Pub Date : 2026-01-09DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101758
Yunhao You, Nian Liu, Qian Yu
The effect of strong and weak ties on innovation in social networks has been established in the fields of technology and products, but this impact deserves more attention in the fields of knowledge and scientific innovation. To investigate the correlation between strong and weak ties and innovation in scientific collaboration, we propose a novel method for measuring tie strength on a temporal cumulative cooperative network. Based on this new method, we quantified the tie strength and innovation across 209,720 articles in the fields of quantum information and synthetic biology in the Web of Science from 2008 to 2017, and analyzed their relationships. The research results show that innovation increases as the tie strength decreases, and the growth rate of innovation becomes faster as the tie strength further decreases. Furthermore, among the 109,880 samples with tie strength below 0.3, those scientific collaboration with a common national background are more likely to generate breakthrough ideas. In summary, in knowledge creation, we reiterate the primacy of weak ties and highlight the importance of intra-regional scientific cooperation.
强弱关系对社会网络创新的影响在技术和产品领域已经确立，但这种影响在知识和科技创新领域更值得关注。为了研究科学合作中强弱联系与创新之间的关系，我们提出了一种测量时间累积合作网络中联系强度的新方法。基于该方法，我们对2008 - 2017年Web of Science中量子信息和合成生物学领域的209720篇文章的联系强度和创新进行了量化，并分析了它们之间的关系。研究结果表明：创新随绑扎强度的降低而增加，且随着绑扎强度的进一步降低，创新的增长速度更快。此外，在纽带强度小于0.3的109,880个样本中，具有共同国家背景的科学合作更容易产生突破性的想法。总之，在知识创造方面，我们重申弱联系的首要地位，并强调区域内科学合作的重要性。
{"title":"Weak ties in scientific cooperation contribute to scientific innovation","authors":"Yunhao You, Nian Liu, Qian Yu","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101758","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101758","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The effect of strong and weak ties on innovation in social networks has been established in the fields of technology and products, but this impact deserves more attention in the fields of knowledge and scientific innovation. To investigate the correlation between strong and weak ties and innovation in scientific collaboration, we propose a novel method for measuring tie strength on a temporal cumulative cooperative network. Based on this new method, we quantified the tie strength and innovation across 209,720 articles in the fields of quantum information and synthetic biology in the Web of Science from 2008 to 2017, and analyzed their relationships. The research results show that innovation increases as the tie strength decreases, and the growth rate of innovation becomes faster as the tie strength further decreases. Furthermore, among the 109,880 samples with tie strength below 0.3, those scientific collaboration with a common national background are more likely to generate breakthrough ideas. In summary, in knowledge creation, we reiterate the primacy of weak ties and highlight the importance of intra-regional scientific cooperation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101758"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145939084","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}
Pub Date : 2026-01-08DOI: 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.
{"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":"2026-01-08","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}
Pub Date : 2026-01-03DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101767
Kiyotaka Yabe , Mamoru Takata , Kenji Matsuura
International conferences play a crucial role in fostering collaborative research, which is essential for advancing scientific progress, especially as global challenges demand increased international collaboration. On-site conferences, in particular, enable face-to-face interactions that foster serendipitous encounters and in-depth information exchange, underscoring the need for thoughtful event designs that maximize such opportunities. However, real-world patterns of conference interactions remain poorly understood due to the difficulty of tracking participant behavior, potentially obscuring communication gaps associated with participants’ attributes. In this study, using a newly developed web application, we obtained a detailed visualization and quantification of the face-to-face interaction dynamics among 2,216 self-selected app users (out of 4,041 total participants) at the 27th International Congress of Entomology (ICE2024 KYOTO), revealing several communication gaps. The application offered a profile exchange function as a supportive, gamified feature for face-to-face networking, generating logs that allowed us to reconstruct a large-scale network of on-site communications. Analysis showed that country pairs sharing a common language and individuals with similar research fields were more likely to interact, while students and non-students interacted less frequently than expected under random mixing. Additionally, timestamp data identified sessions and events with particularly high interaction frequencies, illustrating how conference settings may influence communication. The log data provide a detailed view of the previously unmeasured dynamics and disparities in communication patterns during the conference. Our method, based on participants’ voluntary use of the application, offers a scalable approach to quantifying networking activities and provides valuable insights for designing more effective and inclusive conferences.
