differences between journal and research paper

Master Your Homework
Do My Homework

Understanding the Differences Between a Research Paper and a Journal

When it comes to academic writing, one of the most important distinctions that must be made is between a research paper and a journal. A research paper is an in-depth exploration of a specific topic; while journals are collections of articles on various topics relating to the same subject or field. Understanding these differences can help researchers ensure they’re using the right tools for their particular project. This article will outline key differences between a research paper and journal, as well as discuss how each type contributes to academia. Furthermore, it will provide examples of both types of work from several different fields in order to further explain how they differ in format, content and purpose.

I. Introduction

Ii. what is a research paper, iii. what is a journal, iv. types of journals and their purpose, v. differences between a research paper and journal, vi. benefits of publishing in both mediums, vii. conclusion.

As the ever-increasing population of researchers continues to generate vast amounts of knowledge and data, there is a growing need for reliable storage solutions. The research paper , which has been used as an effective means of disseminating information since its emergence in the 19th century, provides a particularly pertinent solution. In essence, it allows scientists from all over the world to store their findings without having to worry about preserving physical copies.

A research paper acts as an online repository that ensures critical data is not lost or misappropriated; instead it can be referred back to by any interested parties at any given time.

A research paper is a form of academic writing that presents an argument or analysis based on the author’s original research. It typically follows a particular format and structure, which is designed to help readers locate specific pieces of information quickly. The main sections are often titled Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results and Discussion.

Research papers can be written about virtually any topic imaginable but they generally center around literature reviews that include other scholarly work in the field such as journal articles or books. These documents also analyze data collected from surveys and experiments conducted by the author in order to provide evidence for their thesis statement. Additionally, some research papers may incorporate theoretical elements into their discussion section where philosophical concepts are discussed in relation to the findings presented earlier in the document.

Is Research Paper A Journal?

No – while both types of documents aim to present knowledge within certain subject areas, journals tend towards shorter length content with more broad-reaching themes while research papers usually contain longer lengths with deeper levels of analysis pertaining to a specific area or topic. Furthermore, most journals do not require authorship credit whereas research papers almost always list authors’ names along with references at the end since its contents will serve as primary sources used by future researchers studying similar topics

A journal is an invaluable tool for academic research, allowing scholars to keep track of their work in a systematic and organized way. Journals are typically composed of multiple volumes or issues that each contain different articles related to the same subject matter.

Periodicals : These journals may be published monthly, quarterly or annually depending on the type of content they focus on. They often cover topics such as news, politics and culture.
Scholarly/Peer-Reviewed Journals : These publications specialize in scientific literature and other areas requiring advanced degrees. Authors have to submit their papers for peer review before publication.

Scholarly journals are a key resource for researchers to understand and share their findings. Journals come in many shapes and sizes, each with its own purpose.

Peer-reviewed: These publications have gone through the scrutiny of academics who check the validity of content before it is published. They range from scientific research papers to essays or reviews on topics like literature or philosophy.

The goal of peer-reviewing journals is to keep information accurate and trustworthy by eliminating errors as much as possible. It also helps ensure that readers can rely on the material found within these types of journals.

Non-peer reviewed: These publications may not be subject to an academic review process, but they do provide valuable perspectives related to specific fields such as history, economics, technology, etc. Some examples include magazines and trade publications containing interviews with experts in various industries.

Is a research paper considered a journal? Yes! Research papers often undergo some form of peer review before being accepted for publication – whether via online submission systems or traditional print publishing models – thus meeting the criteria necessary for them to be classified as scholarly journals. .

Exploring the Nuances

When it comes to academic writing, there are some distinctions between a research paper and a journal. To start with, while they both involve researching an issue in depth, their ultimate purpose differs. A research paper is meant to present original findings on a particular topic that have been gathered from different sources of information; its goal is usually to make new contributions or expand upon existing knowledge within its field of study. On the other hand, journals are intended for publishing comprehensive reviews on topics covered by experts in the field that summarise what has already been established so far – as such, they focus more heavily on disseminating current trends and developments than expanding them further.

The Details

In addition to this general divergence in overall aims and purposes between these two genres of writing, several structural differences can be identified. Generally speaking, research papers tend to be shorter than journals; moreover, unlike published articles which may feature sections such as introduction/background material & methodology before leading into conclusions about their central hypotheses or theories — most research papers will go straight into presenting evidence-based discussion followed by conclusion section without any referenceable materials throughout body content apart from cited works used previously in referencing mentioned ideas. Lastly it should also be noted here that ‘is research paper a journal?’ does not quite fit contextually either since even though traditionally both refer largely towards same domain viz., academics but generally differing levels of complexity across specific aspects definitely exist therein!

Publishing in both a research paper and journal has its advantages. First, publishing in either medium provides an opportunity to make one’s work accessible , allowing it to be seen by other academics and experts within the field. Additionally, publishing can create an avenue for dialogue among peers and colleagues about relevant topics.

Research papers serve as more comprehensive resources than journals . They typically provide authors with greater space for exploration of their ideas, so they are better suited to cover complex topics or those that require a deeper level of explanation. Journals on the other hand offer readers concise information—summarizing current theories or practices related to certain fields—which allows busy professionals quick access when researching new developments.

In conclusion, the research presented in this paper has determined that journaling is a useful and effective tool for dealing with negative emotions. Through self-reflection, individuals can better understand their feelings and learn to manage them more effectively. Journaling also provides an opportunity to engage in positive thought patterns, which leads to increased emotional stability and improved mental health outcomes.

The findings of this study suggest that those who use journals are likely to experience greater psychological well-being than those who do not. By engaging in reflective writing activities on a regular basis, people have access to powerful insights into their own thoughts and behaviors that they may otherwise miss out on if they rely solely on verbal communication or other traditional forms of therapy. Furthermore, since journaling is an inexpensive activity requiring no special training or equipment aside from pen/paper (or digital devices), it is accessible for all individuals regardless of resources available.

English: This article provided a detailed comparison between research papers and journals, presenting their respective characteristics, writing conventions, and importance in academia. Understanding these differences is essential for any student looking to hone their skills as an academic writer. With this knowledge at hand, students can approach any assignment with confidence in knowing how best to structure and compose the text for maximum effect.

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.

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.

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

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.

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 — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, review process, length & scope, publication, compare with definitions, journal article, research paper, common curiosities, what's the main difference between a journal article and a research paper, are journal articles always peer-reviewed, who reads journal articles, can a research paper become a journal article, who typically writes journal articles, why are citations important in both journal articles and research papers, do journal articles have a word limit, are all journal articles based on experimental research, where can i find journal articles, is a thesis the same as a research paper, can i use a journal article as a reference for my research paper, do all research papers get published, why is it essential for a journal article to be peer-reviewed, do all academic journals charge to publish journal articles, how long can a research paper be, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

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

Research writing and publication services

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.

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.

International Conferences In Canada 2024-2025 With Invitation Letter

International conferences in lithuania 2024 with invitation letter, monthly published scopus indexed journals, upcoming international medical conferences 2024.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Difference between Journal Article and Research Paper

Specific education reading is an important tool that will enhance your academic excellence. To keep excelling, you will need to read relevant articles, papers, documents, and books. Journals, Journal articles, and research papers are important mechanisms for professional and academic learning.

Journal Article Vs. Research Paper

The difference between a journal article and a research paper is that the journal article is well researched and extensive. It is also conceptual and well-suited for the academic audience. Research papers on the other hand focus on a specific viewpoint and substantiate the viewpoint with relevant theories. Research papers require many extensive studies to ensure the viewpoint is fully supported.

Comparison between the Journal Article and the Research Paper

The journal article is an overall publication while a research paper can be cited.
Journal articles are written based on knowledge and experience while research papers require an in-depth study of the specific topic.
Journal articles are short while research papers are long and always ongoing.
You cannot patent a journal article but you can patent a research paper.
While a research paper does not have a specific domain, journal articles have a broader spectrum.
There is an impact rating needed for journal articles while no specific rating is needed for the research paper.

What is a Journal Article?

When publishing a journal article, more than one author can be used to give their specific conclusions. Journal articles are of different natures and they can be experiential. Journal articles can be academic or non-academic.

Journal articles can be presented differently as research papers and on different platforms.

What is a Research Paper?

Writing a research paper can take a lot of time. This is because it involves something that has already been published but needs to be reopened again. The first step to writing a research paper is sitting with the thought and why exactly you want to research it. The research will involve the timeframe, type of data collection method to use, and most importantly, in-depth research.

To write a research paper, you will need to do a literature review. This includes the reading of various case studies, findings, newspapers, all containing the topic of research or question to be answered.

Journal articles are written to show special or enhanced knowledge in a certain field. It is useful to bring understanding to a particular field. Journals cannot be written by just anyone. Instead, they are written by experts. A research paper on the other hand revolves around a particular topic or question. The question may contain other questions within it that need to be researched on, re-found, or re-visited. The research paperwork is done using a specific format and supports every point with tactical findings. In short, a research paper is written to answer a question or get findings of something that was already initially researched and written about.

Journals can be a paper written based on something that is currently trending or new ideologies that could be personal experiences and learnings. Research papers on the other hand are more extensive. They involve a particular topic and questions that can be presented using diagrams, graphs, and case studies.

Due to the level of research needed to write a research paper, a lot of time is needed. The findings need to be factual, totally supporting the topic or question in place. Journal papers on the other hand take a short time. That is, they can be completed within a week. A journal can go to a month but does not take as much time as a research paper.

When an organization, department, or domain writes a research paper, it needs to be patented. What this means is that it cannot be published without due permission. A journal paper on the other hand does not require rights or permissions. It is open for people and can be reviewed, shared, and presented without necessarily touching the copyrights. Journals do not need to be patented.

Writing a journal requires generality and broad visibility. While a journal paper can be a research paper, it does not always apply to be one. A journal’s content can be written within a short period and needs to flow to be understood. A research paper on the other hand needs to have extensive rough work on the side. It is a paper that is written systematically and with relevant citations. A literature review is an important aspect of the research paper. You need to have proof of the data collection method that includes raw data collection, interview transcripts and so much more.

While everything going digital in today’s world and rating is required for everything, a journal article will not require ratings. What journals need are views as the ones most viewed get the best footage. A research paper, being a component of the journal, can be limited as to who gets access to the same. It also does not require ratings but its presentations and findings are what make it known to the audience.

In conclusion, we can see that both the journal papers and research papers have different audiences. That makes them different in terms of research, language used, and the kind of presentation in the end.

It is also good to understand the purpose of both papers. While a journal is mainly open to the masses and does not have restrictions as to who gets access, research papers have their specific audience. This is because it entails answering certain questions that audiences would love to know and discussing certain topics in depth.

As such, it takes a longer time to research and write a research paper than it does to write a journal. A research paper is systematic and requires various citations that help to support your facts. A journal paper on the other hand is writing thoughts and explaining that particular thought in depth.

Research papers require skills in doing research. A journal mostly requires a creative mind.

Scopus journals

What is the difference between research paper and publication.

When it comes to academic writing, the terms “research paper” and “publication” are often used interchangeably. While both involve research and writing, there are important distinctions between the two.

The term “research paper” typically refers to a paper written by a student or group of students, usually for an academic course. This type of paper is usually shorter than a publication and is used to demonstrate the student’s understanding of a particular subject. While research papers can be published, they are usually only seen by the professor and other students in the course.

In contrast, a “publication” refers to a paper, article, or book that has been made widely available to the public. While research papers may contain some of the same information, a publication is typically much more comprehensive and authoritative than a research paper and is subject to peer review. Publications are also typically written by a professional writer or scientist and are more likely to be published in a journal or magazine.

In addition to the differences in length and scope, research papers and publications also differ in terms of the type of information they contain. Research papers are focused on a specific topic and tend to include only the most relevant information. In contrast, publications are more likely to include a broader range of information and multiple perspectives on a topic.

research papers and publications also differ in terms of their purpose. Research papers are typically meant to provide an overview of a topic, while publications are intended to present a more in-depth analysis of a topic.

Overall, research papers and publications are both important tools for academic research and writing. Knowing the differences between the two can help you better understand the type of information you need for your project.

Trending Now
Foundational Courses
Data Science
Practice Problem
Machine Learning
System Design
DevOps Tutorial
Differences between Software Testing and Quality Assurance
Difference Between VLAN and VPN
Difference Between GAGAN and GPS
Difference between Primordial and Non-Primordial Threads
Difference Between WWW and Public_HTML
Difference between Google Jamboard and Microsoft Whiteboard
Difference between message queues and mailboxes
Differences between Low-Code and No-Code Development
Difference between Paper and Article for Scientific Writings
Difference Between Business Analytics and Predictive Analytics
Difference between scaling horizontally and vertically for databases
Difference Between Quantum Computing and Artificial Intelligence
Difference Between Traditional and Online Education
Difference between the COPY and ADD commands in a Dockerfile
Difference between Bower and npm
Difference between Business Intelligence and Business Analytics
Difference between Business Intelligence and Data Warehouse
Differences between a Matrix and a Tensor
Difference Between Ash and Bash

Difference between Research Papers and Technical Articles for Journal Publication

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...

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.

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.

A guide to industry-funded research: Types, examples & getting started

How to harness theoretical and conceptual frameworks for groundbreaking research

10 powerful methodology courses for PhD students [online]

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

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Does culture moderate the encoding and recognition of negative cues? Evidence from an eye-tracking study

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

Roles Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Samantha Leigh Falon,
Laura Jobson,
Belinda Jayne Liddell

Published: April 17, 2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295301
Reader Comments

Cross-cultural research has elucidated many important differences between people from Western European and East Asian cultural backgrounds regarding how each group encodes and consolidates the contents of complex visual stimuli. While Western European groups typically demonstrate a perceptual bias towards centralised information, East Asian groups favour a perceptual bias towards background information. However, this research has largely focused on the perception of neutral cues and thus questions remain regarding cultural group differences in both the perception and recognition of negative, emotionally significant cues. The present study therefore compared Western European ( n = 42) and East Asian ( n = 40) participants on a free-viewing task and a subsequent memory task utilising negative and neutral social cues. Attentional deployment to the centralised versus background components of negative and neutral social cues was indexed via eye-tracking, and memory was assessed with a cued-recognition task two days later. While both groups demonstrated an attentional bias towards the centralised components of the neutral cues, only the Western European group demonstrated this bias in the case of the negative cues. There were no significant differences observed between Western European and East Asian groups in terms of memory accuracy, although the Western European group was unexpectedly less sensitive to the centralised components of the negative cues. These findings suggest that culture modulates low-level attentional deployment to negative information, however not higher-level recognition after a temporal interval. This paper is, to our knowledge, the first to concurrently consider the effect of culture on both attentional outcomes and memory for both negative and neutral cues.

