Journal of Informetrics最新文献

New indicators for capturing the balances and roles of nations in the global knowledge exchange system 掌握各国在全球知识交流体系中的平衡和作用的新指标

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101790

Zhe Cao , Lin Zhang , Henrik Karlstrøm , Ronald Rousseau , Gunnar Sivertsen

The assessments of national involvement in the global system for exchange of knowledge traditionally focus on each country’s active contribution in the form of scientific publications and their citation impact. The use of knowledge in the same exchange is neglected. In this study, we develop a set of indicators to measure the balance of knowledge flows by recognizing citations as bidirectional relations between citing and cited publications, and thus between countries. The indicators distinguish between local and global knowledge flows, combine analyses with and without country self-citations, and incorporate a double-fractionalized method to cover the increasing phenomenon of international co-authorships. The indicators are both dependent and independent of size, thereby allowing for a direct country comparison of the balances and roles in knowledge exchange while at the same time identifying major actors. The indicators are presented with a thorough examination of their mathematical properties and their relations with each other. Data from Web of Science spanning 2000–2023 are used to exemplify how the balance indicators may identify the different roles of nations in the global exchange of knowledge. These roles may differ among areas of research and change over time. A general trend towards globalization and increasing interdependence is detected.

对国家参与全球知识交流系统的评估传统上侧重于每个国家以科学出版物的形式作出的积极贡献及其引用影响。在同样的交流中，知识的运用被忽视了。在本研究中，我们通过认识到引用是被引用和被引用出版物之间的双向关系，从而在国家之间建立了一套衡量知识流动平衡的指标。这些指标区分了当地和全球知识流动，结合了有和没有国家自我引用的分析，并采用了双重分类方法来涵盖日益增加的国际共同作者现象。这些指标既依赖规模又独立于规模，因此可以直接比较各国在知识交流方面的平衡和作用，同时确定主要行为者。对指标的数学性质及其相互关系进行了彻底的检查。本文使用Web of Science 2000-2023年间的数据来举例说明平衡指标如何识别各国在全球知识交流中的不同角色。这些角色可能在不同的研究领域有所不同，并随着时间的推移而变化。发现了全球化和日益相互依存的总趋势。

{"title":"New indicators for capturing the balances and roles of nations in the global knowledge exchange system","authors":"Zhe Cao , Lin Zhang , Henrik Karlstrøm , Ronald Rousseau , Gunnar Sivertsen","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101790","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101790","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The assessments of national involvement in the global system for exchange of knowledge traditionally focus on each country’s active contribution in the form of scientific publications and their citation impact. The use of knowledge in the same exchange is neglected. In this study, we develop a set of indicators to measure the balance of knowledge flows by recognizing citations as bidirectional relations between citing and cited publications, and thus between countries. The indicators distinguish between local and global knowledge flows, combine analyses with and without country self-citations, and incorporate a double-fractionalized method to cover the increasing phenomenon of international co-authorships. The indicators are both dependent and independent of size, thereby allowing for a direct country comparison of the balances and roles in knowledge exchange while at the same time identifying major actors. The indicators are presented with a thorough examination of their mathematical properties and their relations with each other. Data from Web of Science spanning 2000–2023 are used to exemplify how the balance indicators may identify the different roles of nations in the global exchange of knowledge. These roles may differ among areas of research and change over time. A general trend towards globalization and increasing interdependence is detected.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 2","pages":"Article 101790"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147387576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The impact of mentorship on the citation-based performance of graduate dissertation: A social capital perspective 导师对研究生论文引用绩效的影响：一个社会资本的视角

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101781

Li Zhai , Xiangbin Yan

The growing global emphasis on research excellence has heightened academic attention to effective research performance management. Scientific collaboration is a crucial driver for the formation of high-impact research. However, its mechanism of action remains incompletely understood, particularly with respect to the effect of the collaboration among supervisors on the academic impact of dissertations in the context of co-supervision of graduate students. Based on the three-dimensional framework theory of social capital, this paper develops a measurement indicator system for team social capital within dissertations. Using a sample of 16,567 master's and doctoral dissertations in the field of statistics from China during 2000 to 2020, it empirically examines the mechanisms through which social capital influences citation-based performance in the context of co-supervision. The results indicate that the structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions of social capital all significantly affect citation counts. Specifically, cognitive diversity exhibits a positive effect, the strength of co-supervision relationships shows a negative effect, and structural capital demonstrates a U-shaped relationship. Furthermore, the difference in supervisors' seniority significantly moderates the relationship between structural capital and citation-based performance, whereas the moderating effects of supervisor team size and cognitive difference are not supported. This study offers empirical insights for optimizing co-supervision practices, enhancing the citation impact of dissertations, and improving graduate students training.

全球对卓越研究的日益重视，提高了学术界对有效研究绩效管理的关注。科学合作是形成高影响力研究的关键驱动力。然而，其作用机制仍不完全清楚，特别是在研究生共同指导的背景下，导师之间的合作对论文学术影响的影响。基于社会资本的三维框架理论，构建了团队社会资本在论文中的测量指标体系。本文以2000 - 2020年中国统计领域16567篇硕士和博士论文为样本，实证考察了共同监督下社会资本对引文绩效的影响机制。结果表明，社会资本的结构维度、认知维度和关系维度均显著影响引文数量。其中，认知多样性呈正向影响，共同监督关系强度呈负向影响，结构资本呈u型关系。此外，监事资历的差异显著调节了结构资本与引文绩效的关系，而监事团队规模和认知差异的调节作用不被支持。本研究为优化合作指导实践、提高论文被引影响、提高研究生培养水平提供了实证见解。

{"title":"The impact of mentorship on the citation-based performance of graduate dissertation: A social capital perspective","authors":"Li Zhai , Xiangbin Yan","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101781","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101781","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The growing global emphasis on research excellence has heightened academic attention to effective research performance management. Scientific collaboration is a crucial driver for the formation of high-impact research. However, its mechanism of action remains incompletely understood, particularly with respect to the effect of the collaboration among supervisors on the academic impact of dissertations in the context of co-supervision of graduate students. Based on the three-dimensional framework theory of social capital, this paper develops a measurement indicator system for team social capital within dissertations. Using a sample of 16,567 master's and doctoral dissertations in the field of statistics from China during 2000 to 2020, it empirically examines the mechanisms through which social capital influences citation-based performance in the context of co-supervision. The results indicate that the structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions of social capital all significantly affect citation counts. Specifically, cognitive diversity exhibits a positive effect, the strength of co-supervision relationships shows a negative effect, and structural capital demonstrates a U-shaped relationship. Furthermore, the difference in supervisors' seniority significantly moderates the relationship between structural capital and citation-based performance, whereas the moderating effects of supervisor team size and cognitive difference are not supported. This study offers empirical insights for optimizing co-supervision practices, enhancing the citation impact of dissertations, and improving graduate students training.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 2","pages":"Article 101781"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147387572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Leveraging GANs for citation intent classification and its impact on citation network analysis 利用gan进行引文意图分类及其对引文网络分析的影响

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-27 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101791

Davi A. Bezerra , Filipi N. Silva , Diego R. Amancio

Citations play a fundamental role in the scientific ecosystem, serving as a foundation for tracking the flow of knowledge, acknowledging prior work, and assessing scholarly influence. In scientometrics, they are also central to the construction of quantitative indicators. Not all citations, however, serve the same function: some provide background, others introduce methods, or compare results. Therefore, understanding citation intent allows for a more nuanced interpretation of scientific impact. In this paper, we adopted a GAN-based method to classify citation intents. Our results revealed that the proposed method achieves competitive classification performance, closely matching state-of-the-art results with substantially fewer parameters. This demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of leveraging GAN architectures combined with contextual embeddings in an intent classification task. We also investigated whether filtering citation intents affects the centrality of papers in citation networks. Analyzing the network constructed from the unArXiv dataset, we found that paper rankings can be significantly influenced by citation intent. All four centrality metrics examined – degree, PageRank, closeness, and betweenness – were sensitive to the filtering of citation types. The betweenness centrality displayed the greatest sensitivity, showing substantial changes in ranking when specific citation intents were removed.

引文在科学生态系统中扮演着重要的角色，是追踪知识流动、承认前人工作和评估学术影响的基础。在科学计量学中，它们也是构建定量指标的核心。然而，并非所有的引用都具有相同的功能：有些提供背景，有些介绍方法，或者比较结果。因此，理解引用意图可以更细致地解释科学影响。在本文中，我们采用了一种基于gan的方法对引文意图进行分类。我们的研究结果表明，所提出的方法实现了有竞争力的分类性能，用更少的参数与最先进的结果紧密匹配。这证明了在意图分类任务中利用GAN架构与上下文嵌入相结合的有效性和效率。我们还研究了过滤引文意图是否会影响论文在引文网络中的中心性。通过分析unArXiv数据集构建的网络，我们发现论文排名会受到被引意图的显著影响。所有四个中心性指标——度、PageRank、接近度和中间度——对引用类型的过滤都很敏感。中间度中心性表现出最大的敏感性，当特定的引用意图被删除时，排名发生了实质性的变化。

{"title":"Leveraging GANs for citation intent classification and its impact on citation network analysis","authors":"Davi A. Bezerra , Filipi N. Silva , Diego R. Amancio","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101791","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101791","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Citations play a fundamental role in the scientific ecosystem, serving as a foundation for tracking the flow of knowledge, acknowledging prior work, and assessing scholarly influence. In scientometrics, they are also central to the construction of quantitative indicators. Not all citations, however, serve the same function: some provide background, others introduce methods, or compare results. Therefore, understanding citation intent allows for a more nuanced interpretation of scientific impact. In this paper, we adopted a GAN-based method to classify citation intents. Our results revealed that the proposed method achieves competitive classification performance, closely matching state-of-the-art results with substantially fewer parameters. This demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of leveraging GAN architectures combined with contextual embeddings in an intent classification task. We also investigated whether filtering citation intents affects the centrality of papers in citation networks. Analyzing the network constructed from the unArXiv dataset, we found that paper rankings can be significantly influenced by citation intent. All four centrality metrics examined – degree, PageRank, closeness, and betweenness – were sensitive to the filtering of citation types. The betweenness centrality displayed the greatest sensitivity, showing substantial changes in ranking when specific citation intents were removed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 2","pages":"Article 101791"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147387574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A CRediT‐based quantitative study of co‐corresponding authorship: Collaboration patterns and contribution distribution 基于信用的合著作者数量研究：合作模式和贡献分布

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-28 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101796

Tian-Yuan Huang , Jie Xue

As scientific research becomes increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary, co-corresponding authorship (CCA) has gained prominence as a mechanism for sharing leadership among multiple senior contributors. Drawing on a large-scale dataset of over 94,000 publications from PLOS journals (2018–2022) and structured author contribution statements under the CRediT taxonomy, this study investigates the prevalence and impact of CCA, its influence on labor division within research teams, its role in fostering collaboration across different levels, and the relationship between contribution magnitude and byline order among multiple co-corresponding authors. Our results show that CCA is more common in fields characterized by intensive teamwork, and that papers with multiple co-corresponding authors exhibit significantly higher citation impact than those with a single corresponding author. CCA is also associated with broader collaboration networks, involving more authors, institutions, and regions. Internally, it facilitates more refined task allocation, allowing corresponding authors to specialize in distinct roles. Furthermore, we find that the contribution of co-corresponding authors increases with later byline positions, suggesting deviations from equal-contribution assumptions and carrying implications for authorship evaluation practices. This study highlights the need for revised authorship policies that reflect the complexity of modern scientific collaboration, and call for transparent recognition of individual contributions.

随着科学研究变得越来越协作和跨学科，共同通信作者（CCA）作为一种在多个高级贡献者之间共享领导的机制已经得到了突出的地位。本研究利用来自PLOS期刊（2018-2022）的94,000多篇出版物的大规模数据集和基于信用分类法的结构化作者贡献声明，研究了CCA的流行程度和影响，对研究团队内部分工的影响，在促进不同层次合作中的作用，以及多名共同通讯作者之间的贡献大小和署名顺序之间的关系。我们的研究结果表明，CCA在团队合作密集的领域更为常见，并且有多个共同通讯作者的论文比只有一个通讯作者的论文表现出更高的引用影响力。CCA还与更广泛的合作网络相关联，涉及更多的作者、机构和地区。在内部，它促进了更精细的任务分配，允许相应的作者专注于不同的角色。此外，我们发现共同通讯作者的贡献随着署名位置的增加而增加，这表明了对等贡献假设的偏离，并对作者身份评估实践产生了影响。这项研究强调了修改作者身份政策的必要性，以反映现代科学合作的复杂性，并呼吁对个人贡献的透明认可。

{"title":"A CRediT‐based quantitative study of co‐corresponding authorship: Collaboration patterns and contribution distribution","authors":"Tian-Yuan Huang , Jie Xue","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101796","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101796","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As scientific research becomes increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary, co-corresponding authorship (CCA) has gained prominence as a mechanism for sharing leadership among multiple senior contributors. Drawing on a large-scale dataset of over 94,000 publications from <em>PLOS</em> journals (2018–2022) and structured author contribution statements under the CRediT taxonomy, this study investigates the prevalence and impact of CCA, its influence on labor division within research teams, its role in fostering collaboration across different levels, and the relationship between contribution magnitude and byline order among multiple co-corresponding authors. Our results show that CCA is more common in fields characterized by intensive teamwork, and that papers with multiple co-corresponding authors exhibit significantly higher citation impact than those with a single corresponding author. CCA is also associated with broader collaboration networks, involving more authors, institutions, and regions. Internally, it facilitates more refined task allocation, allowing corresponding authors to specialize in distinct roles. Furthermore, we find that the contribution of co-corresponding authors increases with later byline positions, suggesting deviations from equal-contribution assumptions and carrying implications for authorship evaluation practices. This study highlights the need for revised authorship policies that reflect the complexity of modern scientific collaboration, and call for transparent recognition of individual contributions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 2","pages":"Article 101796"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147387575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Empowering the next generation: How team hierarchy relates to junior researcher retention 授权下一代：团队层级如何与初级研究人员的保留相关

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-26 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101789

Huimin Xu , Yi Bu , Meijun Liu , Ying Ding

Early-career scientists are essential to driving scientific progress, yet nearly half leave academia after their first publication. While factors like team size, gender, mentorship, and institutional prestige are known to affect retention, the influence of team hierarchy on junior researchers’ career paths remains underexplored. This study examines the relationship between hierarchical structures within research teams and the retention of junior scientists, using Microsoft Academic Graph data from over 30 million publications across 19 disciplines. In this study, a team is defined as all authors of a publication with two or more authors. We define retention as a combination of active paper publishing (continue publishing), academic independence (continue publishing without depending on the same senior authors), and career progression (change institution). Team hierarchy is measured through the Gini coefficient of publication career age for all team members. We find that junior researchers in flatter teams (≤5 years of publication experience) tend to have higher retention, particularly in the social sciences and in smaller teams. These findings remain robust when accounting for diverse individual- and team-based variables and are consistent across different disciplines. These findings remain robust when accounting for diverse individual- and team-based variables and are consistent across different disciplines. However, this pattern is largely driven by selection: more capable or committed junior researchers are more likely to work in flatter teams. These findings provide insights on how team composition relates to early-career retention and can inform approaches to mentoring and collaboration that support sustainable academic careers.

职业生涯早期的科学家对推动科学进步至关重要，但近一半的科学家在首次发表论文后就离开了学术界。虽然已知团队规模、性别、导师和机构声望等因素会影响留任，但团队层级对初级研究人员职业道路的影响仍未得到充分研究。本研究利用微软学术图表数据，从19个学科的3000多万份出版物中获取数据，考察了研究团队内部的层级结构与年轻科学家的留任之间的关系。在本研究中，团队被定义为有两个或两个以上作者的出版物的所有作者。我们将保留定义为积极的论文发表（继续发表），学术独立性（在不依赖同一资深作者的情况下继续发表）和职业发展（更换机构）的组合。团队层级通过所有团队成员出版职业年龄的基尼系数来衡量。我们发现，在较平坦的团队（≤5年的出版经验）中，初级研究人员往往有更高的留存率，特别是在社会科学和较小的团队中。当考虑到不同的个人和团队变量时，这些发现仍然是强有力的，并且在不同的学科中是一致的。当考虑到不同的个人和团队变量时，这些发现仍然是强有力的，并且在不同的学科中是一致的。然而，这种模式在很大程度上是由选择驱动的：更有能力或更忠诚的初级研究人员更有可能在更平坦的团队中工作。这些发现提供了关于团队组成与早期职业保留之间关系的见解，并可以为指导和协作方法提供信息，以支持可持续的学术生涯。

{"title":"Empowering the next generation: How team hierarchy relates to junior researcher retention","authors":"Huimin Xu , Yi Bu , Meijun Liu , Ying Ding","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101789","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101789","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Early-career scientists are essential to driving scientific progress, yet nearly half leave academia after their first publication. While factors like team size, gender, mentorship, and institutional prestige are known to affect retention, the influence of team hierarchy on junior researchers’ career paths remains underexplored. This study examines the relationship between hierarchical structures within research teams and the retention of junior scientists, using Microsoft Academic Graph data from over 30 million publications across 19 disciplines. In this study, a team is defined as all authors of a publication with two or more authors. We define retention as a combination of active paper publishing (continue publishing), academic independence (continue publishing without depending on the same senior authors), and career progression (change institution). Team hierarchy is measured through the Gini coefficient of publication career age for all team members. We find that junior researchers in flatter teams (≤5 years of publication experience) tend to have higher retention, particularly in the social sciences and in smaller teams. These findings remain robust when accounting for diverse individual- and team-based variables and are consistent across different disciplines. These findings remain robust when accounting for diverse individual- and team-based variables and are consistent across different disciplines. However, this pattern is largely driven by selection: more capable or committed junior researchers are more likely to work in flatter teams<strong>.</strong> These findings provide insights on how team composition relates to early-career retention and can inform approaches to mentoring and collaboration that support sustainable academic careers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 2","pages":"Article 101789"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147387573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The effect of gender diversity on scientific team impact: A team roles perspective 性别多样性对科学团队影响的影响：团队角色视角

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101766

Yi Zhao , Yongjun Zhu , Donghun Kim , Yuzhuo Wang , Heng Zhang , Chao Lu , Chengzhi Zhang

The influence of gender diversity on the success of scientific teams is of great interest to academia. However, prior findings remain inconsistent, and most studies operationalize diversity in aggregate terms, overlooking internal role differentiation. This limitation obscures a more nuanced understanding of how gender diversity shapes team impact. In particular, the effect of gender diversity across different team roles remains poorly understood. To this end, we define a scientific team as all coauthors of a paper and measure team impact through five-year citation counts. Using author contribution statements, we classified members into leadership and support roles. Drawing on more than 130,000 papers from PLOS journals, most of which are in biomedical-related disciplines, we employed multivariable regression to examine the association between gender diversity in these roles and team impact. Furthermore, we apply a threshold regression model to investigate how team size moderates this relationship. The results show that (1) the relationship between gender diversity and team impact follows an inverted U-shape for both leadership and support groups; (2) teams with an all-female leadership group and an all-male support group achieve higher impact than other team types. Interestingly, (3) the effect of leadership-group gender diversity is significantly negative for small teams but becomes positive and statistically insignificant in large teams. In contrast, the estimates for support-group gender diversity remain significant and positive, regardless of team size.

性别多样性对科学团队成功的影响是学术界非常感兴趣的问题。然而，先前的研究结果仍然不一致，大多数研究都是在总体上操作多样性，忽视了内部角色分化。这种限制模糊了对性别多样性如何影响团队影响的更细致的理解。特别是，性别多样性对不同团队角色的影响仍然知之甚少。为此，我们将一个科学团队定义为一篇论文的所有共同作者，并通过5年的引用次数来衡量团队的影响力。使用作者贡献声明，我们将成员分为领导和支持角色。我们利用来自PLOS期刊的13万多篇论文，其中大部分是生物医学相关学科的论文，采用多变量回归来检验这些角色中的性别多样性与团队影响之间的关系。此外，我们应用阈值回归模型来研究团队规模如何调节这种关系。结果表明：(1)性别多样性与团队影响的关系在领导团队和支持团队中均呈倒u型关系；(2)全女性领导团队和全男性支持团队的影响力高于其他团队类型。有趣的是，(3)领导群体性别多样性对小团队的影响显著为负，对大团队的影响显著为正，且不显著。相比之下，无论团队规模大小，对支持小组性别多样性的估计仍然是显著和积极的。

{"title":"The effect of gender diversity on scientific team impact: A team roles perspective","authors":"Yi Zhao , Yongjun Zhu , Donghun Kim , Yuzhuo Wang , Heng Zhang , Chao Lu , Chengzhi Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101766","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101766","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The influence of gender diversity on the success of scientific teams is of great interest to academia. However, prior findings remain inconsistent, and most studies operationalize diversity in aggregate terms, overlooking internal role differentiation. This limitation obscures a more nuanced understanding of how gender diversity shapes team impact. In particular, the effect of gender diversity across different team roles remains poorly understood. To this end, we define a scientific team as all coauthors of a paper and measure team impact through five-year citation counts. Using author contribution statements, we classified members into leadership and support roles. Drawing on more than 130,000 papers from PLOS journals, most of which are in biomedical-related disciplines, we employed multivariable regression to examine the association between gender diversity in these roles and team impact. Furthermore, we apply a threshold regression model to investigate how team size moderates this relationship. The results show that (1) the relationship between gender diversity and team impact follows an inverted U-shape for both leadership and support groups; (2) teams with an all-female leadership group and an all-male support group achieve higher impact than other team types. Interestingly, (3) the effect of leadership-group gender diversity is significantly negative for small teams but becomes positive and statistically insignificant in large teams. In contrast, the estimates for support-group gender diversity remain significant and positive, regardless of team size.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101766"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145939136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comments on the ideological and philosophical foundations of bibliometrics by Gorraiz, J. 评Gorraiz， J.文献计量学的思想哲学基础

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-26 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101764

F. Pacheco-Torgal

Juan Gorraiz’s (2025) paper presents a metaphorical and conceptually rich examination of the ideological and philosophical foundations of bibliometrics, emphasizing their symbolic, heuristic, and interpretive roles in scholarly communication. While aligned with responsible research assessment initiatives such as DORA and the Leiden Manifesto, the paper lacks practical guidance, operational frameworks, and empirical evidence. Studies show that well-calibrated citation metrics are cost-efficient, predictive, and can complement peer review. Portuguese research assessments reveal that experts rely implicitly on metrics even when formally prohibited, highlighting tensions between normative principles and practice. Hybrid evaluation models that integrate bibliometrics with expert judgment better capture the multidimensional nature of scientific excellence, balancing efficiency, transparency, and ethical responsibility. Gorraiz’s work stimulates reflection but requires operational grounding to guide policy effectively.

Juan Gorraiz（2025）的论文对文献计量学的思想和哲学基础进行了隐喻性和概念性的丰富考察，强调了它们在学术交流中的象征、启发式和解释性作用。虽然与DORA和Leiden宣言等负责任的研究评估计划保持一致，但该论文缺乏实践指导、操作框架和经验证据。研究表明，校准良好的引文指标具有成本效益、预测性，可以补充同行评议。葡萄牙的研究评估显示，即使在正式禁止的情况下，专家们也会暗中依赖指标，这突显了规范原则与实践之间的紧张关系。结合文献计量学和专家判断的混合评估模型更好地捕捉了科学卓越的多维性，平衡了效率、透明度和伦理责任。Gorraiz的工作激发了人们的思考，但需要操作基础来有效地指导政策。

引用次数: 0

Cover effects on social attention: Evidence from Cell Biology, Multidisciplinary Chemistry, and Applied Physics 覆盖效应对社会注意力的影响：来自细胞生物学、多学科化学和应用物理学的证据

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-22 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101772

Yezhu Wang , Yundong Xie , Qing Ye , Lu Guo , Rongting Zhou

Social media has transformed scholarly communication by extending research visibility beyond citations to broader public engagement. This study investigates whether cover papers attract higher social attention, as measured by altmetrics. Drawing on 1.46 million papers (2012–2024) from the disciplines of Cell Biology, Multidisciplinary Chemistry, and Applied Physics, we apply coarsened exact matching and regression models to assess the effect of cover status on altmetric indicators. The results reveal that cover papers consistently receive higher Altmetric Attention Scores than comparable non-cover papers. This effect is stronger in high-impact and open access journals (particularly in Multidisciplinary Chemistry and Applied Physics), and in journals with embedded social media plugins. To better capture the immediate dissemination and public attention surrounding research, we propose the News and Social Media Attention Score (NSAS)—a composite metric aggregating mentions from news outlets, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. Results using the NSAS confirm the robustness of the main findings, and analysis of specific metrics indicates that Twitter is the primary source of increased attention. These findings provide valuable insights for journal editors, researchers, and policymakers seeking to enhance the societal visibility and impact of scientific research.

社交媒体通过将研究的可见性从引用扩展到更广泛的公众参与，改变了学术交流。这项研究调查了封面报纸是否吸引了更高的社会关注，正如altmetrics衡量的那样。利用细胞生物学、多学科化学和应用物理等学科的146万篇论文（2012-2024年），采用粗糙的精确匹配和回归模型评估覆盖状态对替代指标的影响。结果显示，封面论文的Altmetric注意力得分始终高于可比的非封面论文。这种效应在高影响力和开放获取期刊（特别是多学科化学和应用物理）以及嵌入社交媒体插件的期刊中更为明显。为了更好地捕捉研究的即时传播和公众关注，我们提出了新闻和社交媒体关注评分（NSAS）——一种综合指标，汇总了来自新闻媒体、博客、Twitter和Facebook的提及。使用NSAS的结果证实了主要发现的稳健性，对具体指标的分析表明，Twitter是增加关注的主要来源。这些发现为寻求提高科学研究的社会知名度和影响的期刊编辑、研究人员和政策制定者提供了有价值的见解。

{"title":"Cover effects on social attention: Evidence from Cell Biology, Multidisciplinary Chemistry, and Applied Physics","authors":"Yezhu Wang , Yundong Xie , Qing Ye , Lu Guo , Rongting Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101772","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101772","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Social media has transformed scholarly communication by extending research visibility beyond citations to broader public engagement. This study investigates whether cover papers attract higher social attention, as measured by altmetrics. Drawing on 1.46 million papers (2012–2024) from the disciplines of Cell Biology, Multidisciplinary Chemistry, and Applied Physics, we apply coarsened exact matching and regression models to assess the effect of cover status on altmetric indicators. The results reveal that cover papers consistently receive higher Altmetric Attention Scores than comparable non-cover papers. This effect is stronger in high-impact and open access journals (particularly in Multidisciplinary Chemistry and Applied Physics), and in journals with embedded social media plugins. To better capture the immediate dissemination and public attention surrounding research, we propose the News and Social Media Attention Score (NSAS)—a composite metric aggregating mentions from news outlets, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. Results using the NSAS confirm the robustness of the main findings, and analysis of specific metrics indicates that Twitter is the primary source of increased attention. These findings provide valuable insights for journal editors, researchers, and policymakers seeking to enhance the societal visibility and impact of scientific research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101772"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146037839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Networks of knowledge: hiring and collaboration networks in economics and physics departments 知识网络：经济学和物理系的雇佣和协作网络

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101777

Deok-Young Lee , Hyungsoo Woo , Jae-Suk Yang

Faculty hiring decisions critically influence knowledge circulation and institutional hierarchies in academia, yet how institutional prestige shapes these patterns across different disciplinary contexts remains poorly understood. This study investigates how institutional prestige drives faculty mobility and collaboration patterns in economics and physics departments, asking: How does prestige operate through different mechanisms across disciplinary contexts to influence hiring networks? Using network analysis and Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), we analyse faculty hiring and collaboration data from 7731 economics faculty across 193 institutions and 8763 physics faculty across 187 institutions in the top 200 QS-ranked universities. Our findings reveal significant disciplinary variations in prestige-based hiring mechanisms. Physics departments exhibit strong downward recruitment patterns driven by citation-based research metrics, with institutions systematically hiring from those with higher citation impact. Economics departments prioritise broader institutional and employer reputation in hiring decisions, reflecting the discipline’s emphasis on policy influence. Both disciplines show systematic faculty flows from central to peripheral institutions, though economics exhibits more pronounced hierarchical clustering in collaborative relationships than physics. These findings reveal that prestige operates through discipline-specific pathways, with important implications for understanding academic stratification.

教职员工的招聘决定对学术界的知识流通和制度等级制度产生了重大影响，然而，机构声望如何在不同学科背景下塑造这些模式，人们仍然知之甚少。本研究调查了机构声誉如何推动经济学和物理系的教师流动性和合作模式，并提出了以下问题：声誉如何通过跨学科背景下的不同机制影响招聘网络？利用网络分析和指数随机图模型（ERGMs），我们分析了qs排名前200的大学中193所机构的7731名经济学教师和187所机构的8763名物理教师的教师招聘和合作数据。我们的研究结果显示，基于声望的招聘机制存在显著的学科差异。物理系在基于引用的研究指标驱动下表现出强烈的向下招聘模式，各机构系统地从引用影响力较高的研究中招聘。经济学系在招聘决策时优先考虑更广泛的机构和雇主声誉，反映出该学科对政策影响的重视。这两个学科都显示出系统的师资从中心流向外围机构，尽管经济学在合作关系中表现出比物理学更明显的等级集群。这些发现揭示了声望通过学科特定途径发挥作用，这对理解学术分层具有重要意义。

{"title":"Networks of knowledge: hiring and collaboration networks in economics and physics departments","authors":"Deok-Young Lee , Hyungsoo Woo , Jae-Suk Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101777","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101777","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Faculty hiring decisions critically influence knowledge circulation and institutional hierarchies in academia, yet how institutional prestige shapes these patterns across different disciplinary contexts remains poorly understood. This study investigates how institutional prestige drives faculty mobility and collaboration patterns in economics and physics departments, asking: How does prestige operate through different mechanisms across disciplinary contexts to influence hiring networks? Using network analysis and Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), we analyse faculty hiring and collaboration data from 7731 economics faculty across 193 institutions and 8763 physics faculty across 187 institutions in the top 200 QS-ranked universities. Our findings reveal significant disciplinary variations in prestige-based hiring mechanisms. Physics departments exhibit strong downward recruitment patterns driven by citation-based research metrics, with institutions systematically hiring from those with higher citation impact. Economics departments prioritise broader institutional and employer reputation in hiring decisions, reflecting the discipline’s emphasis on policy influence. Both disciplines show systematic faculty flows from central to peripheral institutions, though economics exhibits more pronounced hierarchical clustering in collaborative relationships than physics. These findings reveal that prestige operates through discipline-specific pathways, with important implications for understanding academic stratification.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101777"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146188575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Estimating citation gaps by team size: Evidence from a cross-disciplinary analysis 根据团队规模估算引文缺口：来自跨学科分析的证据

IF 3.5 2区管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Journal of Informetrics

Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-11 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2026.101780

Hwiyoung P. Lee , Chelsea Zhang , Manuel S. González Canché , Yoosun Park , Ram A. Cnaan

Citations in academia, once a respectful nod to intellectual predecessors, have become central metrics of influence, achievement, and recognition, particularly within elite academic circles. As collaborative research becomes more prevalent, shifting authorship dynamics raise questions about how solo and small-team contributions are valued in a system increasingly oriented toward multi-author publications. Although prior work documents a positive association between team size and citation outcomes, few studies quantify the magnitude of this relationship with sufficient granularity or assess how it varies across disciplines. Using Scopus bibliometric data, we analyze 417,201 English-language articles published in 2014 across eight disciplines—four in the social sciences (economics, education, social work, sociology) and four in STEM (bioengineering, chemistry, computer science, physics)—controlling for detailed article- and journal-level characteristics, including journal fixed effects. We find that solo-authored papers consistently receive fewer citations and that larger teams are generally associated with higher citation counts. Across both social sciences and STEM, the citation gap between solo- and multi-authored articles typically ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 standard deviations per article. The shape of the relationship differs by field: in the social sciences, returns to coauthorship follow an inverted-U, whereas in STEM fields, citations tend to increase more steadily with team size. These field-specific estimates can inform the development and fine-tuning of evaluation metrics, helping build more robust assessment frameworks.

学术界的引用，曾经是对前人的尊敬，现在已经成为影响、成就和认可的核心指标，尤其是在精英学术界。随着合作研究变得越来越普遍，作者身份的变化引发了一个问题，即在一个越来越倾向于多作者出版物的系统中，个人和小团队的贡献如何得到重视。尽管先前的研究证明了团队规模与引文结果之间的正相关，但很少有研究以足够的粒度量化这种关系的大小，或评估它在不同学科之间的差异。使用Scopus文献计量数据，我们分析了2014年发表在8个学科中的417,201篇英文文章，其中4篇来自社会科学（经济学、教育学、社会工作、社会学），4篇来自STEM（生物工程、化学、计算机科学、物理学），控制了详细的文章和期刊水平特征，包括期刊固定效应。我们发现，个人撰写的论文被引用的次数一直较少，而规模较大的团队通常被引用的次数也较高。在社会科学和STEM领域，单作者和多作者论文之间的引用差距通常在每篇文章0.1到0.2个标准差之间。这种关系的形状因领域而异：在社会科学领域，合作回报遵循倒u型，而在STEM领域，引用率往往随着团队规模的增加而稳定增长。这些特定领域的估计可以为评估指标的开发和微调提供信息，帮助构建更健壮的评估框架。

{"title":"Estimating citation gaps by team size: Evidence from a cross-disciplinary analysis","authors":"Hwiyoung P. Lee , Chelsea Zhang , Manuel S. González Canché , Yoosun Park , Ram A. Cnaan","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101780","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2026.101780","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Citations in academia, once a respectful nod to intellectual predecessors, have become central metrics of influence, achievement, and recognition, particularly within elite academic circles. As collaborative research becomes more prevalent, shifting authorship dynamics raise questions about how solo and small-team contributions are valued in a system increasingly oriented toward multi-author publications. Although prior work documents a positive association between team size and citation outcomes, few studies quantify the magnitude of this relationship with sufficient granularity or assess how it varies across disciplines. Using Scopus bibliometric data, we analyze 417,201 English-language articles published in 2014 across eight disciplines—four in the social sciences (economics, education, social work, sociology) and four in STEM (bioengineering, chemistry, computer science, physics)—controlling for detailed article- and journal-level characteristics, including journal fixed effects. We find that solo-authored papers consistently receive fewer citations and that larger teams are generally associated with higher citation counts. Across both social sciences and STEM, the citation gap between solo- and multi-authored articles typically ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 standard deviations per article. The shape of the relationship differs by field: in the social sciences, returns to coauthorship follow an inverted-U, whereas in STEM fields, citations tend to increase more steadily with team size. These field-specific estimates can inform the development and fine-tuning of evaluation metrics, helping build more robust assessment frameworks.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101780"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146188576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0