首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Informetrics最新文献

英文 中文
Sequential citation counts prediction enhanced by dynamic contents 动态内容增强的顺序引文计数预测
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-13 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101645
Guoxiu He , Sichen Gu , Zhikai Xue , Yufeng Duan , Xiaomin Zhu
The assessment of the impact of scholarly publications has garnered significant attention among researchers, particularly in predicting the future sequence of citation counts. However, current studies predominantly regard academic papers as static entities, failing to acknowledge the dynamic nature of their fixed content, which can undergo shifts in focus over time. To this end, we implement dynamic representations of the content to mirror chronological changes within the given paper, facilitating the sequential prediction of citation counts. Specifically, we propose a novel deep neural network called DynamIc Content-aware TrAnsformer (DICTA). The proposed model incorporates a dynamic content module that leverages the power of a sequential module to effectively capture the evolving focus information within each paper. To account for dependencies between the historical and future citation counts, our model utilizes a transformer-based framework as the backbone. With the encoder-decoder structure, it can effectively handle previous citation accumulations and then predict future citation potentials. Extensive experiments conducted on two scientific datasets demonstrate that DICTA achieves impressive performance and outperforms all baseline approaches. Further analyses underscore the significance of the dynamic content module. The code is available: https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/DICTA
学术出版物的影响评估已经引起了研究人员的极大关注,特别是在预测未来引用计数顺序方面。然而,目前的研究主要将学术论文视为静态实体,未能认识到其固定内容的动态性质,这些内容可能随着时间的推移而发生焦点变化。为此,我们实现了内容的动态表示,以反映给定论文中时间顺序的变化,促进了引用计数的顺序预测。具体来说,我们提出了一种新的深度神经网络,称为动态内容感知转换器(DICTA)。所提出的模型包含一个动态内容模块,该模块利用顺序模块的功能有效地捕获每篇论文中不断发展的焦点信息。为了考虑历史和未来引文计数之间的依赖关系,我们的模型使用基于转换器的框架作为主干。采用编码器-解码器结构,可以有效地处理之前的引文积累,进而预测未来的引文潜力。在两个科学数据集上进行的大量实验表明,DICTA取得了令人印象深刻的性能,并且优于所有基线方法。进一步的分析强调了动态内容模块的重要性。代码是可用的:https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/DICTA
{"title":"Sequential citation counts prediction enhanced by dynamic contents","authors":"Guoxiu He ,&nbsp;Sichen Gu ,&nbsp;Zhikai Xue ,&nbsp;Yufeng Duan ,&nbsp;Xiaomin Zhu","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101645","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101645","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The assessment of the impact of scholarly publications has garnered significant attention among researchers, particularly in predicting the future sequence of citation counts. However, current studies predominantly regard academic papers as static entities, failing to acknowledge the dynamic nature of their fixed content, which can undergo shifts in focus over time. To this end, we implement dynamic representations of the content to mirror chronological changes within the given paper, facilitating the sequential prediction of citation counts. Specifically, we propose a novel deep neural network called <strong>D</strong>ynam<strong>I</strong>c <strong>C</strong>ontent-aware <strong>T</strong>r<strong>A</strong>nsformer (DICTA). The proposed model incorporates a dynamic content module that leverages the power of a sequential module to effectively capture the evolving focus information within each paper. To account for dependencies between the historical and future citation counts, our model utilizes a transformer-based framework as the backbone. With the encoder-decoder structure, it can effectively handle previous citation accumulations and then predict future citation potentials. Extensive experiments conducted on two scientific datasets demonstrate that DICTA achieves impressive performance and outperforms all baseline approaches. Further analyses underscore the significance of the dynamic content module. The code is available: <span><span>https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/DICTA</span><svg><path></path></svg></span></div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101645"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143395914","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
Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable psychology journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality 使用与质量相关的定量指标来区分可疑和非可疑心理学期刊上的文章
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101640
Dimity Stephen
This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative indicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences observed. The samples comprise 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16 journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier journals, all in the field of psychology. I contrast between samples the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size and internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and informed consent statements, and the presence of statistical errors. The results suggest that QJ articles do diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in psychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the effect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS journals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as under-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of errors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a comprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.