Citation: Falon SL, Jobson L, Liddell BJ (2024) Does culture moderate the encoding and recognition of negative cues? Evidence from an eye-tracking study. PLoS ONE 19(4): e0295301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295301

Editor: Kyoshiro Sasaki, Kansai University, JAPAN

Received: August 9, 2022; Accepted: November 20, 2023; Published: April 17, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Falon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data files are available on Figshare (URL: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24734076.v1 ).

Funding: This was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project Grant (LP120200284) and UNSW Sydney internal funding (BL). Publication fees were funded by a NHMRC Ideas Grant (2010654; LJ, BL). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The influence of cultural background on the way in which people understand themselves, relate to others, and perceive the external world is an increasingly important topic to researchers. In particular, research comparing Western European and East Asian cultural groups has shed light on the tendency for each group to differentially conceptualise the self in relation to the social environment. While Western Europeans tend to favour autonomy and independence of the self as a unique, central entity (i.e., an individualistic self-construal), East Asians tend to favour group harmony, cooperation, interdependence and the self embedded within a social context (i.e., a collectivistic self-construal) [ 1 – 4 ]. Additionally, East Asian and Western European cultures vary in the degree to which they endorse analytic or holistic approaches to processing information. A holistic perspective values components as parts of a whole and the representation of objects intimately associated with their context, while an analytic perspective values constancy of attributes regardless of context and the gaining of knowledge by breaking and categorising whole concepts down into their smaller components [ 5 – 7 ]. East Asian cultures tend to value a holistic approach, while Western European cultures tend to value an analytic approach [ 8 – 11 ], reflecting broad differences between these two cultural groups in terms of underlying biological and psychological processes [ 12 ].

These cultural influences appear to have an influence on cognitive aspects of human experience, including spatial attention and memory for different features of the visual world. Western Europeans typically allocate more attention to the central features of visual scenes with minimal reference to their contexts, in keeping with a preferred analytical approach to information processing [ 7 – 10 , 13 ]. They also tend to focus on the finer details of salient objects within their field of view, including colour, shape, and size [ 11 ]. In contrast, East Asian groups tend to be more attentive to context and to the peripheral, background details of visual scenes, in keeping with a preferred holistic approach to information processing [ 8 – 10 , 13 ].

A growing body of empirical research supports this notion of cross-cultural differences in attentional mechanisms. One study by Chua and colleagues [ 14 ] found that the eye fixations of North American participants focussed on the central details of complex, emotionally neutral visual scenes for substantially longer periods than their East Asian counterparts, who conversely attended more to the backgrounds and contextual details of the scenes. Goh and colleagues [ 15 ] observed that the eye-gaze fixations of East Asian participants, relative to those of North American participants, switched more rapidly back and forth between each scene’s central and peripheral regions, while Čeněk and colleagues [ 6 ] identified through eye-gaze fixations that Czech participants spent more time than Taiwanese participants fixating on the focal objects of scenes, relative to their backgrounds. North American participants also appear to preferentially engage the brain’s object processing regions during face and scene perception, including the lateral temporal cortex [ 16 ], the lateral occipital cortex [ 17 ], and the left fusiform face area [ 18 ]. In contrast, East Asian groups preferentially engage the lingual gyrus involved in contextual processing [ 18 ]. When presented with a shape discrimination task, Chua and colleagues [ 9 ] found that the capacity to detect global shapes in cluttered backgrounds was greater for Asian participants than for Western European participants, reflecting a comparatively more holistic focus on the relationship between objects and their broader context for the East Asian group. Taken together, these cultural group differences in eye gaze, neural activation patterns, and shape discrimination provide an insight into the influence of culture on the perception of complex scenes. However, it is notable that none of these studies included emotionally salient stimuli, nor did they assess higher-level outcomes such as memory after a temporal interval.

A separate body of literature has detected cross-cultural differences in how the components of visual scenes are stored and retrieved from memory [ 19 ]. For example, Masuda and Nisbett [ 13 ] found that after a brief delay, North American participants remembered (in both a free recall and recognition test) significantly more details about focal fish from an encoded visual scene in isolation from their aquatic surroundings. In contrast, Japanese participants remembered significantly more contextual details relating to the seaweed, water, pebbles, and smaller fish in the background and experienced comparatively greater difficulties recalling the focal fish presented in novel contexts. Other studies have demonstrated similar patterns of results through the use of change blindness paradigms and retrospective memory tests, finding that Western Europeans are more sensitive than East Asians to changes in the content [ 20 ] and colour [ 21 ] of a scene’s central object, while East Asians are relatively more sensitive to changes in the contents and colours of the background.

Although the aforementioned literature has played an important role in identifying cross-cultural differences in attentional mechanisms and memory during scene perception, no research to date has concurrently considered the effect of culture on both attentional outcomes and memory. Yet, there is a considerable body of literature to support the relationship between where people gaze and what they subsequently remember [ 22 , 23 ]. In one study, researchers tracked eye gaze and fMRI activity during a visual exploration task and subsequent surprise recognition task approximately 20 minutes later. They found a positive relationship between fixation frequency during visual exploration and subsequent recall performance, as well as a positive relationship between fixation frequency and activations in the medial temporal lobe and other regions of the brain related to memory [ 24 ]. Two other studies asked participants to view either a series of images of faces [ 25 ] or a series of real-world visual scenes [ 26 ] under one of two conditions: Either being allowed to move their eyes freely while viewing the images, or being required to maintain central fixation. In both studies, recognition accuracy for the images was significantly greater for images encoded under free viewing conditions, compared to restricted viewing conditions [ 25 , 26 ]. Along similar lines, research involving eye-tracking during the encoding of visual sciences identified that during a surprise memory recognition task, incidental memory was more accurate for sections of a scene viewed for longer and with multiple fixations [ 27 ].

Taken together, this literature suggests that eye gaze patterns at the time of encoding are likely to have important implications for subsequent memory, as reflected through both neural activity in regions of the brain related to memory and recall performance. In the context of the current research, it could therefore be plausible to anticipate that if culture influences patterns of attention to the central and background contents of visual scenes, as has been demonstrated in the literature [ 6 , 14 – 18 ], these attentional differences may subsequently influence selective memory for the contents of these scenes downstream.

Does culture influence the processing of emotionally significant information?

Although there has been empirical support for cross-cultural differences in attentional and memory patterns, the majority of studies to date have focused on how people encode and remember abstract, non-affective objects and in the absence of emotional information or social cues. In particular, few studies have considered how culture shapes the visual processing of emotionally significant information or contested the widely endorsed assumption that emotion processes are “universal” or common to all of humanity [ 28 – 32 ]. This long-held view has been challenged by experimental evidence alluding to cross-cultural differences in the interpretation of facial expressions [ 33 , 34 ], the eye-gaze patterns exhibited during facial perception [ 35 – 37 ], and the recognition of emotional cues during an emotional aperture task [ 38 ]. The attention paid toward social contextual cues also appears to be broader amongst East Asian cultural groups, relative to Western-European cultural groups [ 39 , 40 ]. This conclusion is supported by evidence to suggest that Asian American participants look away from the emotional areas of a scene to a greater extent, relative to Caucasian American participants, and attend more to the background or contextual aspects of emotional scenes [ 39 ]. Evidence also suggests that eye gaze patterns in East Asian participants are influenced to a greater degree than European American participants by the relationship between social contextual cues in the foreground and the background [ 40 ]. In light of this evidence, broadening research about culture and scene perception into the domain of affective information and social cues may be of considerable interest.

To bridge this gap in this literature, Masuda and colleagues [ 41 ] conducted an experimental investigation into the influence of cultural values on how people perceive the contents of emotional, social scenes. Specifically, they examined the extent to which retrospective decisions about the emotion conveyed by a main character in a cartoon scene were influenced by the affective information conveyed by background characters in the same scene. Their study found that judgements made by Japanese participants reflected a significantly greater degree of integration between the emotion of the central character and the emotions of the characters in the background, indicating a greater degree of contextual dependency on the part of the Japanese group. Eye-tracking data obtained at the time of encoding also suggested that the Japanese participants spent a greater proportion of time gazing at the characters in the background, relative to North American participants. An fMRI study contrasting participants with a high individualistic self-construal versus a high collectivistic self-construal also found that collectivists demonstrated a relatively greater degree of contextual dependency during the processing of threatening social scenes, as well as increased engagement with the insula and visual cortex [ 42 ]. In a subsequent eye-tracking study by Bebko and colleagues [ 39 ], Asian American participants allocated significantly fewer fixations to emotionally salient areas of negatively valenced images than Caucasian American participants. However, this cultural difference only emerged for participants who regulated their emotional response to the stimuli using emotional suppression (as opposed to reappraisal). In another study, Chinese participants who viewed and rated fearful and neutral images in either social or non-social contexts were more likely than American participants to prioritise a scene’s social aspects in response to fearful scenes, as indicated through electroencephalographic recordings [ 43 ]. This supports the proposition that the neural representation of fear varies as a result of cultural background, social context, and their interaction. Taken together, these studies provide promising evidence in favour of cross-cultural differences in how people encode the contents of affective, social scenes.

At present, the mechanisms underpinning how culture might shape emotional memory for the central and peripheral components of visual cues remain unclear. Minimal consideration has been given in the cross-cultural literature to phenomena such as the emotional trade-off effect: The idea that memory for a scene’s most salient details (including faces) is enhanced when a scene conveys a negative emotional “gist” or valence, relative to memory for the salient contents of scenes with a neutral emotional valence [ 44 – 46 ]. This is because attentional scope appears to narrow when viewing or processing a negative emotional cue or event [ 14 , 15 ]. Specifically, the emotional trade-off effect posits that while memory for the central details of a scene is enhanced by the negative valence of a stimulus, memory for the peripheral details may be unaffected by–or even diminished by–a scene’s negative valence [ 47 ].

Several studies have verified the emotional trade-off effect in experimental settings by exposing participants to images with either a negative or a neutral emotional valence, followed by an assessment of their memory for each image’s central and peripheral details. Two such studies by Burke and colleagues [ 48 ] and Christianson and colleagues [ 49 ] found that participants who watched negative picture stories demonstrated a superior memory for plot-relevant information and an impaired memory for plot-irrelevant information, relative to those who viewed neutral picture stories. Yegiyan and Lang [ 50 ] and Kensinger and colleagues [ 51 ] also tested this effect using two different methodologies: Yegiyan and Lang separated each scene into a clear central region and a clear background region, while Kensinger and colleagues superimposed centralised objects over the top of separate, naturalistic backgrounds. The results of immediate recognition tests from both studies supported the emotional trade-off effect: Memory for central (relative to peripheral) information was enhanced during the perception of negatively-valenced scenes when compared to neutral scenes. However, how the emotional trade-off effect interacts with cultural biases in attention and memory was not tested in these studies.

Only two studies to date have directly considered whether the emotional trade-off effect is influenced by cultural background. In the first of these two studies, American and East Asian participants encoded pictures containing a positive, negative, or neutral item placed on a neutral background. The results found that American participants demonstrated superior item memory than East Asian participants after a twenty-minute delay–after emotional intensity was controlled–reflecting a comparatively more item-focused and analytic approach for the Americans [ 52 ]. However, these authors did not identify evidence to support a cultural difference that was specific to memory for emotionally valenced stimuli. The second study asked American and Turkish participants to encode positive, negative, and neutral items placed against neutral backgrounds, followed by an immediate surprise memory test with the items and backgrounds tested separately. Although both groups were more likely to remember the emotional items, Turkish participants demonstrated a stronger memory than the American participants for backgrounds of photos that had been paired with emotional items, reflecting a more analytic focus for the Americans that was stronger in the context of emotional stimuli [ 53 ]. Although this consideration of interaction between the emotional trade-off effect and culture was a notable feature of these studies, their contradictory findings suggests that further research is required to verify the effect of this interaction on memory. Further, it should be noted that these authors examined memory in isolation and did not consider the effect of this interaction on low-level attentional outcomes, such as eye gaze, that may precede subsequent effects on memory.

The present study

While the influence of culture on the encoding and consolidation of complex emotional scenes has been well documented, the intersection between culture, attentional narrowing and memory for central and background information has not yet been the focus of empirical investigation. Specifically, it is not known whether the influence of emotional valence on patterns of attentional deployment and memory holds true across all cultures or whether, in contrast, individualistic and collectivistic cultures differentially attend to and recall aspects of emotionally salient scenes. To this end, the present research aimed to shed light on the intersection between culture and emotion from the perspective of attentional deployment and selective memory for the central and background contents of complex emotionally significant stimuli. This paper is, to our knowledge, the first to address this research question with a concurrent focus on both low-level attentional outcomes (e.g., eye gaze) and higher-level outcomes in memory (e.g., recognition after a temporal interval).

Our study aimed to examine encoding and memory using ecologically valid visual stimuli. Thus, our stimuli consisted of emotionally salient, real-life scenes in which both the central and background information were either negative or neutral. Our focus on background information that is also negative or neutral is distinct from previous studies examining attentional narrowing to negative cues, which have tended to transport negative or neutral cues on just a neutral background [ 51 – 53 ]. Moreover, we employed a delayed recognition task (two days) to examine longer-term memory for central and background emotional cues. Given that many prior investigations into the emotional trade-off effect have tended to employ immediate recognition tasks [ 50 , 51 ], our testing of the effect of culture on longer-term memory for emotional cues is exploratory in nature.

In this study, we predicted that the Western European group would demonstrate a perceptual bias towards the central focus of each stimulus, both in terms of their attentional deployment (H1) and the quality of their long-term memory for the central and peripheral components of the stimuli (H2). By way of contrast, it was anticipated that the East Asian group would demonstrate a significantly greater perceptual bias towards the background of each stimulus (H3), with a reduced memory for central cues (H4). A further prediction was that these cross-cultural disparities in patterns of attentional allocation (H5) and memory (H6) would be augmented in the case of negative scenes, relative to scenes with a neutral emotional valence.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Participants were 114 students recruited from the University of New South Wales (40 men, mean age = 19.77 years, SD = 2.15, age range = 17–28 years) who took part in the study in exchange for either partial course credit or $30. Participants were pre-screened for cultural background using four questions and identified as being of either Western European descent ( n = 59) or East Asian descent ( n = 55). Of these, 32 participants were excluded from the final sample due to extreme levels of depression, anxiety or stress ( n = 4), poor quality eye-tracking data ( n = 16), nonattendance at Session 2 ( n = 8) or unclear or bicultural backgrounds ( n = 4). The final sample therefore consisted of 82 students in total (33 men, mean age = 19.73 years, SD = 2.18, age range = 17–28 years), comprised of 42 Western European participants and 40 East Asian participants. The target sample size was set a priori at 40 in each cultural group, to ensure consistency with the sample sizes included in similar studies examining eye gaze [ 14 , 15 , 39 – 41 ] and memory [ 13 , 20 , 21 , 52 , 53 ] in cross-cultural samples.

