Transformer-based language models such as BERT have become foundational in NLP, yet their performance degrades in specialized domains like patents, which contain long, technical, and legally structured text. Prior approaches to patent NLP have primarily relied on fine-tuning general-purpose models or domain-adapted variants pretrained with limited data. In this work, we pretrain 3 domain-specific masked language models for patents, using the ModernBERT architecture and a curated corpus of over 60 million patent records. Our approach incorporates architectural optimizations, including FlashAttention, rotary embeddings, and GLU feed-forward layers. We evaluate our models on four downstream patent classification tasks. Our model, ModernBERT-base-PT, consistently outperforms the general-purpose ModernBERT baseline on three out of four datasets and achieves competitive performance with a baseline PatentBERT. Additional experiments with ModernBERT-base-VX and Mosaic-BERT-large demonstrate that scaling the model size and customizing the tokenizer further enhance performance on selected tasks. Notably, all ModernBERT variants retain substantially faster inference over - 3x that of PatentBERT - underscoring their suitability for time-sensitive applications. These results underscore the benefits of domain-specific pretraining and architectural improvements for patent-focused NLP tasks.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is often equated with journal quality and the quality of the peer review of the papers submitted to the journal. We examined the association between the content of peer review and JIF by analysing 10,000 peer review reports submitted to 1,644 medical and life sciences journals. Two researchers hand-coded a random sample of 2,000 sentences. We then trained machine learning models to classify all 187,240 sentences as contributing or not contributing to content categories. We examined the association between ten groups of journals defined by JIF deciles and the content of peer reviews using linear mixed-effects models, adjusting for the length of the review. The JIF ranged from 0.21 to 74.70. The length of peer reviews increased from the lowest (median number of words 185) to the JIF group (387 words). The proportion of sentences allocated to different content categories varied widely, even within JIF groups. For thoroughness, sentences on 'Materials and Methods' were more common in the highest JIF journals than in the lowest JIF group (difference of 7.8 percentage points; 95% CI 4.9 to 10.7%). The trend for 'Presentation and Reporting' went in the opposite direction, with the highest JIF journals giving less emphasis to such content (difference -8.9%; 95% CI -11.3 to -6.5%). For helpfulness, reviews for higher JIF journals devoted less attention to 'Suggestion and Solution' and provided fewer Examples than lower impact factor journals. No, or only small differences were evident for other content categories. In conclusion, peer review in journals with higher JIF tends to be more thorough in discussing the methods used but less helpful in terms of suggesting solutions and providing examples. Differences were modest and variability high, indicating that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.