Unexplainable mentions that do not appear in the PDF

[bockthom]

It seems that some mentions that are part of the dataset do not appear in the paper. I manually checked a sample of ~100 mentions of R packages and encountered the following entries in the dataset for which I cannot find a mention in the paper:

• According to your dataset, package "Rmpfr" is mentioned in paper http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00328 (paper_id 8164227).
  I wasn't able to find such a mention in the paper.

• According to your dataset, package "SemiPar" is mentioned in paper http://doi.org/10.1007/s10463-021-00799-y (paper_id 20502030).
  I wasn't able to even find a substring of it in the paper.

• According to your dataset, package "microbenchmark" is mentioned in paper http://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xsm2f (paper_id 15052656).
  I wasn't able to find such a mention in the paper.

• According to your dataset, package "script" is mentioned in paper http://doi.org/10.51363/unifr.sth.2022.003 (paper_id 7191194).
  I wasn't able to find a single mention of "script" in the PDF.

[shaunak-pusalkar]

I checked the 4 examples that you mentioned and found this:

1. For “Rmfpr” paper, I found this mention in an image in ‘Data and Code Availability’ section. Please see the screenshot below.

2. For the “SemiPar”, you are right it is not a part of that paper. But I found this mention in different paper in the same issue of the journal. Below are the details:
   Our paper is : “Local polynomial expectile regression”
   The volume 74(issue 2) in which this paper was published also has another paper called “Surrogate-variable-based model-free feature screening for survival data under the general censoring mechanism” (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10463-021-00801-7) which has the mention “SemiPar”

3. I found this mention “microbenchmark” in the Peer-Reviewed Publication DOI (https://qcmb.psychopen.eu/index.php/qcmb/article/view/3783)

4. I can see one mention of “script” on page 43. Apart from that similar mention “scripts” also has a 3-4 mentions in the paper.

[jameshowison]

Ok, I think these are problems but not clear to me how to address them. Going to leave this one open for now, in case others come across these issues.