In order to be eligible for participation in the study, it was a requirement that Western European participants were born in Australia, considered Australia to be their home, identified as being of Western European ancestry and did not identify as being of East Asian ancestry. In contrast, it was a requirement that East Asian participants were born in China, Korea, Japan or Hong Kong, considered that country to be their primary home, identified as being of East Asian ancestry and did not identify as being of Western European ancestry. We selected China, Korea, Japan and Hong Kong because these nationalities have been the focus of most cross-cultural research to date with East Asian populations [ 54 – 56 ]. Participants also had to score below the “extremely severe” threshold on the depression, anxiety or stress subscales of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) [ 57 ] in order to participate in the study.

Self-report measures.

During Session 1, participants completed a series of questions regarding age, gender, mental health, self-construal, cultural background, and mood. These questionnaires included the DASS-21 [ 57 ], which gauged whether some participants would find the negative content of the study especially distressing and, as such, not proceed with the study on ethical grounds. Participants also completed the Self-Construal Scale (SCS) [ 58 ], which assessed their relative predisposition towards individualism/independence or collectivism/interdependence through the calculation of a Self-Construal Index (computed by subtracting the sum of the interdependent self-construal items from the sum independent self-construal items). Participants additionally completed explicit and implicit assessments of mood–namely, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [ 59 ] and the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT) [ 60 , 61 ]–in order to quantify any systematic mood state differences between the two cultural groups, given that positive and negative affective states are known to differentially influence the storage and retrieval of central and peripheral information in memory [ 62 – 64 ]. A measure of implicit mood was used in addition to a measure of explicit mood in order to assess stress-related cognitions, operating outside of full awareness, that may not readily be measured by traditional self-report measures of mood.

Stimuli: Encoding phase.

Participants viewed 64 images sourced from various online repositories, photography collections, and the International Affective Picture System [ 65 ]. The use of stimuli from the International Affective Picture System and/or other photography collections, and the use of stimuli that may contain emotionally valenced background content, is an approach that is consistent with approaches taken during prior research [ 39 , 50 ], with the aim of optimising the ecological validity of the visual scenes. Half of these images depicted a social scene conveying a negative emotional valence, and half depicted a social scene conveying a neutral emotional valence. Each negative image was matched to a neutral image in terms of social complexity, gender, ethnicity, number of characters and proximity of the main character to background features of the scene. All of the stimuli were sized at 1280 × 1024 pixels, surrounded by a thin, dark grey border, and presented to participants using Matlab Psychtoolbox [ 66 – 68 ]. The monitor was a Tobii eye-tracking device (TX300, Version 2) with a screen resolution of 1280 × 1080 pixels.

A pilot study was first conducted in order to validate the stimuli with respect to emotional valence, arousal and four discrete emotions (fear, anger, disgust and sadness). The images were then divided into two equal sets, both validated as being equal in valence, arousal and their representations of discrete emotions. One set served as the encoding stimuli viewed by participants during Session 1 of the study, while the remaining set was used during Session 2 as distracter images in a recognition task. The designation of the sets across the two sessions was counterbalanced between participants.

An unmarked Area of Interest (AOI) was defined for each stimulus in order to calculate the proportional eye-gaze allocated to the central focus and to the background of each scene. This AOI was intended to reflect the boundary between the central focus and the background of each scene. While the AOI took the form of a 452 × 452 pixel square in the case of every stimulus, its spatial location varied in accordance with the layout of the scene itself. The outline of the AOI was intended to reflect the boundary between the central focus and the background of each scene. The boundaries of the AOI were not visible to the participants while they encoded the images.

Stimuli: Recall phase.

Participants viewed all 32 encoded stimuli and 32 distracter stimuli, separated into their respective central focus and background components. At test, the central focus and background constituents of the stimuli were isolated from one another by greying out the content of the stimuli outside of the AOI (whilst testing memory for the central focus), and by greying out the content of the stimuli within the AOI (whilst testing memory for the background).

The project received ethical approval from the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel. Following the provision of informed consent, participants completed the DASS-21, followed by the IPANAT, PANAS, SCS, and four questions about their cultural background (completed on MediaLab). Participants who met the inclusion criteria were seated 60 centimetres away from a Tobii eye-tracking monitor (TX300, Version 2) and asked to complete a brief eye-tracking calibration exercise. They then encoded 16 negative and 16 neutral images, all presented in a randomised order for five seconds each. A centralised fixation cross was presented during each interstimulus interval (three seconds). Participants were instructed to view each stimulus in a relaxed and natural way, without removing their eye gaze from the screen.

Session 2 was scheduled two days after Session 1. This interval was specifically selected in order to adequately facilitate the consolidation of the images into long-term memory storage, given that memory consolidation processes often take several hours to fully take effect. In support of this approach, research suggests that although the earliest phase of memory consolidation typically lasts for several hours and primarily implicates the hippocampus, the second phase of memory consolidation–beginning no earlier than six hours after information is initially encoded–implicates a wider range of regions within the brain, including the entorhinal cortex, the perirhinal cortex, the neocortex, and other parts of the medial temporal lobe [ 69 – 72 ]. Noting this literature, the use of a shorter interval between Session 1 and Session 2 (e.g., thirty minutes), as has been the case in prior research [ 50 – 53 ], may not allow sufficient time for long-term memory consolidation to occur.

On arrival, all participants completed the IPANAT and the PANAS. They then completed a surprise memory test using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and provided a “Yes” or “No” judgement regarding whether they recognised each central focus and background cue in the absence of its counterpart. All responses were made via mouse click. The 128 cues were all presented in randomised order and in the absence of a time limit.

All participants then completed a ratings task using Qualtrics. The full set of 64 encoded and distracter stimuli were presented to participants (in their original integrated format) in a randomised order and rated for emotional valence, arousal and motivation (i.e., approachability and aversion) on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from “ Extremely positive ” to “ Extremely negative ” (substituting the words “positive” and negative” for the construct being rated, as appropriate). Participants also rated the stimuli for empathy and for the extent to which they each conveyed fear, anger, disgust and sadness on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “ Not at all ” to “ Extremely ”.

Data reduction

Eye-gaze data reduction..

Eye-gaze dwell time was collated using Matlab Psychtoolbox. All instances of eye-tracking errors (including instances when the participants blinked, looked away from the presentation screen or moved out of range of the Tobii eye-tracker) were flagged and removed on a trial-by-trial basis. The eye that returned the smallest number of eye-tracking errors was subsequently retained for further analysis. A two-level, “40–40 rule” was then applied to the remaining data, whereby (1) stimuli containing 40% or more eye-tracking errors were counted as invalid and excluded from further analyses, and (2) participants returning 40% or more invalid stimuli were excluded from all future analyses. This approach is commonly used in eye-tracking research [ 73 ]. A total of 16 participants did not meet these criteria and, as such, were excluded from future analyses.

After the data cleaning, the horizontal and vertical coordinates of each valid eye-gaze data point were used to classify gaze allocation into one of three regions based on the coordinates of the AOI: into the central focus region, into the background region, or into the thin, dark grey border surrounding the entire stimulus. Two proportional eye-gaze dwell time scores were then calculated for each stimulus: One for proportional gaze to each image’s central focus (relative to the total eye-gaze dwell time in the central focus and background regions), and another for proportional eye-gaze to each image’s background (relative to the total eye-gaze dwell time in the central focus and background regions). Four mean proportional eye-gaze scores were calculated for each region and valence respectively. This approach excluded any gaze directed to the grey border surrounding the stimulus, and controlled for differences across stimuli regarding the number of eye-tracking errors that were excluded based on the “40–40” principle outlined above.

Eye-gaze dwell time was selected as the primary eye-tracking measure of interest, as this study was specifically interested in examining attentional allocation to cues in the central focus vs. background regions of each stimulus as a function of cultural group and emotional valence. Other eye-tracking indices, such as first fixation and number of fixations, were therefore of less interest to the core hypotheses, particularly given that total dwell time is highly correlated with fixation time [ 74 ].

Finally, the proportional dwell time data were screened for outliers, defined here as a score above or below 2.5 standard deviations from the full sample mean. Only one outlier was detected for one East Asian participant in the neutral condition, which was replaced with an integer reflecting 2.5 standard deviations from the full sample mean.

Memory data reduction.

All 128 responses during the recognition task were denoted as being either a “hit” (i.e., the correct recognition of an encoded image), a “miss” (i.e., the incorrect rejection of an encoded image), a “correct rejection” (i.e., the correct rejection of a distracter image) or a “false alarm” (i.e., the incorrect recognition of a distracter image). The proportional frequency of each participant’s hits relative to their frequency of misses was then calculated for the negative central focus, negative background, neutral central focus, and neutral background cues respectively. Similarly, the proportional frequency of each participant’s false alarms (relative to their frequency of correct rejections) was calculated for each stimulus category. Perfect scores in any category (i.e., scores of 1.0) were replaced with a score of 0.995, and zero scores in any category were replaced with a score of 0.005, in order to prepare for the calculation of a d prime (d’) sensitivity index.

Subsequently, a d’ sensitivity index score was computed by subtracting the standardised proportion of false alarms from the standardised proportion of hits (d’ = z(proportion of hits vs. misses)—z(proportion of false alarms vs. correct rejections) for each of the four stimulus categories, using the inverse normal probability function to calculate z-scores. This strategy is frequently used an index of overall sensitivity and recognition accuracy in memory tasks [ 75 – 77 ].

Statistical analyses

Self-report data analysis..

All data analyses were performed in SPSS (v. 24). Differences between the Western European and East Asian participants on the continuous variables were examined using independent samples t-tests (alpha level of p < .05; adjusted where equality of variances not assumed according to Levene’s test for homogeneity). Group differences on the categorical variables were examined using Chi-square tests ( p < .05).

Ratings data analysis.

Group differences in mean ratings for the negative and neutral stimuli were examined using independent samples t-tests (alpha level of p < .0031, Bonferroni corrected).

Eye-gaze data analysis.

A mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to examine cultural group (Western European vs. East Asian), emotional valence (Negative vs. Neutral) and region (Central Focus vs. Background) effects regarding mean proportional eye-gaze (alpha level of p < .05). Implicit and Explicit Negative Affect during Session 1 was added as a covariate, in light of significant cultural group differences on this variable (see Results below) and published evidence that mood can affect attentional deployment mechanisms [ 62 – 64 ]. A series of post-hoc, Sidak-corrected contrasts were also computed to examine significant interaction effects ( p < .05).

Memory data analysis.

Similar to eye gaze, a mixed model ANCOVA was conducted to examine cultural group (Western European vs. East Asian), emotional valence (Negative vs. Neutral) and region (Central Focus vs. Background) effects regarding d’ sensitivity index scores (alpha level of p < .05). In line with the eye-gaze analyses, Implicit and Explicit Negative Affect (during Session 2) was included as a covariate.

Self-report data

The demographic and self-report data are presented in Table 1 . As shown in Table 1 , there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, depression, anxiety or stress. However, as expected, significant cultural group differences were observed in regards to country of birth, country considered to be home, ancestry, and Self-Construal Index scores; the Western European group was predominantly more individualistic and less collectivistic, compared to the East Asian group.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295301.t001

The assessments of affect also indicated that the Western European group experienced significantly greater Implicit Negative Affect than the East Asian group during Session 1, but significantly lower Explicit Negative Affect than the East Asian group during both Sessions 1 and 2. There were no significant group differences on the Implicit or Explicit Positive Affect measures nor Implicit Negative Affect during Session 2 (see Table 1 ).

Ratings data

The Western European group rated the negative stimuli as being significantly more negative in emotional valence than the East Asian group ( t (69) = 3.11, p < .01), although no other differences were observed in relation to their ratings of the negative stimuli on the other seven ratings ( p > .05). There were also no significant differences between the groups in their ratings of the neutral stimuli on any of the eight variables ( p > .05).

Eye-gaze data

We found a significant three-way interaction effect for the proportional eye-gaze data ( F (1, 78) = 4.71, p = .03, η p 2 = 0.06). However, the results did not reveal evidence to support significant two-way interaction effects between cultural group and region ( F (1, 78) < 0.01, p = .98, η p 2 < 0.01), nor region and emotional valence ( F (1, 78) = 0.12, p = .73, η p 2 < 0.01), nor evidence to support a significant main effect for region ( F (1, 78) = 1.84, p = .18, η p 2 = 0.02). Separate post-hoc, Sidak-corrected contrasts were then performed. In contrast to H1 and H3, no overall significant cultural group differences were observed ( p > .05). However, in support of H5, we observed cultural group differences in proportional allocation across the negative and neutral groups of stimuli. In the case of the neutral stimuli, both the Western European group (95% CI: [0.12, 0.24], p < .01) and East Asian group (95% CI: [0.16, 0.28], p < .01) gazed significantly more at the central focus than the background region. In the case of the negative stimuli, the Western European group similarly gazed significantly more at the central focus than the background region (95% CI: [0.01, 0.11], p < .01). In contrast, the East Asian group demonstrated no significant differences in proportional eye-gaze allocated to the central focus compared to the background region (95% CI: [-0.031, 0.08], p = .41). These results are reflected in Fig 1 .

Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. *p < .05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295301.g001

Memory data

We found that the ANCOVA for the d’ sensitivity index scores did not reveal evidence to support a significant three-way interaction effect ( F (1, 78) = 3.72, p = .06, η p 2 = 0.05), nor significant two-way interaction effects between cultural group and region ( F (1, 78) = 0.88, p = .35, η p 2 = 0.01), cultural group and emotional valence ( F (1, 78) = 0.70, p = .41, η p 2 = 0.01), nor region and emotional valence ( F (1, 78) = 0.30, p = .58, η p 2 < 0.01). The results also did not reveal evidence to support significant main effects for region ( F (1, 78) = 0.30, p = .59, η p 2 < 0.01), nor emotional valence ( F (1, 78) = .38, p = .54, η p 2 = 0.01). Multiple comparisons were subsequently conducted as an exploratory analysis. In contrast to H2, H4 and H6, pairwise comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant differences observed between Western European and East Asian groups. The d’ sensitivity index scores pertaining to the Western European and East Asian participants are reflected in Fig 2 .

Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295301.g002

The present research investigated whether Western European and East Asian cultural groups differentially encode, consolidate, and recognise the central and peripheral contents of complex emotional scenes. Analyses with the eye-gaze data revealed that while the Western European group spent a significantly greater proportion of time gazing at the central focus (relative to the background) in the case of both the negative and neutral images, the East Asian group demonstrated this attentional bias towards the central focus in the case of the neutral images only and displayed equal eye gaze distribution between central focus and background regions of the negative cues. This suggests that there is cultural group disparity regarding attentional narrowing patterns to negative central cues at the time of encoding. On the other hand, this cultural specificity was not reflected in the recognition data whereby the findings did not support the hypothesis that cultural group influences selective memory for central vs. background cues in negative and neutral stimuli after a two-day interval. Taken together, these conclusions reinforce the notion that while culture modulates the way that negative cues are attended to at the time of encoding, our evidence suggests that culture does not appear to differentially influence memory for the central vs. background cues in negative and neutral stimuli after two days.

The present study provides fresh evidence for cross-cultural differences in how people from Western European and East Asian cultural groups differentially attend to the contents of negative scenes. It converges with the results of research by Masuda and colleagues [ 41 ], Bebko and colleagues [ 39 ], and Pugh and colleagues [ 43 ], who similarly established differences between cultural groups (as well as individualist cultures more generally) in attentional narrowing during the perception of emotionally significant images. However, evidence to support a cross-cultural difference in attentional deployment to neutral stimuli with minimal emotional significance was not established, unlike the results of prior studies [ 6 , 14 , 15 ]. Taken together, this study extends the current literature by suggesting that differences between cultures in these attentional shifts are only significant in the context of negative cues. These findings also reinforce the importance of experimentation with culturally diverse samples of participants [ 30 – 32 ], and support recent suggestions that lower-level attentional and emotional processes are not necessarily uniform or consistent across cultural groups.

There has been recent discussion regarding the boundaries to which culture influences core cognitive processes such as attention. A study by Senzaki and colleagues [ 78 ] reported that patterns of attentional deployment to aquatic scenes did not differ between cultures during a passive viewing task, yet did vary between cultures when participants were instructed to actively engage with stimuli by constructing a narrative explanation for the scene. The authors of this study interpreted their effects as suggesting that top-down cognitive processes are important determinants of cultural influences on visual processing. However, an alternative explanation could be that it is the affective significance of the stimuli that are important. In the study by Senzaki and colleagues, we propose it is possible that prescribing a narrative to the fish scenes may have thereby ascribed them emotional significance, which may have been the underlying mechanism responsible for the emergence of cultural differences. This explanation is supported by the current findings, whereby attentional shifts were only evident in the negative but not neutral condition. More broadly, this suggests that emotional salience–whether implicit via passive viewing or explicit by providing a narrative explanation–is an important modulator of the cultural shaping of attentional scope.

This interpretation may potentially account for why our findings were inconsistent with the previous studies that have identified cross-cultural differences in attentional deployment to emotionally neutral stimuli [ 6 , 14 , 15 ]. In the three previous studies, a focal object appeared in the context of a congruent background scene. However, in contrast to the current research, none of these studies explicitly measured or manipulated the emotional salience of the stimuli used in their experiments. Given that the actual emotional salience of their stimuli was unknown, it is possible that participants may have ascribed emotional significance to some aspects of the stimuli used, especially those involving focal objects that could be perceived as being negative or threatening in other contexts (e.g., tigers, aeroplanes). This unmeasured emotional salience could explain why these studies identified cross-cultural differences in attentional deployment to stimuli. The advantage of our study is that we used ecologically valid stimuli that also accounts for the negative valence of background information.

In contrast to the observed eye gaze patterns, the memory data revealed no significant differences between the two cultural groups or between the two categories of emotional images regarding recognition accuracy for the central focus and background cues, suggesting the following two conclusions: (1) That there is no significant difference between selective, longer-term memory for emotionally negative and neutral central and background cues after a two-day interval, irrespective of culture, and (2) That this absence of a significant difference was consistent for both the Western European and East Asian cultural groups. This pattern diverges from our hypotheses by failing to identify a cultural group bias in memory for the negative central focus cues, nor does this pattern provide support for previous findings that showed enhanced memory for the background details of negative cartoon scenes in an East Asian cultural group [ 41 ] and a more analytic focus for American participants that was stronger in the context of emotional stimuli [ 53 ]. These findings also deviate from other more established lines of enquiry into the emotional trade-off effect [ 45 , 50 , 51 ], from research into the interaction between culture and selective memory for non-affective stimuli [ 13 , 16 ], and from research into the relationship between where people gaze and what they subsequently remember [ 22 , 23 ]. Critically, our lack of significant effects could be attributed to our methodological design, which differed from previous studies by examining the emotional trade-off effect by including negative as well as the standard neutral background information at encoding, and by testing longer-term recognition two days following encoding instead of the standard immediate testing.

The fact that the findings from this study deviated from prior investigations into the emotional trade-off effect [ 45 , 50 , 51 ] is not surprising. We recognise that the experimental design adopted in this study was not well suited to confirming the emotional trade-off effect based on previous studies for two key reasons. The first reason relates to the nature of the stimuli used in this study and previous studies. Some studies [ 39 , 50 , 51 ], including the present study, have used stimuli selected from the International Affective Picture System or other photography collections and predetermined a distinction between a clear central focus and background for each stimulus. Alternatively, other researchers have superimposed centralised objects over the top of separate, naturalistic backgrounds [ 51 – 53 ]. While some studies have used stimuli containing emotionally neutral backgrounds [ 52 , 53 ], other studies, including the present study, have used stimuli that may contain emotionally valenced background content [ 39 , 50 , 51 ]. It is possible that these differences between studies with respect to the stimuli used could account for variability in their results, including the absence of an effect for memory in this study. In particular, it is important to acknowledge the possibility that if the emotional trade-off effect is specific to when a scene’s background is neutral, it would not be appropriate to hypothesise an emotional trade-off effect in this study due to the backgrounds of our stimuli containing emotional information. Future studies seeking to confirm the emotional trade-off effect should first clarify whether the effect can be observed in the context of stimuli with emotionally neutral backgrounds (as has been the case in prior research), prior to the exploration of this effect in the context of stimuli with emotionally salient backgrounds.

A second reason why this study was not well suited to observing the emotional trade-off effect in memory could be the methodologies and temporal intervals used to examine memory. In the case of the current research, a two-day interval separated Sessions 1 and 2 in order to adequately facilitate the consolidation of the images into long-term memory storage [ 69 , 70 ]. By way of contrast, previous studies examining the memory-trade off effect [ 50 , 51 ] or the effect of culture [ 41 , 52 , 53 ] placed their free-viewing task and their recognition task within the same experimental session, both separated by a series of short distracter activities typically lasting for up to thirty minutes. Since theories of memory suggest that memories are consolidated in different temporal phases, studies that test recognition of visual cues at varying time intervals may not be comparable. Although the two-day separation between Sessions 1 and 2 has enabled us to investigate cross-cultural differences in long-term, consolidated memories for emotional central and background cues, akin to paradigms typically adopted in the context of trauma analogue studies [ 79 , 80 ], it would be ideal in future studies to additionally examine cross-cultural differences in memory for emotional central and background cues using an immediate recall design as in previous studies (i.e., an interval lasting for up to thirty minutes).

Despite these limitations, this paper is the first, to our knowledge, to concurrently consider the effect of culture on both low-level attentional outcomes (e.g., eye gaze) and higher-level outcomes in memory (e.g., recognition after a temporal interval). While this lack of evidence to support cross-cultural variability in the memory for emotionally negative central vs. background cues and the lack of alignment between the eye-gaze results and memory results was not predicted, it does resonate with an ongoing debate regarding the modulating role of attention during the emotional trade-off effect [ 45 ]. The core assumption is that the underlying mechanism driving the emotional trade-off effect is the narrowing of a person’s attentional field down to central information, at the expense of attention to peripheral information [ 44 , 81 , 82 ]. However, some empirical studies have reported patterns of significant attentional narrowing to the central contents of negative stimuli cues, but in the absence of a parallel effect regarding selective memory [ 83 ]. While these speculations do not directly consider the role played by culture during this phenomenon, they do speak to the plausibility of a dissociation between attentional narrowing and selective memory in the context of emotional processing.

Another explanation for our failure to observe a difference in memory for negative central vs. background cues, and for the disjunct between the eye-gaze and the memory results in this study, could be the absence of evaluative task demands during the free-viewing task. A key instruction during Session 1 was for all participants to gaze at each image for five seconds in “as natural and relaxed a manner as possible”. While this length and depth of exposure may have been sufficient to produce an immediate, bottom-up attentional bias, this exposure may not have been substantive or elaborative enough so as to elicit a corresponding bias in memory. This aligns with previous work to suggest that a declarative bias in memory for threatening cues necessitates the activation of higher-order, evaluative processes at the time of encoding [ 84 ]. Furthermore, the stimuli may not have been sufficiently salient to induce a physiological arousal response, with studies showing that arousal is an important factor in the induction of the memory-trade-off effect [ 85 , 86 ]. What is interesting about the current findings is that they suggest cultural background may be an important driver of implicit attentional biases that are largely driven by bottom-up processes.

Other research suggests that the delayed release of stress hormones during the 30 minutes after the encoding period shapes memory consolidation and modulates the strength of emotional memory formation [ 71 , 87 ]. In particular, numerous studies suggest that experiences of acute stress and fluctuations in adrenal stress hormones during the early stages of consolidation culminate in an enhanced memory for the centralised features of emotional images after a one-week interval [ 71 , 72 , 88 , 89 ]. Again, it may be that the visual stimuli used in this study were not sufficiently arousing to induce a robust physiological stress response in order to promote effective consolidation of the negative cues. Future studies could increase the salience of negative cues by using trauma-related paradigms (e.g., a trauma film), and consider whether the capacity for fluctuations in physiological arousal may account for impacts of culture and emotional valence on attentional narrowing and selective memory.

While a priority of the current study was to balance experimental control and consistency with ecological validity, further steps should be taken by future researchers to enhance the methodological rigour of future experimental designs. More specifically, its rigorous pre-screening criteria and rigid recruitment of two mutually exclusive, clearly defined cultural groups could impede the generalisability of these findings to other individualistic and collectivistic cultural groups beyond Western European Australians and East Asians [ 55 ]. Furthermore, while all negative and neutral images in this study were equated in terms of thematic content, spatial layout, gender, ethnicity and discrete emotions, the images were not comprehensively matched on a number of important low level characteristics such as luminance, contrast, spatial frequency and colour [ 90 – 92 ]. As a result, the present study’s intended top-down manipulation of emotional valence (a higher-level stimulus characteristic) could have been confounded with manipulations of low-level visual properties, including the luminance, contrast, spatial frequency and colours of the stimuli [ 93 , 94 ]. Future research should validate these findings with samples from other individualistic and collectivistic regions and consider whether low versus high level stimulus characteristics drive any observed effects.

It is also important to acknowledge that given that participants in the East Asian group were recruited in a Western country, it is possible that their cultural background may have been influenced by their length of time in Australia and degree of exposure to Western cultural norms. We attempted to minimise this risk through the use of rigorous pre-screening criteria (being born in China, Korea, Japan or Hong Kong, considering that country to be their primary home, identifying as being of East Asian ancestry, and not identifying as being of Western European ancestry). This approach has been adopted in previous examples of cross-cultural research [ 9 , 21 , 40 ]. However, our approach may not have fully accounted for the influence of living in, and becoming increasingly familiar with, the cultural norms of a Western country. Future research could address this challenge by recruiting participants who identify as being of East Asian ancestry and currently reside in their country of origin.

Finally, it should be noted that we selected eye-gaze dwell time as the primary eye-tracking measure of interest in this study. We made this decision as we were interested in examining attentional allocation to cues in the central focus vs. background regions of each stimulus as a function of cultural group and emotional valence. Other eye-tracking indices, such as first fixation and number of fixations, were therefore of less interest to the core hypotheses, particularly given that total dwell time is highly correlated with fixation time [ 74 ]. However, other studies have instead reported on alternative metrics such as the number of fixations [ 14 ]. Future studies could benefit from maintaining greater methodological consistency with past work by similarly analyzing and reporting on the number of fixations per region.

Taken together, this research has extended current knowledge about the attentional mechanisms that shape how culture impacts the perception of negative, threat-related scenes. By expanding existing research about cross-cultural perceptual biases into the emotional domain, this study sheds new light on the clear divergence of Western European groups from East Asian groups in terms of their attentional deployment to the contents of negative, threat-related visual scenes. While this research was not able to provide evidence in support of a parallel effect regarding selective memory, it does speak to a potential dissociation between the extent to which culture penetrates lower-level, automatic information processing at the time of encoding and higher-level, evaluative information processing during recognition. Ultimately, the present study offers a valuable insight into the mechanisms that underpin how culture shapes the perception of emotionally significant events.

View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
28. Ekman P. Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In: Cole JK, editor. Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 1971. p. 207–83.
29. Izard CE. The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1971.
55. Holcombe C. A history of East Asia: From the origins of civilization to the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
65. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN. International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. In: Technical Report A-8. Gainesville: University of Florida; 2008.
76. MacMillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection theory: A user’s guide. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Psychology Press; 2005.
82. Reisberg D, Heuer F. Remembering emotional events. In: Reisberg D, Heuer F, editors. Memory and Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 3–41.

