Scientometrics最新文献

Expeditious publication is an important factor when considering publishing ophthalmic research. We investigated the factors associated with shorter publication times in pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus (POS). We analyzed 2487 POS articles from 8 ophthalmology journals publishing POS articles. Time from submission to acceptance, from acceptance to publication, and from submission to publication were calculated for each article. We compared trends over time of factors affecting the publication times from 2002 to 2007 and those from 2014 to 2018. Median peer review durations were 156 days from submission to acceptance; 79 days from acceptance to publication, and 244 days from submission to publication. The American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Strabismus had the shortest submission to publication time. Authors from Africa, East Europe, Central and South America received the fastest processing time in all time categories, although most authors were based in North America and UK. All-time intervals decreased annually, significantly more during the first decade. In the study's second period, more co-authors and affiliated departments correlated with shorter review times. Manuscripts in higher Impact Factor (IF) journals had faster publication times in the first decade. Female senior authors faced longer submission-to-acceptance times in the first decade. This gender gap disappeared in the second period. A general improvement occurred with most journals, specifically those journals with a higher number of co-authors and affiliated departments, indicating an efficient collaborative authorship. Low-income regions benefited from comparatively shorter time intervals. The gender gap in senior authorship diminished over time.

This study presents an innovative method for tracking the evolution and repurposing of drugs, leveraging controlled vocabulary systems, specifically CA (Chemical Abstracts) Concept Headings within the SciFinderⁿ database. Using thalidomide as a case study, the research demonstrates how tracking article counts over time can uncover information about the substance’s history, properties, uses, and future potential. The analysis involves comparing yearly publication counts of research articles and patents through databases, journal sources, and CA Concept Headings. The findings suggest that monitoring the number of articles by CA Concept Headings published over time can serve as a valuable indicator of the substance’s importance. Such knowledge empowers researchers to develop applications, enhance existing processes, and contribute to advancing science and medicine. The study’s insights have significant implications for the broader field of scientometrics, offering a methodological approach to understanding substance development and impact through bibliometric analysis.

Systematic reviews and other types of literature reviews are more prevalent in clinical medicine than in other fields. The recurring need for improvement and updates in these disciplines has led to the Living Systematic Review (LSR) concept to enhance the effectiveness of scientific synthesis efforts. While LSR was introduced in 2014, its adoption outside clinical medicine has been limited, with one exception. However, it is anticipated that this will change in the future, prompting a detailed exploration of four key dimensions for LSR development, regardless of the scientific domain. These dimensions include (a) compliance with FAIR principles, (b) interactivity to facilitate easier access to scientific knowledge, (c) public participation for a more comprehensive review, and (d) extending the scope beyond mere updates to living systematic reviews. Each field needs to establish clear guidelines for drafting literature reviews as independent studies, with discussions centring around the central theme of the Living Systematic Review.

Universities are now expected to actively contribute to socio-economic development, extending beyond their customary focus on teaching and research. Traditionally, the impact of universities on the labor market, measured through graduate employment, has been assessed using subjective survey data. This study proposes a quantitative framework that combines occupational mobility data with geographic factors to provide an objective evaluation of university labor market outcomes. Using data from 46,765 executives across 4,627 listed companies in mainland China, we developed a university–company mobility bipartite network. This network is weighted by both the number of executives and the geographic distances they cover. Through structural analysis of the network, we reveal the stratified and highly unequal influence of Chinese universities on the labor market. We also apply a PageRank centrality algorithm to rank universities and further compare them with established university rankings. The results indicated that our rankings highlighted the universities’ geographical influence and outcomes in the labor market. Our framework offers a reliable approach to assessing the societal impact of universities from a labor market perspective, improving and supplementing current university ranking systems.

This study explores the historical trajectory of Cuban international scientific collaboration across three distinct epochs (1900–1959, 1960–1989, and 1990–2023). Utilizing co-authorship as a metric for collaboration and examining publications sourced from the Scopus database, the research delineates the nuanced dynamics of Cuban international scientific collaboration over the span of 122 years. The findings highlight the efficacy of Cuba’s strategic geographical diversification efforts in bolstering its scientific prowess and fostering innovation. Moreover, the adoption of this strategy has contributed to the augmentation of Cuba’s scientific output. The results demonstrate a progressive diversification of Cuban collaborations across various regions, with notable emphasis on partnerships with Western Europe and Latin America. Nevertheless, collaborations with other regions exhibit limited engagement, indicative of untapped opportunities for expansion. Despite encountering challenges, scientific collaboration emerges as a pivotal driver in advancing Cuba’s scientific productivity. This study underscores the pivotal role of international partnerships in nurturing scientific advancement and posits avenues for future research aimed at fortifying global research networks and augmenting research capabilities in emerging economies.

Despite differences in extent of engagement of users, original tweets and retweets to scientific publications are considered as equal events. Current research investigates quantifiable differences between tweets and retweets from an altmetric point of view. Twitter users, text, and media content of two datasets, one containing 742 randomly selected tweets and retweets (371 each) and another with 5898 tweets and retweets (about 3000 each), all linking to scientific articles published on PLoS ONE, were manually categorized. Results from analyzing the proportions of tweets and retweets indicated that academic and individual accounts produce majority of original tweets (34% and 55%, respectively) and posted significantly larger proportion of retweets (41.5 and 81%). Bot accounts, on the other hand, had posted significantly more original tweets (20%) than retweets (2%). Natural communication sentences prevailed in retweets and tweets (63% vs. 45%) as well as images (41.5% vs. 23%), both showing a significant rise in usage overtime. Overall, the findings suggest that the attention scientific articles receive on Twitter may have more to do with human interaction and inclusion of visual content in the tweets, than the significance of or genuine interest towards the research results.

Based on a large-scale computational analysis of scholarly articles, this study investigates the dynamics of interdisciplinary research in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereby, the study also analyses the reorientation effects away from other topics that receive less attention due to the high focus on the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aims to examine what can be learned from the (failing) interdisciplinarity of coronavirus research and its displacing effects for managing potential similar crises at the scientific level. To explore our research questions, we run several analyses by using the COVID-19++ dataset, which contains scholarly publications, preprints from the field of life sciences, and their referenced literature including publications from a broad scientific spectrum. Our results show the high impact and topic-wise adoption of research related to the COVID-19 crisis. Based on the similarity analysis of scientific topics, which is grounded on the concept embedding learning in the graph-structured bibliographic data, we measured the degree of interdisciplinarity of COVID-19 research in 2020. Our findings reveal a low degree of research interdisciplinarity. The publications’ reference analysis indicates the major role of clinical medicine, but also the growing importance of psychiatry and social sciences in COVID-19 research. A social network analysis shows that the authors’ high degree of centrality significantly increases her or his degree of interdisciplinarity.

This paper proposes an open-science-aligned approach that uses library metadata to evaluate individual books. I analyse the suitability of this approach for individual book assessment and visibility of national books in the library catalogues, to support responsible research evaluation. WorldCat metadata offers valuable insights for the evaluation of books, but the completeness of this metadata varies. Author, contributor, and publisher data require cleaning, while languages, years, formats, editions, and translations provide rich information. Open access data is currently lacking, and national book visibility in WorldCat depends heavily on contributions from national libraries and metadata suppliers. Encouraging national library engagement could boost the global visibility of domestic research. Further exploration is needed regarding long-term preservation, metadata ownership, and technical integration for effective standardisation and improved book evaluation.

During last several decades, various indicators and proxies to measure research output and their impact for different units have been proposed. These measurements may be targeted at individuals, institutions, journals, countries etc. Institutional level assessment is one such area that has always been and will remain a key challenge to a multitude of stakeholders. Various international rankings as well as different bibliometric indicators have been explored in the context of institutional assessments, though each of them has certain criticisms associated. Most of the existing indicators, including h-type indicators, mainly focus on research output and/ or citations to the research output. They do not reveal the expertise of institutions in different subject areas, which is crucial to know the research portfolio of an institution. Recently, a set of expertise measures such as x and x(g) indices were introduced to determine the expertise of institutions with respect to a specific discipline/field considering strengths in different finer level thematic areas of that discipline/field. In this work, an adaptation of the x-index, namely the (x_{d})-index is proposed to determine the overall scholarly expertise of an institution considering its publication pattern and strength in different coarse thematic areas. This indicator helps to identify the core expertise areas and the diversity of the research portfolio of the institution. Further, two variants of the indicator, namely field normalized indicator or (x_{d}) (FN)-index and fractional indicator (x_{d} left( f right))-index are also introduced to address the effect of field bias and collaborations on the computation of the expertise diversity. The framework can determine the most suitable version of the indicator to use for research portfolio management with the help of correlation analysis. These indicators and the associated framework are demonstrated on a dataset of 136 institutions. Upon rank correlation analysis, no significant difference is noticed between (x_{d}) and its variants computed using different publication counting, in this particular dataset, making (x_{d}) the most suitable indicator in this case. The possibilities offered by the framework for effective management of the research portfolio of an institution by expanding its diversity and its ability to aid national level policymakers for the effective management of scholarly ecosystem of the country is discussed.

In this study, the scientific production of universities across the world is analysed, disaggregating it by research fields and specialities. A particular focus is on the strategic analysis of Spanish universities within the international panorama. Data collected from the widely known and frequently consulted Academic Ranking of World Universities are used to which clustering techniques are applied. To do so, indicators are defined that are related with university presence (in both absolute and relative terms), university performance within a specialist field with respect to the rest of the world, and within each speciality with respect to the general level of the country. With all that information, strategic clusters of specialities were identified, and an analysis by scientific field at an aggregated level was completed. Among the results, it is worth highlighting the greater international presence of Spanish universities within the specialist clusters of Food Science & Technology and Hospitality & Tourism Management, and their performance below the general average with respect to all universities, except for Remote Sensing, Veterinary Science, and Civil Engineering. The research fields within which the Spanish universities showed greater competitiveness are Life Sciences and Natural Science, whereas the fields of Engineering and Social Science had the lowest presence and level of international competitiveness. A series of recommendations for improvement are advanced concerning measurement of resources, communicative activities, and the orientation of lines of action within some specialities.