本研究调查了基于通常与质量相关的定量指标区分可疑期刊(QJs)和非QJs文章的可行性。随后,根据观察到的差异,我研究了qj中文章质量的推断。样本包括来自31个qj的1714篇文章,来自Web of Science (WoS)索引的16种期刊的1691篇文章,以及来自45种中级期刊的1900篇文章,均为心理学领域的文章。我对比了摘要和全文的长度、拼写错误的普遍程度、文本可读性、参考文献和引用的数量、作者团队的规模和国际性、伦理和知情同意声明的文档以及统计错误的存在。结果表明,QJ论文在质量的定量指标上确实偏离了心理学同行评议期刊设定的学科标准,这些指标往往反映同行评议和编辑过程的影响。然而,中级和WoS期刊也受到潜在质量问题的影响,例如对伦理和知情同意过程的报道不足,以及在解释统计数据时存在错误。要全面了解问答文章的质量,还需要进一步的研究。
{"title":"Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable psychology journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality","authors":"Dimity Stephen","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101640","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101640","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative indicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences observed. The samples comprise 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16 journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier journals, all in the field of psychology. I contrast between samples the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size and internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and informed consent statements, and the presence of statistical errors. The results suggest that QJ articles do diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed journals in psychology on quantitative indicators of quality that tend to reflect the effect of peer review and editorial processes. However, mid-tier and WoS journals are also affected by potential quality concerns, such as under-reporting of ethics and informed consent processes and the presence of errors in interpreting statistics. Further research is required to develop a comprehensive understanding of the quality of articles in QJs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101640"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143161176","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 large-scale temporal analysis of scientific production across disciplines and countries 对各学科和各国科学成果的大规模时间分析
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101665
Irene Finocchi , Andrea Ribichini , Marco Schaerf
In this article, we undertake a comprehensive large-scale analysis of the evolution of scientific communities across different disciplines and countries, spanning the period 1991-2020. Our analysis uses data obtained from Scopus and involves a total of 15,756,144 authors, 74,847,508 publications, and 1,501,206,153 citations. Besides the overall research production, we investigate multiple disciplines at various levels of aggregation (namely, scientific sectors as defined by the European Research Council and Scopus research categories). The geographical focus of our analysis takes into account first the worldwide scientific production and then addresses the 19 countries that are members of the G20 group (thus excluding the EU).
Research production generally increases with time (in terms of authors, publications, and citations), both on a global scale and specifically in each country. The growth is not only in terms of raw numbers but also relative to population and gross domestic product. The gender gap appears to be narrowing, albeit at a slower pace for STEM disciplines than others. Although the United States started out as the dominant country in all research fields, its primacy has eroded constantly with the passage of time. The fastest growing emerging country, China, recently managed to overtake the United States, at least in STEM disciplines.
在本文中,我们对1991-2020年期间不同学科和国家的科学界的演变进行了全面的大规模分析。我们的分析使用了来自Scopus的数据,共涉及15,756,144位作者,74,847,508篇出版物和1,501,206,153次引用。除了整体的研究成果,我们还调查了不同级别聚合的多个学科(即由欧洲研究理事会和Scopus研究类别定义的科学部门)。我们分析的地理重点首先考虑了全球的科学生产,然后讨论了20国集团成员的19个国家(因此不包括欧盟)。无论是在全球范围内,还是在每个国家,研究成果通常都会随着时间的推移而增加(就作者、出版物和引用而言)。这种增长不仅体现在原始数据方面,也体现在人口和国内生产总值(gdp)方面。性别差距似乎正在缩小,尽管STEM学科的速度比其他学科慢。虽然美国一开始是所有研究领域的主导国家,但随着时间的推移,它的主导地位不断受到侵蚀。增长最快的新兴国家中国最近成功地超过了美国,至少在STEM学科上是这样。
{"title":"A large-scale temporal analysis of scientific production across disciplines and countries","authors":"Irene Finocchi ,&nbsp;Andrea Ribichini ,&nbsp;Marco Schaerf","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101665","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101665","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this article, we undertake a comprehensive large-scale analysis of the evolution of scientific communities across different disciplines and countries, spanning the period 1991-2020. Our analysis uses data obtained from Scopus and involves a total of 15,756,144 authors, 74,847,508 publications, and 1,501,206,153 citations. Besides the overall research production, we investigate multiple disciplines at various levels of aggregation (namely, scientific sectors as defined by the European Research Council and Scopus research categories). The geographical focus of our analysis takes into account first the worldwide scientific production and then addresses the 19 countries that are members of the G20 group (thus excluding the EU).