The Over-Concentration of Innovation and Firm-Specific Knowledge in the Artificial Intelligence Industry

Published: 16 April 2024

Cite this article

Pedro Jácome de Moura Jr. ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6548-4614 1 ,
Carlos Denner dos Santos Junior ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4481-0115 2 ,
Carlo Gabriel Porto-Bellini ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5809-3172 1 &
José Jorge Lima Dias Junior ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4381-1930 1

The development of the artificial intelligence (AI) landscape has been impressive in virtually all economic sectors in recent years. Our study discusses the over-concentration of AI knowledge (OCAIK) as the origin of dominance over the global AI industry by a small number of companies and universities that deploy the needed resources to develop and use cutting edge, inimitable AI knowledge. Business agents appropriate AI-related scholarly research and absorb research findings that grant them increasingly inimitable competitive advantages over new entrants. Our study verifies the occurrence of OCAIK by processing thousands of papers presented in AI conferences from 2013 to 2022. To analyze our hypotheses, we used classification techniques and inferential statistics. We found a significant difference between clusters of companies that we called ordinary investors and outlier investors. We also observed the influence of universities in the correlation between OCAIK and investments made in both research and development (R&D) and capital goods. Our findings indicate a strong collaboration between AI leading companies and universities in generating firm-specific AI knowledge. We additionally offer novel insights on the resource-based view (RBV) and the knowledge-based view (KBV) research traditions, in that business competition may reach a point of no return if only incremental innovation is devised instead of radical innovation to break the chains of knowledge accumulation and technological implementation by a strict number of agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: developed by the authors

Data Availability

Data will be made available upon request. No artificial intelligence tool was used in this study.

https://jackietseng.github.io/conference_call_for_paper/conferences-with-ccf.html

Arnosti, N., & Weinberg, S. M. (2022). Bitcoin: A natural oligopoly. Management Science, 68 (7), 4755–4771. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4095

Article Google Scholar

Assael, Y., Sommerschield, T., Shillingford, B., et al. (2022). Restoring and attributing ancient texts using deep neural networks. Nature, 603 (7900), 280–283. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04448-z

Bahoo, S., Cucculelli, M., & Qamar, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence and corporate innovation: A review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 188 , 122264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122264

Bai, X., & Li, J. (2020). The best configuration of collaborative knowledge innovation management from the perspective of artificial intelligence. Knowledge Management Research & Practice , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1834886

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Benetta, A. D., Sobolewski, M., & Nepelski, D. (2021). AI Watch: 2020 EU AI investments (No. JRC126477). Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/017514

Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 169–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250983

Boiko, K. (2021). R&D activity and firm performance: Mapping the field. Management Review Quarterly, 71 (1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00220-1

Bossaerts, P. (2021). How neurobiology elucidates the role of emotions in financial decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697375

Braune, C., Besecke, S., & Kruse, R. (2015). Density based clustering: Alternatives to DBSCAN. In Partitional Clustering Algorithms (pp. 193–213). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09259-1_6

Bruderer, H. (2016). The birth of artificial intelligence: First conference on artificial intelligence in paris in 1951? In: IFIP International Conference on the History of Computing , 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49463-0_12

Bui, X. N., Nguyen, H., Choi, Y., Nguyen-Thoi, T., Zhou, J., & Dou, J. (2020). Prediction of slope failure in open-pit mines using a novel hybrid artificial intelligence model based on decision tree and evolution algorithm. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66904-y

Cai, Y., Ramis Ferrer, B., & Luis Martinez Lastra, J. (2019). Building university-industry co-innovation networks in transnational innovation ecosystems: Towards a transdisciplinary approach of integrating social sciences and artificial intelligence. Sustainability, 11 (17), 4633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174633

Castelvecchi, D. (2015). Artificial intelligence called in to tackle LHC data deluge. Nature, 528 (7580), 18–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/528018a

Challa, H., Niu, N., & Johnson, R. (2020). Faulty requirements made valuable: On the role of data quality in deep learning. In 2020 IEEE Seventh International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Requirements Engineering (AIRE), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIRE51212.2020.00016

Choi, J., & Contractor, F. J. (2019). Improving the progress of research & development (R&D) projects by selecting an optimal alliance structure and partner type. British Journal of Management, 30 (4), 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12267

Cohen, J. F., & Olsen, K. (2013). The impacts of complementary information technology resources on the service-profit chain and competitive performance of South African hospitality firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34 , 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.04.005

Collins, C., Dennehy, D., Conboy, K., & Mikalef, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in information systems research: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102383

D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36 (3), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z

Dafoe, A. (2018). AI governance: A research agenda . Oxford, UK, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.

Google Scholar

Dahiya, R., Le, S., Ring, J. K., & Watson, K. (2021). Big data analytics and competitive advantage: The strategic role of firm-specific knowledge. Journal of Strategy & Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/jsma-08-2020-0203

Degravel, D. (2011). Managing organizational capabilities: The keystone step. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4 (3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251111152270

Ding, J., & Dafoe, A. (2021). The logic of strategic assets: From oil to AI. Security Studies, 30 (2), 182–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2021.1915583

Edwards, C. (2021). The best of NLP. Communications of the ACM, 64 (4), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449049

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10–11), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3c1105::AID-SMJ133%3e3.0.CO;2-E

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix—university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review , 14 (1), 14–19. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2480085

Ferreira, J. J., Fayolle, A., Ratten, V., & Raposo, M. (2018). Introduction: The role of entrepreneurial universities in society . Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432469.00005

Book Google Scholar

Fink, L. (2011). How do IT capabilities create strategic value? Toward greater integration of insights from reductionistic and holistic approaches. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.53

Formica, P. (2002). Entrepreneurial universities: The value of education in encouraging entrepreneurship. Industry & Higher Education, 16 (3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000002101296261

Fredström, A., Wincent, J., Sjödin, D., Oghazi, P., & Parida, V. (2021). Tracking innovation diffusion: AI analysis of large-scale patent data towards an agenda for further research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120524

García-Laencina, P. J., Sancho-Gómez, J. L., & Figueiras-Vidal, A. R. (2010). Pattern classification with missing data: A review. Neural Computing & Applications, 19 (2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-009-0295-6

Ge, S., & Liu, X. (2022). The role of knowledge creation, absorption and acquisition in determining national competitive advantage. Technovation, 112 , 102396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102396

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (S2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110

Grassano, N., Hernandez, H., Fako, P., Tuebke, A., Amoroso, S., Georgakaki, A., ... & Panzica, R. (2022). The 2021 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard , No. JRC127360. Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/559391

Hamet, P., & Tremblay, J. (2017). Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism, 69 (Supplement), S36–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2017.01.011

Hassanzadeh, P., Atyabi, F., & Dinarvand, R. (2019). The significance of artificial intelligence in drug delivery system design. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 151 , 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2019.05.001

Henard, D. H., & McFadyen, M. A. (2006). R&D knowledge is power. Research-Technology Management, 49 (3), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2006.11657377

Hou, J., Gao, H., & Li, X. (2016). Dsets-DBSCAN: A parameter-free clustering algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25 (7), 3182–3193. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2016.2559803

Hu, Y., Kuang, W., Qin, Z., Li, K., Zhang, J., Gao, Y., & Li, K. (2021). Artificial intelligence security: Threats and countermeasures. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55 (1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487890

Huggins, R., Johnston, A., & Stride, C. (2012). Knowledge networks and universities: Locational and organisational aspects of knowledge transfer interactions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24 (7–8), 475–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.618192

Jácome de Moura, P., Jr., & Porto-Bellini, C. G. (2019). Shared flow in teams: Team vibration as emergent property, metaphor, and surrogate measure. Team Performance Management, 25 (7/8), 440–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-12-2018-0072

Jeon, S., Chang, Y. S., & Jo, S. J. (2024). Speed of catch-up and convergence of the artificial intelligence divide: AI investment, robotic, start-ups, and patents. Journal of Global Information Technology Management , 27 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2023.2297636

Johnston, A. (2019). The roles of universities in knowledge-based urban development: A critical review. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 10 (3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2019.103205

Karami, A., & Johansson, R. (2014). Choosing DBSCAN parameters automatically using differentiation evolution. International Journal of Computer Applications, 91 (7), 1–11.

Kaur, D., Uslu, S., & Durresi, A. (2020). Requirements for trustworthy artificial intelligence—a review. In International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems (pp. 105–115). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57811-4_11

Kerr, A., Barry, M., & Kelleher, J. D. (2020). Expectations of artificial intelligence and the performativity of ethics: Implications for communication governance. Big Data & Society , 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720915

Kovacevich, A. (2022). Take it from a software engineer: Big tech’s monopoly is stifling innovation . Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/take-it-software-engineer-big-techs-monopoly-stifling-innovation-opinion-1718646

Lai, W., Zhou, M., Hu, F., Bian, K., & Song, Q. (2019). A new DBSCAN parameters determination method based on improved MVO. IEEE Access, 7 , 104085–104095. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2931334

Li, K., Zhang, J., & Li, D. (2021). Research status and hotspot analysis of literature metrology in artificial intelligence field. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2024 (1), 012055. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2024/1/012055

Li, Z., Li, Y., Lu, W., & Huang, J. (2020). Crowdsourcing logistics pricing optimization model based on DBSCAN clustering algorithm. IEEE Access, 8 , 92615–92626. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2995063

Lindbloom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19 (2), 79–88.

Liu, N., Shapira, P., & Yue, X. (2021). Tracking developments in artificial intelligence research: Constructing and applying a new search strategy. Scientometrics, 126 (4), 3153–3192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03868-4

Mahdi, O. R., Nassar, I. A., & Almsafir, M. K. (2019). Knowledge management processes and sustainable competitive advantage: An empirical examination in private universities. Journal of Business Research, 94 , 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.013

Marakova, V., Wolak-Tuzimek, A., & Tuckova, Z. (2021). Corporate social responsibility as a source of competitive advantage in large enterprises. Journal of Competitiveness, 13 (1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2021.01.07

Marimon, R., & Quadrini, V. (2011). Competition, human capital and income inequality with limited commitment. Journal of Economic Theory, 146 (3), 976–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2011.01.001

Martin, D., Fowlkes, C., Tal, D., & Malik, J. (2001). A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In: Proceedings 8 th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. ICCV 2001 , 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2001.937655

Mayer, K. J., Somaya, D., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Firm-specific, industry-specific, and occupational human capital and the sourcing of knowledge work. Organization Science, 23 (5), 1311–1329. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0722

Menke, M. M. (1997). Managing R&D for competitive advantage. Research-Technology Management, 40 (6), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1997.11671169

Mikhaylov, S. J., Esteve, M., & Campion, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: Opportunities and challenges of cross-sector collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376 (2128). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0357

Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32 (8), 1481–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00159-2

Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: Key factors for higher education institutions’ sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 112 , 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.076

Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine learning . McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering.

Mongeau, S., Hajdasinski, A. (2021). Managerial recommendations. In: Cybersecurity Data Science . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74896-8_6

Nayak, B., Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Krishnamoorthy, B. (2022). Exploring the black box of competitive advantage—an integrated bibliometric and chronological literature review approach. Journal of Business Research, 139 , 964–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.047

Newbert, S. L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (7), 745–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.686

Newman, D. (2017). Inside look: The world’s largest tech companies are making massive AI investments . Accessed May 4, 2022. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2017/01/17/inside-look-the-worlds-largest-tech-companies-are-making-massive-ai-investments/?sh=4d7f17cc4af2

OECD. (2020). A first look at the OECD’s framework for the classification of AI systems, designed to give policymakers clarity . Accessed May 2, 2022. https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/a-first-look-at-the-oecds-framework-for-the-classification-of-ai-systems-for-policymakers

Orlando, B., Ballestra, L. V., Magni, D., & Ciampi, F. (2021). Open innovation and patenting activity in health care. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22 (2), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2020-0076

Pang, B., Nijkamp, E., & Wu, Y. N. (2020). Deep learning with TensorFlow: A review. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 45 (2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986198727

Parmigiani, F., Haller, I., Gkantsidis, C., & Ballani, H. (2021, May). Optics for the cloud: Challenges and opportunities. In: CLEO: Science and Innovations (pp. STu1J-2). Optical Society of America.

Pełka, M. (2018). Analysis of innovations in the European Union via ensemble symbolic density clustering. Ekonometria , 22 (3). https://doi.org/10.15611/eada.2018.3.06

Pereira, V., & Bamel, U. (2021). Extending the resource and knowledge-based view: A critical analysis into its theoretical evolution and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 132 , 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.021

Premaratne, G., & Bera, A. (2005). A test for symmetry with leptokurtic financial data. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 3 (2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbi009

Ramanathan, V., Wang, R., & Mahajan, D. (2021). Predet: Large-scale weakly supervised pre-training for detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2865–2875. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00286

Řezanková, H. A. N. A. (2018). Different approaches to the silhouette coefficient calculation in cluster evaluation. In: 21st International Scientific Conference AMSE Applications of Mathematics and Statistics in Economics , 1–10.

Riani, M., Atkinson, A. C., & Cerioli, A. (2009). Finding an unknown number of multivariate outliers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 71 (2), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00692.x

Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., & Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: An analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & society, 36 (1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2

Rosenblatt, F. (1960). Perceptron simulation experiments. Proceedings of the IRE, 48 (3), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1109/JRPROC.1960.287598

Samuel, A. (1959). Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research & Development., 44 (1), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.33.0210

Schubert, E., Sander, J., Ester, M., Kriegel, H. P., & Xu, X. (2017). DBSCAN revisited, revisited: Why and how you should (still) use DBSCAN. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 42 (3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3068335

Shannon, C. E. (1950). Programming a computer for playing chess. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41 (314), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786445008521796

Shao, Z., Yuan, S., & Wang, Y. (2020). Institutional collaboration and competition in artificial intelligence. IEEE Access, 8 , 69734–69741. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2986383

Smuha, N. A. (2021). From a ‘race to AI’to a ‘race to AI regulation’: Regulatory competition for artificial intelligence. Law, Innovation & Technology, 13 (1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898300

Soni, N., & Ganatra, A. (2016). Aged (automatic generation of eps for DBSCAN). International Journal of Computer Science & Information Security, 14 (5), 536.

Statista. (2022). Estimated number of companies worldwide from 2000 to 2020. Statista . Accessed March 28, 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1260686/global-companies/#statisticContainer

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3c509::AID-SMJ882%3e3.0.CO;2-Z

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59 (236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Uhr, L., & Vossler, C. (1961). A pattern recognition program that generates, evaluates, and adjusts its own operators. In: Papers presented at the May 9-11, 1961, Western Joint IRE-AIEE-ACM Computer Conference , 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460690.1460751

Ullah, Z., & Arslan, A. (2022). R&D contribution to sustainable product attributes development: The complementarity of human capital. Sustainable Development, 30 (5), 902–915. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2289

Wang, C., Chen, M. N., & Chang, C. H. (2020). The double-edged effect of knowledge search on innovation generations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23 (1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2018-0072

Wang, H., Choi, J., Wan, G., & Dong, J. Q. (2016). Slack resources and the rent-generating potential of firm-specific knowledge. Journal of Management, 42 (2), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484519

Webb, A. (2019). The big nine: How the tech titans and their thinking machines could warp humanity . NY, PublicAffairs.

Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9 (1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168

Yiu, L. D., Yeung, A. C., & Jong, A. P. (2020). Business intelligence systems and operational capability: An empirical analysis of high-tech sectors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120 (6), 1195–1215. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2019-0659

Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. (2020). What do we know about knowledge integration: Fusing micro-and macro-organizational perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 14 (1), 160–194. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0093

Zhao, B. (2017). Web scraping. Encyclopedia of big data , 1–3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, UFPB, João Pessoa, Brazil

Pedro Jácome de Moura Jr., Carlo Gabriel Porto-Bellini & José Jorge Lima Dias Junior

Department of Management, UnB, Brasilia, Brazil

Carlos Denner dos Santos Junior

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Jácome de Moura Jr. .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on AI in the Knowledge Economy and Society: Implications for Theory, Policy and Practice

Appendix. Synthesis of the Procedures for Mining, Collecting, and Processing the Three Datasets

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jácome de Moura, P., dos Santos Junior, C.D., Porto-Bellini, C.G. et al. The Over-Concentration of Innovation and Firm-Specific Knowledge in the Artificial Intelligence Industry. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01974-1

Download citation

Received : 06 February 2023

Accepted : 04 April 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01974-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Artificial intelligence
Competitive advantage
Research and development
Knowledge-based view
Oligopolies

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Introduction
Article Information

Data Sharing Statement

See More About

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

Academic Medicine
Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
Allergy and Clinical Immunology
American Indian or Alaska Natives
Anesthesiology
Anticoagulation
Art and Images in Psychiatry
Artificial Intelligence
Assisted Reproduction
Bleeding and Transfusion
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
Climate and Health
Climate Change
Clinical Challenge
Clinical Decision Support
Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consensus Statements
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Critical Care Medicine
Cultural Competency
Dental Medicine
Dermatology
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Drug Development
Electronic Health Records
Emergency Medicine
End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
Environmental Health
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Facial Plastic Surgery
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Genetics and Genomics
Genomics and Precision Health
Global Health
Guide to Statistics and Methods
Hair Disorders
Health Care Delivery Models
Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Care Safety
Health Care Workforce
Health Disparities
Health Inequities
Health Policy
Health Systems Science
History of Medicine
Hypertension
Images in Neurology
Implementation Science
Infectious Diseases
Innovations in Health Care Delivery
JAMA Infographic
Law and Medicine
Leading Change
Less is More
LGBTQIA Medicine
Lifestyle Behaviors
Medical Coding
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medical Education
Medical Education and Training
Medical Journals and Publishing
Mobile Health and Telemedicine
Narrative Medicine
Neuroscience and Psychiatry
Notable Notes
Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Occupational Health
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Care
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Patient Care
Patient Information
Performance Improvement
Performance Measures
Perioperative Care and Consultation
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology
Pharmacogenetics
Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy
Physician Leadership
Population Health
Primary Care
Professional Well-being
Professionalism
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Public Health
Pulmonary Medicine
Regulatory Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research, Methods, Statistics
Resuscitation
Rheumatology
Risk Management
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Shared Decision Making and Communication
Sleep Medicine
Sports Medicine
Stem Cell Transplantation
Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Pearls
Teachable Moment
Technology and Finance
The Art of JAMA
The Arts and Medicine
The Rational Clinical Examination
Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
Translational Medicine
Trauma and Injury
Treatment Adherence
Ultrasonography
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
Vaccination
Venous Thromboembolism
Veterans Health
Women's Health
Workflow and Process
Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

Download PDF
X Facebook More LinkedIn

Grubbs JB , Kraus SW. Binge Drinking Among Sports Gamblers. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(4):e245473. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5473

Manage citations:

Permissions

Binge Drinking Among Sports Gamblers

1 Department of Psychology, Center on Alcohol, Substance use, And Addictions, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
2 Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Over the past 6 years, sports wagering has become accessible to most individuals in the US via mobile applications or websites. 1 Increasing evidence suggests that sports wagering is associated with greater substance use and misuse, particularly alcohol, and symptoms of alcohol use disorder. 2 - 4 Alcohol consumption is higher among sports gamblers, 3 and sports gamblers often use substances while gambling. 5 Sports gamblers tend to be more inclined toward risk taking, suggesting that sports gambling may be associated with more risky alcohol use behaviors. 4 - 6 Accordingly, we examined whether individuals who wager on sports in the US are at greater risk of binge use of alcohol.

This survey study was approved by the Bowling Green State University Institutional Review Board; informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study followed the AAPOR reporting guideline.

From March 17 to April 6, 2022, we collected a census-matched sample of US adults with an oversample of adults who wager on sports. Full information about this survey is available elsewhere. 1 Race and ethnicity data were collected because they are potential factors in sports gambling likelihood and binge drinking habits. Among those reporting any past year alcohol use, binge drinking was assessed via the National Institute on Drug Abuse Quick Screen, version 1.0, which asks how often respondents consumed an excess of alcohol at a single time (≥5 drinks for men; ≥4 for women). Participants responded on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (daily or more). Sports betting status was assessed by asking participants whether they had placed bets on sporting events or esports or participated in daily fantasy sports over the past 12 months.

Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS, version 28. We conducted 2-tailed χ 2 analyses for distributions of past year binge drinking frequency, followed by multinomial logistic regressions estimating binge drinking frequency; P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 4363 respondents were included (51.4% men, 46.4% women, and 2.2% nonbinary or other; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [16.2] years) ( Table 1 ). The national census-matched survey consisted of 2806 participants (mean [SD] age, 48.9 [17.2] years; 1365 [48.6%] men and 1441 [51.4%] women; response rate, 2806 of 3203 [87.6%]). The oversample of sports gamblers consisted of 1557 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.7 [15.3] years; 1043 [67.0%] men and 514 [33.0%] women; response rate, 1557 of 1978 [78.7%]), of whom 1474 reported past year sports betting. Additionally, in the national sample, 338 respondents (12.0%) indicated they had gambled on sports in the past 12 months, resulting in a total of 1812 sports gamblers ( Table 1 ). Sports gamblers were disproportionally likely to be men and younger. In these combined samples, 3267 respondents (74.9%) reported past year alcohol use.

Sports wagerers were disproportionately more likely to report binge drinking at monthly or greater frequency over the past 12 months and were also disproportionately less likely to report no binge drinking episodes in the past 12 months ( Table 1 ). Multinomial logistic regressions adjusted for age and race and ethnicity showed that sports gamblers were substantially more likely to report higher levels of binge drinking ( Table 2 ), suggesting that elevated risky drinking episodes among sports gamblers are not due to demographic differences.

In this survey study, binge drinking in both men and women was reported at greater frequency among sports wagering individuals compared with nongamblers and non–sports gamblers. This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and use of nonprobability polling methods. Regardless, with past research showing that sports gamblers are more likely to report symptoms of alcohol use disorder, our results suggest that individuals who wager on sports use alcohol in particularly risky ways. Given the rapid spread of sports wagering in the US over recent years, this finding highlights an immense need for ongoing research, particularly to examine how novel gambling technologies influence the prevalence, presentation, and prevention of alcohol use disorders and related harms.

Accepted for Publication: February 9, 2024.

Published: April 1, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5473

Corresponding Author: Joshua B. Grubbs, PhD, Center for Alcohol, Substance Use, and Addiction, University of New Mexico, 2650 Yale Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106 ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Drs Grubbs and Kraus had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Both authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Both authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Both authors.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Both authors.

Statistical analysis: Both authors.

Obtained funding: Both authors.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Grubbs.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Grubbs reported receiving research grant funding from the Problem Gambling Network of Ohio outside the submitted work. Dr Kraus reported receiving personal fees from New York Council on Problem Gambling, the International Center for Responsible Gaming, the California Council on Problem Gambling, and Massachusetts General Hospital Psychiatry Academy, serving as editor-in-chief for Taylor & Francis journals, and receiving Summer research support from the Nevada Project on Problem Gambling during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants from the International Center for Responsible Gaming, the Kindbridge Research Institute, and the Problem Gambling Network of Ohio.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See the Supplement .

Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
Access PDFs of free articles
Manage your interests
Save searches and receive search alerts

A COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL MARKETING IN COFFEE SHOPS

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Physical and digital marketing have always been important to businesses, especially small business coffee shops. These kinds of marketing would include things such as social media, flyers, billboards, an advertisement on the radio, etc. As most people know, marketing can be expensive and, in most cases, it gets overlooked. Marketing is one of the “big rocks” of business and it is necessary to do if you want to be known by all the town. As modern-day technology is becoming more important each year, social media has been one of the most popular forms of digital marketing. This paper highlights the differences between the two types and weighs the benefits of both physical and digital marketing.

Article Details

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access ).
Student authors waive FERPA rights for only the publication of the author submitted works. Specifically: Students of Indiana University East voluntarily agree to submit their own works to The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East , with full understanding of FERPA rights and in recognition that for this one, specific instance they understand that The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East is Public and Open Access. Additionally, the Journal is viewable via the Internet and searchable via Indiana University, Google, and Google-Scholar search engines.

Rylee Canan, Indiana University East Student

Rylee Canan is from Bradford, Ohio, and plans to graduate in spring of 2025 with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration as well as a minor in Marketing

Arruda, W. (2023, April 18). Why personal branding is a game changer for professional services firms. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2023/04/18 why-personal-branding-is-a-game-changer-for-professional-services- firms/?sh=7f4bf4123809

Barone, A. (2023, April 22). Digital marketing overview: Types, challenges, and required

skills. Investopedia. Retrieved April 24, 2023 from https://www.investopedia . com/ terms/d/digital-marketing.asp

Coffee shop marketing plan. (2022, July 15). Revel Systems. https://blog.revelsystems.com/ coffee-shop-marketing plan/#:~:text=8%20Coffee%20Marketing%20Strategies%20 1% 201.Make%20Your%20Coffee,Reviews%20...%208%208.Coffee%20Market%20 Loyalty%20Programs%20.

Dencheva, V. (2023, January 6). Social media platforms used by marketers. Statista. https:// www.statista.com/statistics/259379/social-media-platforms-used-by-marketers- worldwide/ ERM. (2020, November 6).

Costs comparison - digital marketing vs traditional marketing. ERM. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from https://tryerm.com/costs-comparison-digital-marketing-vs-traditional- marketing/

Hmurovic, J., Lamberton, C., & Goldsmith, K. (2022). Examining the efficacy of time scarcity marketing promotions in online retail. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(2), 299–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221118856

Shepherd, M. (n.d.). Small-business marketing statistics and trends. NerdWallet.

Retrieved from https://www.fundera.com/resources/small-business-marketing- statistics#:~:text=Overview%3A%20Small%20Business%20Marketing%20 Statistics%20%26%20Trends%201,before%20heading%20to%20a%20particular%20 website.%20More%20items

Soedarsono, D. K., Mohamad, B., Adamu, A. A., & Aline Pradita, K. (2020). Managing digital marketing communication of coffee shop using Instagram. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), 14(05), 108. https://doi.org/10.3991/ ijim.v14i05.13351

Statista. (2023, January 6). Digital vs. traditional marketing budget changes according to U.S. CMOS 2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/693449/digital-vs- traditional-marketing-budget-change-according-to-cmos-usa/

Statista. (2023, January 6). Social media platforms used by marketers 2022. https://www. statista.com/statistics/259379/social-media-platforms-used-by-marketers- worldwide/

Todor, R. (2016, July 1). Blending traditional and digital marketing. Semantic Scholar. https:// www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Blending-traditional-and-digital-marketing-Todor/4 0d7152632becb34d376c036e66ab0ba6dff7a1f

Ubert, G. (2004). Seven steps to success: A common-sense guide to succeed in specialty coffee. 1st Books Library.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 17.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Service Quality and Residents’ Preferences for Facilitated Self-Service Fundus Disease Screening: Cross-Sectional Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

Senlin Lin 1, 2, 3 * , MSc ;
Yingyan Ma 1, 2, 3, 4 * , PhD ;
Yanwei Jiang 5 * , MPH ;
Wenwen Li 6 , PhD ;
Yajun Peng 1, 2, 3 , BA ;
Tao Yu 1, 2, 3 , BA ;
Yi Xu 1, 2, 3 , MD ;
Jianfeng Zhu 1, 2, 3 , MD ;
Lina Lu 1, 2, 3 , MPH ;
Haidong Zou 1, 2, 3, 4 , MD

1 Shanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

2 National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China

3 Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Precise Diagnosis and Treatment of Eye Diseases, Shanghai, China

4 Shanghai General Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

5 Shanghai Hongkou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China

6 School of Management, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Haidong Zou, MD

Shanghai Eye Diseases Prevention &Treatment Center/ Shanghai Eye Hospital

School of Medicine

Tongji University

No 1440, Hongqqiao Road

Shanghai, 200336

Phone: 86 02162539696

Email: [email protected]

Background: Fundus photography is the most important examination in eye disease screening. A facilitated self-service eye screening pattern based on the fully automatic fundus camera was developed in 2022 in Shanghai, China; it may help solve the problem of insufficient human resources in primary health care institutions. However, the service quality and residents’ preference for this new pattern are unclear.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the service quality and residents’ preferences between facilitated self-service eye screening and traditional manual screening and to explore the relationships between the screening service’s quality and residents’ preferences.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Shanghai, China. Residents who underwent facilitated self-service fundus disease screening at one of the screening sites were assigned to the exposure group; those who were screened with a traditional fundus camera operated by an optometrist at an adjacent site comprised the control group. The primary outcome was the screening service quality, including effectiveness (image quality and screening efficiency), physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness. The secondary outcome was the participants’ preferences. Differences in service quality and the participants’ preferences between the 2 groups were compared using chi-square tests separately. Subgroup analyses for exploring the relationships between the screening service’s quality and residents’ preference were conducted using generalized logit models.

Results: A total of 358 residents enrolled; among them, 176 (49.16%) were included in the exposure group and the remaining 182 (50.84%) in the control group. Residents’ basic characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in service quality between the 2 groups (image quality pass rate: P =.79; average screening time: P =.57; no physiological discomfort rate: P =.92; safety rate: P =.78; convenience rate: P =.95; trustworthiness rate: P =.20). However, the proportion of participants who were willing to use the same technology for their next screening was significantly lower in the exposure group than in the control group ( P <.001). Subgroup analyses suggest that distrust in the facilitated self-service eye screening might increase the probability of refusal to undergo screening ( P =.02).

Conclusions: This study confirms that the facilitated self-service fundus disease screening pattern could achieve good service quality. However, it was difficult to reverse residents’ preferences for manual screening in a short period, especially when the original manual service was already excellent. Therefore, the digital transformation of health care must be cautious. We suggest that attention be paid to the residents’ individual needs. More efficient man-machine collaboration and personalized health management solutions based on large language models are both needed.

Introduction

Vision impairment and blindness are caused by a variety of eye diseases, including cataracts, glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and other eye diseases [ 1 ]. They not only reduce economic productivity but also harm the quality of life and increase mortality [ 2 - 6 ]. In 2020, an estimated 43.3 million individuals were blind, and 1.06 billion individuals aged 50 years and older had distance or near vision impairment [ 7 ]. With an increase in the aging population, the number of individuals affected by vision loss has increased substantially [ 1 ].

High-quality public health care for eye disease prevention, such as effective screening, can assist in eliminating approximately 57% of all blindness cases [ 8 ]. Digital technologies, such as telemedicine, 5G telecommunications, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence (AI), have provided the potential to improve the accessibility, availability, and productivity of existing resources and the overall efficiency of eye care services [ 9 , 10 ]. The use of digital technology not only reduces the cost of eye disease screening and improves its efficiency, but also assists residents living in remote areas to gain access to eye disease screening [ 11 - 13 ]. Therefore, an increasing number of countries (or regions) are attempting to establish eye screening systems based on digital technology [ 9 ].

Fundus photography is the most important examination in eye disease screening because the vast majority of diagnoses of blinding retinal diseases are based on fundus photographs. Diagnoses can be made by human experts or AI software. However, traditional fundus cameras must be operated by optometrists, who are usually in short supply in primary health care institutions when faced with the large demand for screening services.

Fortunately, the fully automatic fundus camera has been developed on the basis of digital technologies including AI, industrial automation, sensors, and voice navigation. It can automatically identify the person’s left and right eyes, search for pupils, adjust the lens position and shooting focus, and provide real-time voice feedback during the process, helping the residents to understand the current inspection steps clearly and cooperatively complete the inspection. Therefore, a facilitated self-service eye screening pattern has been newly established in 2022 in Shanghai, China.

However, evidence is inadequate about whether this new screening pattern performs well and whether the residents prefer it. Therefore, this cross-sectional study aims to compare the service quality and residents’ preferences of this new screening pattern with that of the traditional screening pattern. We aimed to (1) investigate whether the facilitated self-service eye screening can achieve service quality similar to that of traditional manual screening, (2) compare residents’ preferences between the facilitated self-service eye screening and traditional manual screening, and (3) explore the relationship between the screening service quality and residents’ preferences.

Study Setting

This study was conducted in Shanghai, China, in 2022. Since 2010, Shanghai has conducted an active community-based fundus disease telemedicine screening program. After 2018, an AI model was adopted ( Figure 1 ). At the end of 2021, the fully automatic fundus camera was adopted, and the facilitated self-service fundus disease screening pattern was established ( Figure 1 ). Within this new pattern, residents could perform fundus photography by themselves without professionals’ assistance ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ). The fundus images were sent to the cloud server center of the AI model, and the screening results were fed back immediately.

Study Design

We conducted a cross-sectional study at 2 adjacent screening sites. These 2 sites were expected to be very similar in terms of their socioeconomic and educational aspects since they were located next to each other. One site provided facilitated self-service fundus disease screening, and the residents who participated therein comprised the exposure group; the other site provided screening with a traditional fundus camera operated by an optometrist, and the residents who participated therein comprised the control group. All the adult residents could participant in our screening program, but their data were used for analysis only if they signed the informed consent form. Residents could opt out of the study at any time during the screening.

In the exposure group, the residents were assessed using an updated version of the nonmydriatic fundus camera Kestrel 3100m (Shanghai Top View Industrial Co Ltd) with a self-service module. In the process of fundus photography, the residents pressed the “Start” button by themselves. All checking steps (including focusing, shooting, and image quality review) were undertaken automatically by the fundus camera ( Figure 2 ). Screening data were transmitted to the AI algorithm on a cloud-based server center through the telemedicine platform, and the screening results were fed back immediately. Residents were fully informed that the assessment was fully automated and not performed by the optometrist.

In the control group, the residents were assessed using the basic version of the same nonmydriatic fundus camera. The optical components were identical to those in the exposure group but without the self-service module. In the process of fundus photography, all steps were carried out by the optometrist (including focusing, shooting, and image quality review). Screening data were transmitted to the AI algorithm on a cloud-based server center through the telemedicine platform, and the screening results were fed back immediately. Residents were also fully informed.

Measures and Outcomes

The primary outcome was the screening service’s quality. Based on the World Health Organization’s recommendations for the evaluation of AI-based medical devices [ 14 ] and the European Union’s Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence [ 15 ], 5 dimensions were selected to reflect the service quality of eye disease screening: effectiveness, physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness.

Furthermore, effectiveness was based on 2 indicators: image quality and screening efficiency. A staff member recorded the time required for each resident to take fundus photographs (excluding the time taken for diagnosis) at the screening site. Then, a professional ophthalmologist evaluated the quality of each fundus photograph after the on-site experiment. The ophthalmologist was blinded to the grouping of participants. Image quality was assessed on the basis of the image quality pass rate, expressed as the number of eyes with high-quality fundus images per 100 eyes. Screening efficiency was assessed on the basis of the average screening time, expressed as the mean of the time required for each resident to take fundus photographs.

To assess physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness of screening services, residents were asked to finish a questionnaire just after they received the screening results. A 5-point Likert scale was adopted for each dimension, from the best to the worst, except for the physiological discomfort ( Multimedia Appendix 2 ). A no physiological discomfort rate was expressed as the number of residents who chose the “There is no physiological discomfort during the screening” per 100 individuals in each group. Safety rate is expressed as the number of residents who chose “The screening is very safe” or “The screening is safe” per 100 individuals in each group. Convenience rate is expressed as the number of residents who chose “The screening is very convenient” or “The screening is convenient” per 100 individuals in each group. The trustworthiness rate is expressed as the number of residents who chose “The screening result is very trustworthy” or “The screening result is trustworthy” per 100 individuals in each group.

The secondary outcome was the preference rate, expressed as the number of residents who were willing to use the same technology for their next screening per 100 individuals. In detail, in the exposure group, the preference rate was expressed as the number of the residents who preferred facilitated self-service eye screening per 100 individuals, while in the control group, it was expressed as the number of residents who preferred traditional manual screening per 100 individuals.

To understand the residents’ preference, a video displaying the processes of both facilitated self-service eye screening and traditional manual screening was shown to the residents. Then, the following question was asked: “At your next eye disease screening, you can choose either facilitated self-service eye screening or traditional manual screening. Which one do you prefer?” A total of 4 alternatives were set: “Prefer traditional manual screening,” “Prefer facilitated self-service eye screening,” “Both are acceptable,” and “Neither is acceptable (Refusal of screening).” Each resident could choose only 1 option, which best reflected their preference.

Sample Size

The rule of events per variable was used for sample size estimation. In this study, 2 logit models were established for the 2 groups separately, each containing 8 independent variables. We set 10 events per variable in general. According to a previous study [ 16 ], when the decision-making process had high uncertainty, the proportion of individuals who preferred the algorithms was about 50%. This led us to arrive at a sample size of 160 (8 variables multiplied by 10 events each, with 50% of individuals potentially preferring facilitated screening [ie, 50% of 8×10]) for each group.

Every dimension of the screening service quality and the preference rate were calculated separately. Chi-square and t tests were used to test whether the service quality or the residents’ preferences differed between the 2 groups. A total of 7 hypotheses were tested, as shown in Textbox 1 .

H1: image quality pass rate exposure group ≠ image quality pass rate control group H0: image quality pass rate exposure group =image quality pass rate control group
H1: screening time exposure group ≠screening time control group H0: screening time exposure group =screening time control group
H1: no discomfort rate exposure group ≠no discomfort rate control group H0: no discomfort rate exposure group = no discomfort rate control group
H1: safety rate exposure group ≠safety rate control group H0: safety rate exposure group = safety rate control group
H1: convenience rate exposure group ≠convenience rate control group H0: convenience rate exposure group = convenience rate control group
H1: trustworthiness rate exposure group ≠trustworthiness rate control group H0: trustworthiness rate exposure group = trustworthiness rate control group
H1: preference rate exposure group ≠preference rate control group H0: preference rate exposure group = preference rate control group

If any of the hypotheses among hypotheses 1-6 ( Textbox 1 ) were significant, it indicated that the service quality was different between facilitated self-service eye screening and traditional manual screening. If hypothesis 7 was significant, it meant that the residents’ preference for facilitated self-service eye screening was different from that for traditional manual screening.

Additionally, subgroup analyses in the exposure and control groups were conducted to explore the relationships between the screening service quality and the residents’ preferences, using generalized logit models. The option “Prefer facilitated self-service eye screening” was used as the reference level for the dependent variable in the models. The independent variables included age, sex, image quality, screening efficiency, physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness. All statistics were performed using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute).

Ethical Considerations

The study adhered to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Shanghai General Hospital Ethics Committee (2022SQ272). All participants provided written informed consent before participating in this study. The study data were anonymous, and no identification of individual participants in any images of the manuscript or supplementary material is possible.

Participants’ Characteristics

A total of 358 residents enrolled; among them, 176 (49.16%) were in the exposure group and the remaining 182 (50.84%) were in the control group. Residents’ basic characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The mean age was 65.05 (SD 12.28) years for the exposure group and 63.96 (SD 13.06) years for the control group; however, this difference was nonsignificant ( P =.42). The proportion of women was 67.05% (n=118) for the exposure group and 62.09% (n=113) for the control group; this difference was also nonsignificant between the 2 groups ( P =.33).

Screening Service Quality

In the exposure group, high-quality fundus images were obtained for 268 out of 352 eyes (image quality pass rate=76.14%; Figure 3 ). The average screening time was 81.03 (SD 36.98) seconds ( Figure 3 ). In the control group, high-quality fundus images were obtained for 274 out of 364 eyes (image quality pass rate=75.27%; Figure 3 ). The average screening time was 78.22 (SD 54.01) seconds ( Figure 3 ). There was no significant difference in the image quality pass rate ( χ 2 1 =0.07, P =.79) and average screening time ( t 321.01 =–0.58 [Welch–Satterthwaite–adjusted df ], P =.56) between the 2 groups ( Figure 3 ).

For the other dimensions, detailed information is shown in Figure 3 . There were no significant differences between any of these rates between the 2 groups (no physiological discomfort rate: χ 2 1 =0.01, P =.92; safety rate: χ 2 1 =0.08, P =.78; convenience rate: χ 2 1 =0.004, P =.95; trustworthiness rate: χ 2 1 =1.63, P =.20).

Residents’ Preferences

In the exposure group, 120 (68.18%) residents preferred traditional manual screening, 19 (10.80%) preferred facilitated self-service eye screening, 19 (10.80%) preferred both, and the remaining 18 (10.23%) preferred neither. In the control group, 123 (67.58%) residents preferred traditional manual screening, 14 (7.69%) preferred facilitated self-service eye screening, 20 (10.99%) preferred both, and the remaining 25 (13.74%) preferred neither.

The proportion of residents who chose the category “Prefer facilitated self-service eye screening” in the exposure group was significantly lower than that of residents who chose the category “Prefer traditional manual screening” in the control group ( χ 2 1 =120.57, P <.001; Figure 3 ).

Subgroup Analyses

In the exposure group, 4 generalized logit models were generated ( Table 1 ). Regarding the effectiveness of facilitated self-service eye screening, neither the image quality nor the screening time had an impact on the residents’ preferences. Regarding the other dimensions for facilitated self-service eye screening service quality, models 3 and 4 demonstrated that distrust in the results of facilitated self-service eye screening might decrease the probability of preferring this screening service and increase the probability of preferring neither of the 2 screening services.

a Age and gender were adjusted in model 1. Age, gender, image quality, and screening efficiency were adjusted in model 2. Age, gender, physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness were adjusted in model 3. Age, gender, image quality, screening efficiency, physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness were adjusted in model 4.

b In the exposure group, distrust in the results of facilitated self-service eye screening might decrease the probability of preferring this screening service and increase the probability of preferring neither the traditional nor the facilitated self-service screening services.

c Not available.

In the control group, another 4 generalized logit models were generated ( Table 2 ). Men were more likely to choose a preference both screening services. The probability of preferring manual screening might increase with age, as long as the probability of preferring facilitated self-service eye screening decreased. Regarding the effectiveness of traditional manual screening, neither the image quality pass rate nor the screening time had an impact on the residents’ preferences. For the other dimensions of the quality of traditional manual screening, models 7 and 8 showed that if the residents feel unsafe about traditional manual screening, their preference for traditional manual screening might decrease, and they might turn to facilitated self-service eye screening.

a Age and gender were adjusted in model 5. Age, gender, image quality, and screening efficiency were adjusted in model 6. Age, gender, physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness were adjusted in model 7. Age, gender, image quality, screening efficiency, physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness were adjusted in model 8.

b In the control group, if the residents feel unsafe about traditional manual screening, their preference for traditional manual screening might decrease, and they might turn to facilitated self-service eye screening.

A new fundus disease screening pattern was established using the fully automatic fundus camera without any manual intervention. Our findings suggest that facilitated self-service eye screening can achieve a service quality similar to that of traditional manual screening. The study further evaluated the residents’ preferences and associated factors for the newly established self-service fundus disease screening. Our study found that the residents’ preference for facilitated self-service eye screening is significantly less than that for traditional manual screening. This implies that the association between the service quality of the screening technology and residents’ preferences was weak, suggesting that aversion to the algorithm might exist. In addition, the subgroup analyses suggest that even the high quality of facilitated self-service eye screening cannot increase the residents’ preference for this new screening pattern. Worse still, distrust in the results of this new pattern may lead to lower usage of eye disease screening services as a whole. To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the first to evaluate service quality and residents’ preferences for facilitated self-service fundus disease screening.

Previous studies have suggested that people significantly prefer manual services to algorithms in the field of medicine [ 16 - 18 ]. Individuals have an aversion to algorithms underlying digital technology, especially when they see errors in the algorithm’s functioning [ 18 ]. The preference for algorithms does not increase even if the residents are told that the algorithm outperforms human doctors [ 19 , 20 ]. Our results confirm that fundus image quality in the exposure group is similar to that in the control group in our study, and both are similar to or even better than those reported in previous studies [ 21 , 22 ]. However, the preference for facilitated self-service fundus disease screening is significantly less than that for traditional manual screening. One possible explanation is that uniqueness neglect—a concern that algorithm providers are less able than human providers to account for residents’ (or patients’) unique characteristics and circumstances—drives consumer resistance to digital medical technology [ 23 ]. Therefore, personalized health management solutions based on large language models should be developed urgently [ 24 ] to meet the residents’ individual demands. In addition, a survey of population preferences for medical AI indicated that the most important factor for the public is that physicians are ultimately responsible for diagnosis and treatment planning [ 25 ]. As a result, man-machine collaboration, such as human supervision, is still necessary [ 26 ], especially in the early stages of digital transformation to help residents understand and accept the digital technologies.

Furthermore, our study suggests that distrust in the results of facilitated self-service fundus disease screening may cause residents to abandon eye disease screening, irrespective of whether it is provided using this new screening pattern or via the traditional manual screening pattern. This is critical to digital transformation in medicine. This implies that if the digital technology does not perform well, residents will not only be averse to the digital technology itself but also be more likely to abandon health care services as a whole. Digital transformation is a fundamental change to the health care delivery system. This implies that it can self-disrupt its ability to question the practices and production models of existing health care services. As a result, it may become incompatible with the existing models, processes, activities, and even cultures [ 27 ]. Therefore, it is important to assess whether the adoption of digital technologies contributes to health system objectives in an optimal manner, and this assessment should be carried out at the level of health services but not at the level of digital transformation [ 28 ].

The most prominent limitation of our study is that it was conducted only in Shanghai, China. Because of the sound health care system in Shanghai, residents have already received high-quality eye disease screening services before the adoption of the facilitated self-service eye screening pattern. Consequently, residents are bound to demand more from this new pattern. This situation is quite different from that in lower-income regions. Digital technology was adapted in poverty-stricken areas to build an eye care system, but it did not replace the original system that is based on manually delivered services [ 13 ]. Therefore, the framing effect may be weak [ 29 ], and there is little practical value in comparing digital technology and manual services in these regions. Second, our study is an observational study and blind grouping was not practical due to the special characteristics of fundus examination. However, we have attempted to use blind processing whenever possible. For instance, ophthalmologists’ evaluation of image quality was conducted in a blinded manner. Third, the manner in which we inquired about residents’ preferences might affect the results. For example, participants in the exposure group generally have experience with manual screening, but those in the control group may not have had enough experience with facilitated screening despite having been shown a video. This might make the participants in the control group more likely to choose manual screening because the new technology was unfamiliar. Finally, individual-level socioeconomic factors or educational level were not recorded, so we cannot rule out the influence of these factors on residents’ preferences.

In summary, this study confirms that the facilitated self-service fundus disease screening pattern could achieve high service quality. The preference of the residents for this new mode, however, was not ideal. It was difficult to reverse residents’ preference for manual screening in a short period, especially when the original manual service was already excellent. Therefore, the digital transformation of health care must proceed with caution. We suggest that attention be paid to the residents’ individual needs. Although more efficient man-machine collaboration is necessary to help the public understand and accept new technologies, personalized health management solutions based on large language models are required.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Shanghai Public Health Three-Year Action Plan (GWVI-11.1-30, GWVI-11.1-22), Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20DZ1100200 and 23ZR1481000), Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (2022HP61, 2022YQ051, and 20234Y0062), Shanghai First People's Hospital featured research projects (CCTR-2022C08) and Medical Research Program of Hongkou District Health Commission (Hongwei2202-07).

Data Availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

SL, YM, and YJ contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study. SL, YM, YJ, YP, TY, and YX collected the data. SL and YM analyzed the data. SL, YM, and YJ drafted the manuscript. WL, YX, JZ, LL, and HZ extensively revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript submitted.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Video of the non-mydriatic fundus camera Kestrel-3100m with the self-service module.

Questions for screening service quality.

GBD 2019 BlindnessVision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. Feb 2021;9(2):e144-e160. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Marques AP, Ramke J, Cairns J, Butt T, Zhang JH, Muirhead D, et al. Global economic productivity losses from vision impairment and blindness. EClinicalMedicine. May 2021;35:100852. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Jan C, Li S, Kang M, Liu L, Li H, Jin L, et al. Association of visual acuity with educational outcomes: a prospective cohort study. Br J Ophthalmol. Nov 18, 2019;103(11):1666-1671. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Chai YX, Gan ATL, Fenwick EK, Sui AY, Tan BKJ, Quek DQY, et al. Relationship between vision impairment and employment. Br J Ophthalmol. Mar 16, 2023;107(3):361-366. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Nayeni M, Dang A, Mao AJ, Malvankar-Mehta MS. Quality of life of low vision patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol. Jun 2021;56(3):151-157. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Wang L, Zhu Z, Scheetz J, He M. Visual impairment and ten-year mortality: the Liwan Eye Study. Eye (Lond). Aug 19, 2021;35(8):2173-2179. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
GBD 2019 BlindnessVision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. Feb 2021;9(2):e130-e143. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Cheng C, Wang N, Wong TY, Congdon N, He M, Wang YX, et al. Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Prevalence and causes of vision loss in East Asia in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. Br J Ophthalmol. May 28, 2020;104(5):616-622. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Li JO, Liu H, Ting DS, Jeon S, Chan RP, Kim JE, et al. Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: a global perspective. Prog Retin Eye Res. May 2021;82:100900. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ting DSW, Pasquale LR, Peng L, Campbell JP, Lee AY, Raman R, et al. Artificial intelligence and deep learning in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. Feb 25, 2019;103(2):167-175. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Xie Y, Nguyen QD, Hamzah H, Lim G, Bellemo V, Gunasekeran DV, et al. Artificial intelligence for teleophthalmology-based diabetic retinopathy screening in a national programme: an economic analysis modelling study. Lancet Digit Health. May 2020;2(5):e240-e249. [ CrossRef ]
Tang J, Liang Y, O'Neill C, Kee F, Jiang J, Congdon N. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of population-based glaucoma screening in China: a decision-analytic Markov model. Lancet Glob Health. Jul 2019;7(7):e968-e978. [ CrossRef ]
Xiao X, Xue L, Ye L, Li H, He Y. Health care cost and benefits of artificial intelligence-assisted population-based glaucoma screening for the elderly in remote areas of China: a cost-offset analysis. BMC Public Health. Jun 04, 2021;21(1):1065. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Generating Evidence for Artificial Intelligence Based Medical Devices: A Framework for Training Validation and Evaluation. World Health Organization. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038462 [accessed 2024-03-27]
The Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. URL: https://altai.insight-centre.org/ [accessed 2024-03-27]
Dietvorst BJ, Bharti S. People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychol Sci. Oct 11, 2020;31(10):1302-1314. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
DeCamp M, Tilburt JC. Why we cannot trust artificial intelligence in medicine. Lancet Digit Health. Dec 2019;1(8):e390. [ CrossRef ]
Frank D, Elbæk CT, Børsting CK, Mitkidis P, Otterbring T, Borau S. Drivers and social implications of artificial intelligence adoption in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. Nov 22, 2021;16(11):e0259928. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Juravle G, Boudouraki A, Terziyska M, Rezlescu C. Trust in artificial intelligence for medical diagnoses. Prog Brain Res. 2020;253:263-282. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Liu X, Faes L, Kale AU, Wagner SK, Fu DJ, Bruynseels A, et al. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit Health. Oct 2019;1(6):e271-e297. [ CrossRef ]
Scanlon PH, Foy C, Malhotra R, Aldington SJ. The influence of age, duration of diabetes, cataract, and pupil size on image quality in digital photographic retinal screening. Diabetes Care. Oct 2005;28(10):2448-2453. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Cen L, Ji J, Lin J, Ju S, Lin H, Li T, et al. Automatic detection of 39 fundus diseases and conditions in retinal photographs using deep neural networks. Nat Commun. Aug 10, 2021;12(1):4828. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Longoni C, Bonezzi A, Morewedge C. Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. J Consum Res. 2019;46:650. [ CrossRef ]
Huang AS, Hirabayashi K, Barna L, Parikh D, Pasquale LR. Assessment of a Large Language Model's Responses to Questions and Cases About Glaucoma and Retina Management. JAMA Ophthalmol. Feb 22, 2024. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ploug T, Sundby A, Moeslund TB, Holm S. Population preferences for performance and explainability of artificial intelligence in health care: choice-based conjoint survey. J Med Internet Res. Dec 13, 2021;23(12):e26611. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Young AT, Amara D, Bhattacharya A, Wei ML. Patient and general public attitudes towards clinical artificial intelligence: a mixed methods systematic review. Lancet Digit Health. Sep 2021;3(9):e599-e611. [ CrossRef ]
Alami H, Gagnon M, Fortin J. Digital health and the challenge of health systems transformation. Mhealth. Aug 08, 2017;3:31-31. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ricciardi W, Pita Barros P, Bourek A, Brouwer W, Kelsey T, Lehtonen L, et al. Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (EXPH). How to govern the digital transformation of health services. Eur J Public Health. Oct 01, 2019;29(Supplement_3):7-12. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Khan WU, Shachak A, Seto E. Understanding decision-making in the adoption of digital health technology: the role of behavioral economics' prospect theory. J Med Internet Res. Feb 07, 2022;24(2):e32714. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 06.01.23; peer-reviewed by B Li, A Bate, CW Pan; comments to author 13.09.23; revised version received 15.10.23; accepted 12.03.24; published 17.04.24.

©Senlin Lin, Yingyan Ma, Yanwei Jiang, Wenwen Li, Yajun Peng, Tao Yu, Yi Xu, Jianfeng Zhu, Lina Lu, Haidong Zou. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 17.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

COMMENTS

Understanding the Differences Between a Research Paper and a Journal
A research paper is an in-depth exploration of a specific topic; while journals are collections of articles on various topics relating to the same subject or field. Understanding these differences can help researchers ensure they're using the right tools for their particular project. This article will outline key differences between a ...
Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison
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. Summary.
Types of journal articles
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.
Journal Article vs. Research Paper
A Journal Article is a peer-reviewed piece published in an academic journal, while a Research Paper is a detailed study on a topic, not necessarily published. Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper
Q: Are 'journal article' and 'research article' the same?
However, the points discussed in the infographic 9 differences between thesis and journal article can be applied to research articles. This is because theses involve original research, and therefore, the type of journal articles that a thesis is converted into are almost always original research articles.
White papers, working papers, preprints: What's the difference?
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.
Difference Between Research Paper and Journal Article
While both forms utilize the same techniques, a research paper gets done under the evaluation of a teacher or instructor. Another small difference is the extent of the references used. Most often in a journal article, a reader can expect to find an extensive bibliography, whereas a research paper won't warrant as extensive of a reference list.
Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?
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 ...
Difference between Paper and Article for scientific writings
The following extract helps understand the difference between a research article and a research paper: . Research paper and research articles are pieces of writing that require critical analysis, inquiry, insight, and demonstration of some special skills from students and scientists.
Difference between Journal Article and Research Paper
The difference between a journal article and a research paper is that the journal article is well researched and extensive. It is also conceptual and well-suited for the academic audience. Research papers on the other hand focus on a specific viewpoint and substantiate the viewpoint with relevant theories. Research papers require many extensive ...
What is the difference between letter, communication and journal paper?
Often "paper" has no limit. Typically the shorter the length limit, the more prestigious it is and the tougher the acceptance criteria. The subject matter covered by the journal is the same for all categories. Some journals also have a "review" category which includes papers which are not original research. Often a review is by invitation only.
What is the difference between research paper and publication?
When it comes to academic writing, the terms "research paper" and "publication" are often used interchangeably. While both involve research and writing, there are important distinctions between the two. The term "research paper" typically refers to a paper written by a student or group of students, usually for an academic course.
Difference between Research Papers and Technical Articles for Journal
Research Papers. Technical Articles. Research paper carries more weight on the basic issues. Technical article puts more accentuation on the technique angle, not necessary announcing on the discoveries. A research paper won't warrant as broad of a reference list. A technical article, a peruser can anticipate to discover an broad book index.
5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Dec 11, 2017. There are different types of scholarly literature. Some of these require researchers to conduct an original study, whereas others can be based on previously published research. Understanding each of these types and also how they differ from one another can be rather confusing for researchers, especially early career researchers.
What Is the Difference Between Conference Papers, Journal Papers, Term
Almost all scholars who perform research come across this basic question. And if you are in this field, you should know the basic differences among the various manuscript of research work. Things are readily available at one click today and that is why, it is more important to know the difference between conferences, journal, patents, proceedings, etc. so that you refer the right piece of work ...
Journal vs conference papers: Key differences & advice
Disadvantages of journal papers. 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 ...
Similarities and Differences Between Pragmatic Trials and ...
On the other end of the translational research continuum (see Fig. 1), the differences between Pragmatic Trials and Implementation Trials are also well understood.Implementation trials test the success of implementation strategies 4 designed to promote the use of evidence-based practices previously demonstrated to be effective in routine care. . Implementation trials 5 are designed to answer ...
Does culture moderate the encoding and recognition of negative cues
Cross-cultural research has elucidated many important differences between people from Western European and East Asian cultural backgrounds regarding how each group encodes and consolidates the contents of complex visual stimuli. While Western European groups typically demonstrate a perceptual bias towards centralised information, East Asian groups favour a perceptual bias towards background ...
The Over-Concentration of Innovation and Firm-Specific ...
The development of the artificial intelligence (AI) landscape has been impressive in virtually all economic sectors in recent years. Our study discusses the over-concentration of AI knowledge (OCAIK) as the origin of dominance over the global AI industry by a small number of companies and universities that deploy the needed resources to develop and use cutting edge, inimitable AI knowledge ...
Binge Drinking Among Sports Gamblers
Over the past 6 years, sports wagering has become accessible to most individuals in the US via mobile applications or websites. 1 Increasing evidence suggests that sports wagering is associated with greater substance use and misuse, particularly alcohol, and symptoms of alcohol use disorder. 2-4 Alcohol consumption is higher among sports gamblers, 3 and sports gamblers often use substances ...
A Comparison of Physical and Digital Marketing in Coffee Shops
Physical and digital marketing have always been important to businesses, especially small business coffee shops. These kinds of marketing would include things such as social media, flyers, billboards, an advertisement on the radio, etc. As most people know, marketing can be expensive and, in most cases, it gets overlooked. Marketing is one of the "big rocks" of business and it is necessary ...
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Meta-analysis results were combined using a random-effects model and pooled as standardized mean differences. Results: Of 6606 unique records, 19 (0.29%) were included (n=6710 participants). ... Interactive Journal of Medical Research 362 articles ... This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue: Digital Health Reviews (1111 ...
Land
In recent years, an increasing number of Chinese cities have experienced population decline, impacting the urban economy, public services, and paid use of state-owned land (PUL). This paper employs a coupled coordination degree model and the gray correlation coefficient method to examine the relationship between the rate of population change from 1990 to 2020, the rate of PUL change from 2000 ...
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Background: Early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a transitional stage between normal aging and Alzheimer disease, is crucial for preventing the progression of dementia. Virtual reality (VR) biomarkers have proven to be effective in capturing behaviors associated with subtle deficits in instrumental activities of daily living, such as challenges in using a food-ordering kiosk ...
Shunted piezoelectric patch adaptive vibration absorber ...
This paper presents a comparative study on two types of shunted piezoelectric patch adaptive vibration absorbers, ... Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110(6): 3025-3031. Crossref. ... Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab;
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Differences in service quality and the participants' preferences between the 2 groups were compared using chi-square tests separately. Subgroup analyses for exploring the relationships between the screening service's quality and residents' preference were conducted using generalized logit models. ... Journal of Medical Internet Research ...

Understanding the Differences Between a Research Paper and a Journal

I. Introduction

Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison

Journal Article vs Research Paper

Comparison Table

Content and Structure

Similar Reads

Peer Review Process:

What is Research Paper?

1. Content and Structure

Characteristics and Scope

Main Differences Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Share this post!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Types of journal articles

Journal Article vs. Research Paper — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

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

Republish this article

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Research Paper

Argumentative Research Paper

CONFERENCE ALERTS

Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

By Conference Alerts

Related Post

International Conferences In Canada 2024-2025 With Invitation Letter

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Difference between Journal Article and Research Paper

Journal Article Vs. Research Paper

What is a Journal Article?

What is a Research Paper?

Scopus journals

Difference between Research Papers and Technical Articles for Journal Publication

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Journal vs conference papers: Key differences & advice

What is a journal paper?

Advantages and disadvantages of journal and conference papers

Frequently Asked Questions

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

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

A guide to industry-funded research: Types, examples & getting started

How to harness theoretical and conceptual frameworks for groundbreaking research

10 powerful methodology courses for PhD students [online]

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

Does culture moderate the encoding and recognition of negative cues? Evidence from an eye-tracking study

Introduction

Does culture influence the processing of emotionally significant information?

The present study

Materials and methods

Self-report measures.

Stimuli: Encoding phase.

Stimuli: Recall phase.

Data reduction

Memory data reduction.

Statistical analyses

Ratings data analysis.

Eye-gaze data analysis.

Memory data analysis.

Self-report data

Ratings data

Eye-gaze data

Memory data

The Over-Concentration of Innovation and Firm-Specific Knowledge in the Artificial Intelligence Industry

Cite this article

Access this article

Data Availability

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information