An Agent-Based System to Assess Legibility and Cognitive Depth of Scientific Texts

  • Omar López-Ortega
  • Obed Pérez-Cortés
  • Félix Castro-EspinozaEmail author
  • Manuel Montes y Gómez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10633)


Knowledge transmitted through writing is suitable to be refined by understanding, criticizing, reflecting upon, and using it. Although several types of writings, from diffusion to highly specialized texts, fulfill this purpose, they differ considerably in syntax, word selection and phrases length. It is widely accepted that proper scientific writings deploy facts with detail, rigor and legibility, for which scientists acquire writing skills through experience, by following guidelines, by obtaining feedback from fellow scientists or through a combination of those approaches. We question whether scientific texts possess common characteristics that can be determined through quantitative metrics. A positive answer is confirmed by the fact that such writings in both languages, Spanish and English, display a normal probability distribution for a metric called \(\mu \) legibility. Moreover, by analyzing texts through a new proposed metric called cognitive depth, scientific writings in Spanish display that analysis is the dominant Bloom’s cognitive level. These preliminary findings suggest that it is possible to evaluate and classify new manuscripts through an agent-based human-computer interactive system that informs writers if the ongoing text lies into the ranges discovered for published texts, and what is the prevalent cognitive level. By having this feedback, writers can modify their manuscripts to make them display good metrics.


Text legibility Cognitive level Multi-agent systems E-research 


  1. 1.
    Abbott, B.P., et al.: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 1–18 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellifemine, F.L., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. Wiley, USA (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloom, B.S.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I. Cognitive Domain. Longman, London (1956)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng, G.: The impact of online autometed feedback on students’ reflective journal writing in an EFL course. Internet High. Educ. 34, 18–27 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunham, W., Malone, S.: Einstein’s gravitational waves detected in landmark discovery (2016). Accessed 17 May 2017
  6. 6.
    Fernández Huerta, J.: Medidas sencillas de lecturabilidad. Consigna Revista Pedagóiga (1959)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferrero, C.L., Renau, I., Nazar, R., Torner, S.: Computer-assisted revision in spanish academic texts: peer-assessment. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 141, 470–483 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flesh, R.F.: Legibility. Teach. Coll. Rec. 6, 422–423 (1944)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grundy, D.: Writing-anxiety. Arts Psychother. 12, 151–156 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanjani, A.M., Li, L.: Exploring L2 writer’s collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System 44, 101–114 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., Azizifar, A.: The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on student’s writing. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 192, 116–123 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lachner, A., Burkhart, C., Nückles, M.: Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroom: specific concepts maps scaffold student’s writing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 459–469 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larivière, V.: On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics 90, 463–481 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levecque, K., Anseel, F., Beuckelaer, A.D., der Heyden, J.V., Gisle, L.: Work organization and mental health problems in Ph.D. students. Res. Policy 46, 868–879 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michelle Cleary, J., Daly, G.W.: Dealing with peer-review: what is reasonable and what is not? Collegian 20, 123–125 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munoz y Munoz, J.: Legibilidad \(\mu \), Chile (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nemec, E.C., Dintzner, M.: Comparison of audio versus written feedback on writing assignments. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 8, 155–159 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Writing a research proposal: the role of library anxiety, statistics anxiety, and composition anxiety. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 19, 5–33 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierrakos, E.P.O., Nagel, R.: Using bloom’s taxonomy to teach sustainability in multiple contexts. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 54–64 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sullivan, V.L.K.P.: Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: narrative perspectives. J. Second Lang. Writ. 35, 20–25 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szigrist Pazos, F.: Sistemas productivos de legibilidad del mensaje escrito: fórmula de perspicuidad. Universidad Politéncima de Madrid, Facultad de ciencias de la Información. Colección de Tesis Doctorales (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Çinar Yastibaş, G., Yastibasş, A.E.: The effect of peer feedback on writen anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a foreign language) students. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 199, 530–538 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar López-Ortega
    • 1
  • Obed Pérez-Cortés
    • 1
  • Félix Castro-Espinoza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel Montes y Gómez
    • 2
  1. 1.Área Académica de Sistemas ComputacionalesUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de HidalgoPachucaMexico
  2. 2.Laboratorio de Tecnologías del LenguajeInstituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Optica y Electrónica (INAOE)PueblaMexico

Personalised recommendations