Canada. Accessed February 16, 2024. https://climate.weather.gc.ca/glossary_e.html .  

Haller, A, Janowicz, K, Cox, SJD, Lefrançois, M, Taylor, K, Le Phuoc, D, Lieberman, J, García-Castro, R, Atkinson, R and Stadler, C. 2019. The modular SSN ontology: A joint W3C and OGC standard specifying the semantics of sensors, observations, sampling, and actuation. Semantic Web , 10(1): 9–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-180320  

Huntley, RP, Harris, MA, Alam-Faruque, Y, Blake, JA, Carbon, S, Dietze, H, Dimmer, EC, et al. 2014. A method for increasing expressivity of gene ontology annotations using a compositional approach. BMC Bioinformatics , 15(May): 155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-155  

Jackson, RC, Balhoff, JP, Douglass, E, Harris, NL, Mungall, CJ and Overton, JA. 2019. ROBOT: A tool for automating ontology workflows. BMC Bioinformatics , 20(1): 407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3002-3  

Janowicz, K, Haller, A, Cox, SJD, Le Phuoc, D and Lefrançois, M. 2019. SOSA: A lightweight ontology for sensors, observations, samples, and actuators. Journal of Web Semantics , 56(May): 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2018.06.003  

Lenton, TM, Armstrong McKay, DI, Loriani, S, Abrams, JF, Lade, SJ, Donges, JF, Milkoreit, M, Powell, T, Smith, SR and Zimm, C. 2023. The global tipping points report 2023. https://global-tipping-points.org/ .  

Liu, X, Tong, Q, Liu, X and Qin, Z. 2021. Ontology matching: State of the art, future challenges, and thinking based on utilized information. IEEE Access , 9: 91235–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3057081  

Matentzoglu, N, Balhoff, JP, Bello, SM, Bizon, C, Brush, M, Callahan, TJ, Chute, CG, et al. 2022. A Simple Standard for Sharing Ontological Mappings (SSSOM). Database , 2022(January): baac035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baac035  

McCreary, D. 2006. Patterns of semantic integration. April. https://www.slideshare.net/dmccreary/semint .  

McGibbney, LJ, Whitehead, B, Rueda-Velásquez, CA, Duerr, R, Keil, JM, Berg-Cross, G, Rose, K, et al. 2022. Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET). http://sweetontology.net .  

Miles, A and Bechhofer, S. 2009. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. 2009. World Wide Web Consortium . August 18, 2009. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:66505 .  

Mungall, C, Osumi-Sutherland, D, Overton, JA, Balhoff, J, Clare72, pgaudet, Brush, M, et al. 2020. Oborel/Obo-Relations: 2020-07-21. Zenodo . DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3955125  

Musen, MA. 2015. The protégé project: A look back and a look forward. AI Matters , 1(4): 4–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2757001.2757003  

Nagendra, KS, Bukhres, O, Sikkupparbathyam, S, Areal, M, Miled, ZB, Olsen, L, Gokey, C, et al. 2001. NASA global change master directory: An implementation of asynchronous management protocol in a heterogeneous distributed environment. In Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on Distributed Objects and Applications, 136–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/DOA.2001.954079  

Neuendorf, KKE, Mehl, JP Jr., and Jackson, JA. 2011. Glossary of geology . (Revised) Fifth; Version 1.9. American Geosciences Institute.  

NOAA/NWS. 2009. Glossary – NOAA’s National Weather Service. 2009. https://w1.weather.gov/glossary/ .  

NSIDC. n.d. Hummock. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Accessed December 19, 2023. https://nsidc.org/learn/cryosphere-glossary/hummock .  

OBO Technical Working Group. 2022. OBO Foundry Principles. Principles: Overview. 2022 . https://obofoundry.org/principles/fp-000-summary.html .  

OBO Technical Working Group. 2024. OBO Foundry. https://obofoundry.org .  

Overton, JA, Dietze, H, Essaid, S, Osumi-Sutherland, D and Mungall, CJ. 2015. ROBOT: A command-line tool for ontology development. In Couto, FM and Hastings, J (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Ontology (ICBO 2015), 1515(2). Lisbon, Portugal: CEUR. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1515/demo6.pdf .  

Raskin, RG and Pan, MJ. 2005. Knowledge representation in the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET). Computers & Geosciences , 31(9): 1119–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2004.12.004  

Semantic Harmonization Cluster. 2023. ESIPFed/CR.YO-Harmonization: Data for DSJ Article. Zenodo . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18  

Seppälä, S, Ruttenberg, A and Smith, B. 2017. Guidelines for writing definitions in ontologies. Ciência Da Informação , 46(1): 73–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18225/ci.inf..v46i1.4015  

Shepherd, A, Jones, M, Richard, S, Jarboe, N, Vieglais, D, Fils, D, Duerr, R, et al. 2022. Science-on-Schema.Org v1.3.1. Zenodo . DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7872383  

USGS Thesaurus. 2023. USGS. https://apps.usgs.gov/thesaurus/thesaurus-full.php .  

Whitehead, B. 2022. SWEET Governance and Roadmapping: Survey Results. Presentation , July 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20293860.v1  

Wilkinson, MD, Dumontier, M, Aalbersberg, IJ, Appleton, G, Axton, M, Baak, A, Blomberg, N, et al. 2016. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data , 3(1): 160018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18  

WMO/OMM/BMO. 1970. WMO Sea-Ice Nomenclature – No. 259. WMO.  

Wolodkin, A, Weiland, C and Grieb, J. 2023. Mapping. Bio: Piloting FAIR semantic mappings for biodiversity digital twins. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards , 7: e111979. https://biss.pensoft.net/article/111979/download/pdf/ . DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.7.111979  

Zeng, ML. 2008. Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). Knowledge Organization , 35(3/2): 160–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-160  

Title: Comparative study on business culture and investors' behaviour toward sustainable index change: Japan vs. the USA and Europe

Authors : Miho Murashima

Addresses : Organization for Regional and Inter-regional Studies, Waseda University, 1-6-1 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-8050, Japan

Abstract : This paper examines the difference in investors' attitudes toward sustainability index change between the USA, Europe and Japan based on their business culture, using the short-term event study method using the dataset of the DJSI index change and stock prices. The findings of this study indicate large differences between the US, European, and Japanese markets. The comparative analysis demonstrates speculative or temporal attitudes in the US market and positive valuation in the European market, reflecting their business culture, whereas less attention and negative response to inclusion in the sustainable index was found for the Japanese market, especially for Japanese institutional investors. The difference between Japanese investors and others are due to the immaturity of the Japanese capital and product markets.

Keywords : corporate social responsibility; CSR; business culture; cultural difference; investor behaviour; firm value; market reactions; event study; sustainability index; Dow Jones Sustainability Index; DJSI; Japan; the USA; Europe.

DOI : 10.1504/IJBG.2024.138526

International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2024 Vol.37 No.1, pp.128 - 149

Received: 31 Mar 2020 Accepted: 20 Jul 2020 Published online: 09 May 2024 *

Keep up-to-date

• Our Newsletter ( subscribe for free )
• New issue alerts
• Inderscience is a member of publishing organisations including: