Scientometrics最新文献

The assessment of scientific papers has long been a challenging issue. Although numerous studies have proposed quantitative indicators for assessing scientific papers, these studies overlooked the citation characteristics and the novelty of scientific knowledge implied in the textual information of papers. Therefore, this paper constructs an integrated indicator to evaluate scientific papers from both citation and semantic perspectives. Firstly, we propose weighted citations to measure the academic impact of scientific papers, which takes time heterogeneity and citation sentiment factors into consideration. Secondly, we capture the novelty of scientific papers from a semantic perspective, utilizing FastText to represent papers as text embeddings and applying the local outlier factor to calculate it. To validate the performance of our approach, the bullwhip effect domain and the ACL Anthology corpus are used for case studies. The results demonstrate that our indicator can effectively identify outstanding papers, thus providing a more comprehensive evaluation method for evaluating academic research.

Measuring disruptive innovation is a critical and still-developing topic. Although the disruption (D) Index has been widely utilized, it ignores the structural differences between i- and j-type nodes and suffers from inconsistencies, biases related to reference lists, and little comparability across different clusters. To address these possible biases, we propose the improved disruptive Index (ID Index), using a dataset of 114,202 patents from Chinese listed firms to test its validity. The results show that the ID Index (i) provides a more precise measurement of disruptiveness, resolves inconsistencies, reduces biases related to reference lists, and enhances comparability across clusters; (ii) demonstrates better convergent validity, correlating more closely with expert evaluations and more effectively identifying determinants such as knowledge search, recombination, and coordination; (iii) shows better validity in predicting stock market reactions, renewal durations, firms’ short- and long-term performance. Finally, we separate the ID index to independently measure the extent of disrupting and consolidating existing knowledge, and the convergent and predictive validity are demonstrated.

Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of national research systems is a top priority on the policy agendas of many countries. This study focuses on one aspect of the macroeconomic efficiency of research systems: whether research institutions specialize in scientific domains where they have a competitive advantage. To evaluate this, we developed a novel methodology. This methodology measures the scientific specialization indices of each organization in various research fields and assesses their relative research productivity. It then examines the correlation between these scores and between the resulting rankings. We applied this methodology to Italian universities. We found that a significant rank correlation between universities’ field specialization and their performance appears only in a few areas, and overall, the rankings are completely unrelated. Providing such data to research managers and policymakers can help inform strategies to enhance both micro- and macro-level efficiency.

In science and beyond, quantifications are omnipresent when it comes to justifying judgments. Which scientific author, hiring committee-member, or advisory board panelist has not been confronted with page-long publication manuals, assessment reports, evaluation guidelines, calling for p-values, citation rates, h-indices, or other numbers to judge about the ‘quality’ of findings, applicants, or institutions? Yet, many of those of us relying on and calling for quantifications may not understand what information numbers can convey, and what not. Focusing on the uninformed usage of bibliometrics as worrisome outgrowth of the increasing quantification of science, in this opinion essay we place the abuse of quantifications into historical contexts and trends. These are characterized by mistrust in human intuitive judgment, obsessions with control and accountability, and a bureaucratization of science. We call for bringing common sense back into scientific (bibliometric-based) judgment exercises. Despite all number crunching, many judgments—be it about empirical findings or research institutions—will neither be straightforward, clear, and unequivocal, nor can they be ‘validated’ and be ‘objectified’ by external standards. We conclude that assessments in science ought to be understood as and be made as judgments under uncertainty.

Decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, medical research in Russia remains poorly integrated into global science. In this study, we analyze the evolution of Russian medical research presence in international journals in recent years and examine the role of international collaboration in driving this change. We collected data from various sources, including Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline. While articles in international journals still constitute a smaller proportion of all Russian medical publications, their representation has significantly increased in recent years. Articles in high-impact journals now comprise approximately one-third of the total output. International cooperation emerges as a key factor behind top-level Russian medical publications, with international coauthorship playing a particularly significant role in high-impact journals, where 70% of Russian-authored publications include foreign co-authors. It is noteworthy that Russian authors are rarely designated as corresponding authors, suggesting a limited leadership role in project teams, especially, regarding research published in the most prestigious publications. Additionally, Russian scientists produce a notably low number of non-collaborative papers that later achieve high citation rates. Given that 81% of the most productive authors participate in international projects and the recent suspension of many ties and collaborations with foreign scientists, we expect a significant decline in Russia’s presence in core medical journals in the near future.

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.