</div><div>Research production generally increases with time (in terms of authors, publications, and citations), both on a global scale and specifically in each country. The growth is not only in terms of raw numbers but also relative to population and gross domestic product. The gender gap appears to be narrowing, albeit at a slower pace for STEM disciplines than others. Although the United States started out as the dominant country in all research fields, its primacy has eroded constantly with the passage of time. The fastest growing emerging country, China, recently managed to overtake the United States, at least in STEM disciplines.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101665"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143844758","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
Understanding knowledge growth in scientific collaboration process: Evidence from NSFC projects 理解科学合作过程中的知识增长:来自国家自然科学基金项目的证据
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101664
Zhizhen Yao , Xiaoming Huang , Haochen Song , Guoyang Rong , Feicheng Ma
Scientific collaboration has become increasingly popular due to the growing complexity of scientific tasks, especially for scientific projects supported by large funding agencies such as The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). This study focuses on modeling the network incremental elements within the scientific collaboration process of NSFC project teams to understand the intricate knowledge growth mechanisms. Four elements representing incremental knowledge were defined: Isolation, Mixed Addition, Inclusion, and Internal Correlation. Additionally, four knowledge incremental patterns and different collaboration processes were identified. The study discovered the following key findings: (1) NSFC project teams prioritize knowledge absorption and integration during collaboration, predominantly advancing knowledge through Mixed Addition approaches. (2) Teams in Management Science and Engineering (MSE) discipline tend to expand through Mixed Addition approaches, while Economic Science (ES) teams prefer Inclusion and Internal Correlation approaches for team development compared to MSE teams. (3) The knowledge pioneering pattern negatively impacts productivity, while the emergence of knowledge expansion and enhancement patterns can lead to significant improvements. Overall, this study explores the team collaboration process from the knowledge growth perspective, which provides valuable insights for optimizing team management and improving collaboration efficiency.
随着科学任务的日益复杂,科学合作变得越来越流行,尤其是由国家自然科学基金委员会(NSFC)等大型资助机构支持的科学项目。本研究重点对国家自然科学基金项目团队科学协作过程中的网络增量要素进行建模,以了解错综复杂的知识增长机制。研究定义了代表知识增量的四个要素:隔离(Isolation)、混合添加(Mixed Addition)、包容(Inclusion)和内部关联(Internal Correlation)。此外,还确定了四种知识增量模式和不同的合作流程。研究发现了以下主要结论:(1)国家自然科学基金项目团队在合作过程中优先考虑知识吸收和整合,主要通过混合添加法推进知识。(2) 与管理科学与工程(MSE)团队相比,管理科学与工程学科(MSE)团队倾向于通过混合添加法拓展知识,而经济科学(ES)团队则更倾向于通过包容法和内部关联法拓展知识。(3) 知识开拓模式会对生产率产生负面影响,而知识扩展和增强模式的出现则会显著提高生产率。总之,本研究从知识增长的角度探讨了团队协作过程,为优化团队管理、提高协作效率提供了有价值的启示。
{"title":"Understanding knowledge growth in scientific collaboration process: Evidence from NSFC projects","authors":"Zhizhen Yao ,&nbsp;Xiaoming Huang ,&nbsp;Haochen Song ,&nbsp;Guoyang Rong ,&nbsp;Feicheng Ma","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101664","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101664","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scientific collaboration has become increasingly popular due to the growing complexity of scientific tasks, especially for scientific projects supported by large funding agencies such as The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). This study focuses on modeling the network incremental elements within the scientific collaboration process of NSFC project teams to understand the intricate knowledge growth mechanisms. Four elements representing incremental knowledge were defined: Isolation, Mixed Addition, Inclusion, and Internal Correlation. Additionally, four knowledge incremental patterns and different collaboration processes were identified. The study discovered the following key findings: (1) NSFC project teams prioritize knowledge absorption and integration during collaboration, predominantly advancing knowledge through Mixed Addition approaches. (2) Teams in Management Science and Engineering (MSE) discipline tend to expand through Mixed Addition approaches, while Economic Science (ES) teams prefer Inclusion and Internal Correlation approaches for team development compared to MSE teams. (3) The knowledge pioneering pattern negatively impacts productivity, while the emergence of knowledge expansion and enhancement patterns can lead to significant improvements. Overall, this study explores the team collaboration process from the knowledge growth perspective, which provides valuable insights for optimizing team management and improving collaboration efficiency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101664"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143844757","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 measure and the related models for characterizing the usage of academic journal 一种表征学术期刊使用特征的测度及相关模型
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101643
Lili Qiao , Star X. Zhao , Yutong Ji , Wu Li
Based on the underlying usage data given by the Web of Science, we establish a novel metric, termed Uh-index for multi-dimensional assessment of academic journals. Our research objectively examines the empirical and theoretical dimensions of the Uh-index, assessing its validity and potential use in scientific evaluation. For this study, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the Uh-index for 1,603 journals across the fields of physics, chemistry, economics, and management, and explored potential theory models. It reveals that the Uh-index, as a literature metric based on usage data, is more sensitive and discriminatory compared to the h-index, which relies solely on citation data. Additionally, the Uh-index and paper usage data were consistent with both the Glänzel–Schubert and the power-law model. It indicates that the Uh index, as an impact observatory index, aligns with the fundamental principles of scientific knowledge dissemination, thereby holding significant scientific value. It facilitates the quantification of dissemination characteristics of core articles in journals, laying the foundation for a novel approach to categorizing and evaluating journals based on both theoretical orientation and practical application. Finally, from a multidimensional research evaluation perspective, the Uh index offers a transitional dimension for observation, bridging the gap between academic citations and the broader dissemination of research through on social media.
基于Web of Science提供的底层使用数据,我们建立了一个新的度量标准,称为Uh-index,用于学术期刊的多维评估。我们的研究客观地考察了uh -指数的实证和理论维度,评估了它的有效性和在科学评估中的潜在用途。在本研究中,我们对物理、化学、经济和管理领域的1603种期刊的Uh-index进行了定量分析,并探索了潜在的理论模型。结果表明,Uh-index作为一种基于使用数据的文献指标,比h-index更加敏感和具有歧视性,h-index仅依赖于引文数据。此外,Uh-index和纸张使用数据与Glänzel-Schubert和幂律模型一致。这表明Uh指数作为一种撞击观测站指数,符合科学知识传播的基本原则,具有重要的科学价值。它有助于量化期刊核心文章的传播特征,为从理论导向和实际应用两方面对期刊进行分类和评价的新方法奠定基础。最后,从多维度的研究评价角度来看,Uh指数为观察提供了一个过渡维度,弥合了学术引用与研究通过社交媒体广泛传播之间的差距。
{"title":"A measure and the related models for characterizing the usage of academic journal","authors":"Lili Qiao ,&nbsp;Star X. Zhao ,&nbsp;Yutong Ji ,&nbsp;Wu Li","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101643","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101643","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Based on the underlying usage data given by the <em>Web of Science</em>, we establish a novel metric, termed U<sub>h</sub>-index for multi-dimensional assessment of academic journals. Our research objectively examines the empirical and theoretical dimensions of the U<sub>h</sub>-index, assessing its validity and potential use in scientific evaluation. For this study, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the U<sub>h</sub>-index for 1,603 journals across the fields of physics, chemistry, economics, and management, and explored potential theory models. It reveals that the U<sub>h</sub>-index, as a literature metric based on usage data, is more sensitive and discriminatory compared to the h-index, which relies solely on citation data. Additionally, the U<sub>h</sub>-index and paper usage data were consistent with both the Glänzel–Schubert and the power-law model. It indicates that the U<sub>h</sub> index, as an impact observatory index, aligns with the fundamental principles of scientific knowledge dissemination, thereby holding significant scientific value. It facilitates the quantification of dissemination characteristics of core articles in journals, laying the foundation for a novel approach to categorizing and evaluating journals based on both theoretical orientation and practical application. Finally, from a multidimensional research evaluation perspective, the U<sub>h</sub> index offers a transitional dimension for observation, bridging the gap between academic citations and the broader dissemination of research through on social media.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101643"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143161177","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
Acknowledging the new invisible colleague: Addressing the recognition of Open AI contributions in in scientific publishing 承认新的隐形同事:解决在科学出版中对开放人工智能贡献的承认问题
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101642
Juan Gorraiz
This study investigates the evolving role of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in academic research, with a focus on whether these tools are recognized as authors or co-authors, and how their contributions are cited or acknowledged across various fields. Using data from two major bibliometric sources, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus, the analysis reveals patterns of AI citation, co-authorship, and acknowledgments. While some attempts have been made to credit AI as a co-author, ethical guidelines—such as those from COPE—prevent this due to AI's inability to fulfill the intellectual requirements for authorship. Instead, AI is increasingly cited as a source or mentioned in acknowledgments to ensure transparency in its use. The study further addresses the ethical implications of AI's role in disrupting traditional notions of intellectual reciprocity and bibliometric analysis. The future role of AI in research will depend on how challenges related to access, equity, and intellectual contribution are managed, determining whether AI will democratize research or exacerbate existing inequalities.
本研究调查了人工智能工具(如ChatGPT)在学术研究中的演变作用,重点关注这些工具是否被认可为作者或共同作者,以及它们的贡献如何在各个领域被引用或认可。使用来自两个主要文献计量来源的数据,Web of Science Core Collection和Scopus,分析揭示了人工智能引文、共同作者和致谢的模式。虽然有些人试图将人工智能作为合著者,但伦理准则——比如来自cope的准则——阻止了这一点,因为人工智能无法满足作者的智力要求。相反,人工智能越来越多地被引用为来源或在致谢中提及,以确保其使用的透明度。该研究进一步探讨了人工智能在颠覆智力互惠和文献计量分析的传统观念方面所起的伦理影响。人工智能在研究中的未来作用将取决于如何管理与获取、公平和智力贡献相关的挑战,这决定了人工智能是会使研究民主化,还是会加剧现有的不平等。
{"title":"Acknowledging the new invisible colleague: Addressing the recognition of Open AI contributions in in scientific publishing","authors":"Juan Gorraiz","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101642","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101642","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates the evolving role of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in academic research, with a focus on whether these tools are recognized as authors or co-authors, and how their contributions are cited or acknowledged across various fields. Using data from two major bibliometric sources, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus, the analysis reveals patterns of AI citation, co-authorship, and acknowledgments. While some attempts have been made to credit AI as a co-author, ethical guidelines—such as those from COPE—prevent this due to AI's inability to fulfill the intellectual requirements for authorship. Instead, AI is increasingly cited as a source or mentioned in acknowledgments to ensure transparency in its use. The study further addresses the ethical implications of AI's role in disrupting traditional notions of intellectual reciprocity and bibliometric analysis. The future role of AI in research will depend on how challenges related to access, equity, and intellectual contribution are managed, determining whether AI will democratize research or exacerbate existing inequalities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101642"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143161105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Annotating scientific uncertainty: A comprehensive model using linguistic patterns and comparison with existing approaches 科学不确定性注释:一个使用语言模式的综合模型,并与现有方法进行比较
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101661
Panggih Kusuma Ningrum , Philipp Mayr , Nina Smirnova , Iana Atanassova
We present UnScientify,1 a system designed to detect scientific uncertainty in scholarly full text. The system utilizes a weakly supervised technique to identify verbally expressed uncertainty in scientific texts and their authorial references. The core methodology of UnScientify is based on a multi-faceted pipeline that integrates span pattern matching, complex sentence analysis and author reference checking. This approach streamlines the labeling and annotation processes essential for identifying scientific uncertainty, covering a variety of uncertainty expression types to support diverse applications including information retrieval, text mining and scientific document processing. The evaluation results highlight the trade-offs between modern large language models (LLMs) and the UnScientify system. UnScientify, which employs more traditional techniques, achieved superior performance in the scientific uncertainty detection task, attaining an accuracy score of 0.808. This finding underscores the continued relevance and efficiency of UnScientify's simple rule-based and pattern matching strategy for this specific application. The results demonstrate that in scenarios where resource efficiency, interpretability, and domain-specific adaptability are critical, traditional methods can still offer significant advantages.
我们提出了UnScientify,1一个系统,旨在检测学术全文中的科学不确定性。该系统利用弱监督技术来识别科学文本及其作者参考文献中口头表达的不确定性。UnScientify的核心方法论是基于一个多面管道,它集成了跨模式匹配、复杂句子分析和作者参考检查。该方法简化了识别科学不确定性所必需的标记和注释过程,涵盖了各种不确定性表达类型,以支持包括信息检索、文本挖掘和科学文档处理在内的各种应用。评估结果突出了现代大型语言模型(llm)和UnScientify系统之间的权衡。UnScientify采用更传统的技术,在科学不确定度检测任务中取得了更优异的成绩,准确率得分为0.808。这一发现强调了UnScientify简单的基于规则和模式匹配策略对该特定应用程序的持续相关性和效率。结果表明,在资源效率、可解释性和特定于领域的适应性至关重要的场景中,传统方法仍然可以提供显著的优势。
{"title":"Annotating scientific uncertainty: A comprehensive model using linguistic patterns and comparison with existing approaches","authors":"Panggih Kusuma Ningrum ,&nbsp;Philipp Mayr ,&nbsp;Nina Smirnova ,&nbsp;Iana Atanassova","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101661","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101661","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We present UnScientify,<span><span><sup>1</sup></span></span> a system designed to detect scientific uncertainty in scholarly full text. The system utilizes a weakly supervised technique to identify verbally expressed uncertainty in scientific texts and their authorial references. The core methodology of UnScientify is based on a multi-faceted pipeline that integrates span pattern matching, complex sentence analysis and author reference checking. This approach streamlines the labeling and annotation processes essential for identifying scientific uncertainty, covering a variety of uncertainty expression types to support diverse applications including information retrieval, text mining and scientific document processing. The evaluation results highlight the trade-offs between modern large language models (LLMs) and the UnScientify system. UnScientify, which employs more traditional techniques, achieved superior performance in the scientific uncertainty detection task, attaining an accuracy score of 0.808. This finding underscores the continued relevance and efficiency of UnScientify's simple rule-based and pattern matching strategy for this specific application. The results demonstrate that in scenarios where resource efficiency, interpretability, and domain-specific adaptability are critical, traditional methods can still offer significant advantages.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101661"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143759742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Hyperprolific authorship: Unveiling the extent of extreme publishing in the ‘publish or perish’ era 超级多产作者:揭示“出版或灭亡”时代极端出版的程度
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101658
Giovanni Abramo , Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo
The increasing pressure of the “publish or perish” academic culture has contributed to the rise of hyperprolific authors—researchers who produce an exceptionally high number of publications. This study investigates the global phenomenon of hyperprolific authorship by analyzing the bibliometric data of over two million scholars across various disciplines from 2017 to 2019. Using field-specific thresholds to identify hyperprolific authors, we explore their geographic and disciplinary distributions, the impact of their publications, and their collaboration patterns. The results reveal that hyperprolific authors are concentrated in fields such as Clinical Medicine, Biomedical Research, and Chemistry, and in countries with substantial research investments, including China, the United States, and Germany. Contrary to concerns about a trade-off between quantity and quality, hyperprolific authors tend to produce higher-impact publications on average compared to their peers. Their output is strongly associated with extensive co-authorship networks, reflecting the role of collaboration in enabling prolific publishing. The findings underscore the need for balanced evaluation metrics that prioritize both quality and integrity in academic publishing. This study contributes to understanding the drivers and consequences of hyperprolific behavior, offering insights for research policy and evaluation practices.
“要么发表,要么灭亡”的学术文化的压力越来越大,这促成了高产作者——发表了大量论文的研究人员——的崛起。本研究通过分析2017年至2019年200多万名不同学科学者的文献计量数据,探讨了全球超级高产作者现象。使用特定领域的阈值来识别高产作者,我们探索了他们的地理和学科分布,他们的出版物的影响,以及他们的合作模式。结果显示,高产作者集中在临床医学、生物医学研究和化学等领域,以及在研究投资大量的国家,包括中国、美国和德国。与对数量和质量之间权衡的担忧相反,与同行相比,高产作者通常会发表更有影响力的文章。它们的产出与广泛的合著网络密切相关,反映了协作在实现多产出版方面的作用。研究结果强调了在学术出版中需要平衡的评估指标,优先考虑质量和诚信。本研究有助于理解高产行为的驱动因素和后果,为研究政策和评估实践提供见解。
{"title":"Hyperprolific authorship: Unveiling the extent of extreme publishing in the ‘publish or perish’ era","authors":"Giovanni Abramo ,&nbsp;Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101658","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101658","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing pressure of the “publish or perish” academic culture has contributed to the rise of hyperprolific authors—researchers who produce an exceptionally high number of publications. This study investigates the global phenomenon of hyperprolific authorship by analyzing the bibliometric data of over two million scholars across various disciplines from 2017 to 2019. Using field-specific thresholds to identify hyperprolific authors, we explore their geographic and disciplinary distributions, the impact of their publications, and their collaboration patterns. The results reveal that hyperprolific authors are concentrated in fields such as Clinical Medicine, Biomedical Research, and Chemistry, and in countries with substantial research investments, including China, the United States, and Germany. Contrary to concerns about a trade-off between quantity and quality, hyperprolific authors tend to produce higher-impact publications on average compared to their peers. Their output is strongly associated with extensive co-authorship networks, reflecting the role of collaboration in enabling prolific publishing. The findings underscore the need for balanced evaluation metrics that prioritize both quality and integrity in academic publishing. This study contributes to understanding the drivers and consequences of hyperprolific behavior, offering insights for research policy and evaluation practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101658"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143738960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Researching deeply or broadly? The effects of scientists’ research strategies on disruptive performance over their careers 深入研究还是广泛研究?科学家的研究策略对其职业生涯中破坏性表现的影响
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-22 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101657
Weiyi Ao , Libo Sheng , Xuanmin Ruan , Dongqing Lyu , Jiang Li , Ying Cheng
The research strategies scientists use can affect the efficiency and direction of scientific discovery. This study focuses on the relationships between scientists’ knowledge breadth and depth strategies and disruptive performance as well as the role career age plays in these relationships. The data were from 651,831 publications authored by 12,278 biomedical scientists from the PubMed Knowledge Graph (PKG) dataset. The two main findings are as follows: (1) U-shaped correlations were found between scientists’ knowledge breadth, depth, and disruptive performance; and (2) career age influences the relationship between knowledge depth and disruptive performance, with different impacts across various stages of a scientist's career. The findings imply that future research must consider the key role scientists’ career age plays in the relationship between research strategies and scientific performance.
科学家使用的研究策略会影响科学发现的效率和方向。本研究主要探讨科学家知识广度与深度策略与破坏性绩效的关系,以及职业年龄在这些关系中的作用。数据来自PubMed Knowledge Graph (PKG)数据集中12278名生物医学科学家撰写的651831篇出版物。主要研究结果如下:(1)科学家的知识广度、深度与颠覆性绩效呈u型相关;(2)职业年龄影响知识深度与破坏性绩效的关系,在不同职业阶段的影响不同。研究结果表明,未来的研究必须考虑科学家的职业年龄在研究策略与科学绩效之间的关系中所起的关键作用。
{"title":"Researching deeply or broadly? The effects of scientists’ research strategies on disruptive performance over their careers","authors":"Weiyi Ao ,&nbsp;Libo Sheng ,&nbsp;Xuanmin Ruan ,&nbsp;Dongqing Lyu ,&nbsp;Jiang Li ,&nbsp;Ying Cheng","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101657","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101657","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The research strategies scientists use can affect the efficiency and direction of scientific discovery. This study focuses on the relationships between scientists’ knowledge breadth and depth strategies and disruptive performance as well as the role career age plays in these relationships. The data were from 651,831 publications authored by 12,278 biomedical scientists from the PubMed Knowledge Graph (PKG) dataset. The two main findings are as follows: (1) U-shaped correlations were found between scientists’ knowledge breadth, depth, and disruptive performance; and (2) career age influences the relationship between knowledge depth and disruptive performance, with different impacts across various stages of a scientist's career. The findings imply that future research must consider the key role scientists’ career age plays in the relationship between research strategies and scientific performance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101657"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143687648","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
Is higher team gender diversity correlated with better scientific impact? 更高的团队性别多样性是否与更好的科学影响相关?
IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-05 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101662
Chengzhi Zhang, Jiaqi Zeng, Yi Zhao
Collaborative research involving scholars of various genders constitutes a prominent theme in scientific research that has garnered substantial attention. While several studies have investigated the connection between gender-specific collaboration patterns and the scientific impact of paper, the specific gender diversity factors that contribute to enhanced scientific impact remain largely unexplored. In this study, we analyze the correlation between gender diversity and the scientific impact of papers using the examples of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Library and Information Science (LIS) domains. Our findings reveal three key observations: First, significant gender disparities exist in both NLP and LIS domains, with underrepresentation of female scholars. The gender disparity is more pronounced in the NLP domain compared to the LIS domain. Second, based on papers from the NLP and LIS domains, we find that papers with different gender compositions achieve varying numbers of citations, with mixed-gender collaborations gradually obtaining higher average citation counts compared to same-gender collaborations. Lastly, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the gender diversity of paper collaborations and the number of citations received by those papers. Based on the most impactful gender diversity calculations, the ideal gender ratio for NLP and LIS teams within a range where one gender constitutes 5% to 15% of the total number of authors. This paper contributes to the exploration of the most impactful gender diversity in collaborative research and offers insights to guide more effective scientific paper collaboration.
涉及不同性别学者的合作研究是科学研究中的一个突出主题,已经获得了大量关注。虽然有几项研究调查了特定性别的合作模式与论文的科学影响之间的联系,但有助于增强科学影响的特定性别多样性因素在很大程度上仍未得到探索。在本研究中,我们以自然语言处理(NLP)和图书馆与信息科学(LIS)领域为例,分析了性别多样性与论文科学影响的相关性。我们的研究结果揭示了三个关键观察结果:首先,在NLP和LIS领域都存在显著的性别差异,女性学者的代表性不足。与LIS领域相比,NLP领域的性别差异更为明显。其次,基于NLP和LIS领域的论文,我们发现不同性别组成的论文获得不同的引用数,混合性别合作的平均引用数逐渐高于同性合作。最后,论文合作的性别多样性与论文被引次数呈倒u型关系。根据最具影响力的性别多样性计算,NLP和LIS团队的理想性别比例是一种性别占作者总数的5%至15%。本文有助于探索合作研究中最具影响力的性别多样性,并为指导更有效的科学论文合作提供见解。
{"title":"Is higher team gender diversity correlated with better scientific impact?","authors":"Chengzhi Zhang,&nbsp;Jiaqi Zeng,&nbsp;Yi Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101662","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101662","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collaborative research involving scholars of various genders constitutes a prominent theme in scientific research that has garnered substantial attention. While several studies have investigated the connection between gender-specific collaboration patterns and the scientific impact of paper, the specific gender diversity factors that contribute to enhanced scientific impact remain largely unexplored. In this study, we analyze the correlation between gender diversity and the scientific impact of papers using the examples of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Library and Information Science (LIS) domains. Our findings reveal three key observations: First, significant gender disparities exist in both NLP and LIS domains, with underrepresentation of female scholars. The gender disparity is more pronounced in the NLP domain compared to the LIS domain. Second, based on papers from the NLP and LIS domains, we find that papers with different gender compositions achieve varying numbers of citations, with mixed-gender collaborations gradually obtaining higher average citation counts compared to same-gender collaborations. Lastly, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the gender diversity of paper collaborations and the number of citations received by those papers. Based on the most impactful gender diversity calculations, the ideal gender ratio for NLP and LIS teams within a range where one gender constitutes 5% to 15% of the total number of authors. This paper contributes to the exploration of the most impactful gender diversity in collaborative research and offers insights to guide more effective scientific paper collaboration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 2","pages":"Article 101662"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143777675","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
期刊
Journal of Informetrics
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1