{"title":"Breaking barriers in academic communication: Insights from a novel face-to-face interaction tracking app at an international conference","authors":"Kiyotaka Yabe , Mamoru Takata , Kenji Matsuura","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101767","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101767","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>International conferences play a crucial role in fostering collaborative research, which is essential for advancing scientific progress, especially as global challenges demand increased international collaboration. On-site conferences, in particular, enable face-to-face interactions that foster serendipitous encounters and in-depth information exchange, underscoring the need for thoughtful event designs that maximize such opportunities. However, real-world patterns of conference interactions remain poorly understood due to the difficulty of tracking participant behavior, potentially obscuring communication gaps associated with participants’ attributes. In this study, using a newly developed web application, we obtained a detailed visualization and quantification of the face-to-face interaction dynamics among 2,216 self-selected app users (out of 4,041 total participants) at the 27th International Congress of Entomology (ICE2024 KYOTO), revealing several communication gaps. The application offered a profile exchange function as a supportive, gamified feature for face-to-face networking, generating logs that allowed us to reconstruct a large-scale network of on-site communications. Analysis showed that country pairs sharing a common language and individuals with similar research fields were more likely to interact, while students and non-students interacted less frequently than expected under random mixing. Additionally, timestamp data identified sessions and events with particularly high interaction frequencies, illustrating how conference settings may influence communication. The log data provide a detailed view of the previously unmeasured dynamics and disparities in communication patterns during the conference. Our method, based on participants’ voluntary use of the application, offers a scalable approach to quantifying networking activities and provides valuable insights for designing more effective and inclusive conferences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101767"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145939083","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-26DOI: 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。
{"title":"Comments on the ideological and philosophical foundations of bibliometrics by Gorraiz, J.","authors":"F. Pacheco-Torgal","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101764","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101764","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101764"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145841396","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-18DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101762
Giovanni Abramo , Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
This study examines the effectiveness of peer review versus bibliometric analysis in reducing sex bias in research evaluations. Drawing on theoretical insights from psychological, sociological, and rational choice frameworks, as well as empirical data from Italy’s first national research assessment exercise (VTR 2001–2003), we conduct a comprehensive comparison between peer-review scores and citation-based metrics across various scientific fields. Our findings reveal substantial and consistent evidence of gender-based disparities disadvantaging female-authored publications. Through ordered logistic regression analyses, we demonstrate that while both evaluation methods exhibit sex bias, peer review systematically penalizes women more severely than citation-based metrics. This disparity remains evident across varying citation windows, despite a long-term Matthew effect that slightly increases sex disparities over extended citation periods. We conclude that bibliometric evaluations, though not entirely free from bias, represent a relatively fairer alternative for assessing research output, holding crucial implications for institutional policy and the pursuit of academic equity.
{"title":"Sex bias in peer review and citation practices: Implications for research evaluation","authors":"Giovanni Abramo , Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101762","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101762","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the effectiveness of peer review versus bibliometric analysis in reducing sex bias in research evaluations. Drawing on theoretical insights from psychological, sociological, and rational choice frameworks, as well as empirical data from Italy’s first national research assessment exercise (VTR 2001–2003), we conduct a comprehensive comparison between peer-review scores and citation-based metrics across various scientific fields. Our findings reveal substantial and consistent evidence of gender-based disparities disadvantaging female-authored publications. Through ordered logistic regression analyses, we demonstrate that while both evaluation methods exhibit sex bias, peer review systematically penalizes women more severely than citation-based metrics. This disparity remains evident across varying citation windows, despite a long-term Matthew effect that slightly increases sex disparities over extended citation periods. We conclude that bibliometric evaluations, though not entirely free from bias, represent a relatively fairer alternative for assessing research output, holding crucial implications for institutional policy and the pursuit of academic equity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101762"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145798702","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-16DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101763
Dar-Zen Chen , You-Fu Lee , Huei-Ru Dong , Chun-Chieh Wang
Sustained innovation is increasingly critical in dynamic technological environments, yet conventional patentometric measures often provide only static views of R&D performance. This study develops a dual-lens framework to identify “vibrant assignees”—organizations that combine high activity with persistent engagement in patenting. We operationalize these dimensions through a sliding-window–based Activity Index and Persistence Index, and further integrate them into a composite Vibrant Intensity indicator. Grounded in Dynamic Capabilities Theory, the framework captures both seizing capabilities, reflected in bursts of inventive activity, and transforming capabilities, reflected in sustained commitment over time. Applying this approach to 981 USPTO patents on solid-state electrolytes (2002–2021) across 223 assignees, we reveal divergent innovation strategies: Toyota Motor demonstrates long-term vibrancy across multiple subfields, while Samsung Electronics illustrates adaptive re-entry patterns. These findings highlight how organizational strategies differ between stable leadership and agile adaptation. Beyond the empirical case, the framework offers a transferable tool for patentometric and informetric studies, enabling policymakers, R&D managers, and scholars to better evaluate the temporal dynamics of technological leadership.
{"title":"Tracking vibrant assignees in technological innovation: A patent-based dual perspective of activity and persistence","authors":"Dar-Zen Chen , You-Fu Lee , Huei-Ru Dong , Chun-Chieh Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101763","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101763","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sustained innovation is increasingly critical in dynamic technological environments, yet conventional patentometric measures often provide only static views of R&D performance. This study develops a dual-lens framework to identify “vibrant assignees”—organizations that combine high activity with persistent engagement in patenting. We operationalize these dimensions through a sliding-window–based Activity Index and Persistence Index, and further integrate them into a composite Vibrant Intensity indicator. Grounded in Dynamic Capabilities Theory, the framework captures both seizing capabilities, reflected in bursts of inventive activity, and transforming capabilities, reflected in sustained commitment over time. Applying this approach to 981 USPTO patents on solid-state electrolytes (2002–2021) across 223 assignees, we reveal divergent innovation strategies: Toyota Motor demonstrates long-term vibrancy across multiple subfields, while Samsung Electronics illustrates adaptive re-entry patterns. These findings highlight how organizational strategies differ between stable leadership and agile adaptation. Beyond the empirical case, the framework offers a transferable tool for patentometric and informetric studies, enabling policymakers, R&D managers, and scholars to better evaluate the temporal dynamics of technological leadership.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101763"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145798703","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-15DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101760
Elena Álvarez-García , Daniel García-Costa , Flaminio Squazzoni , Mario Malički , Bahar Mehmani , Francisco Grimaldo
Although publishing peer review reports increases editorial transparency, little is known about the differences in terms of information content, readability and similarity between open and unpublished peer review reports across journals. We compared 140,844 published and 117,250 unpublished peer review reports from 233 medical journals published by Elsevier and Springer Nature between 2016 and 2021 using natural language processing. Our results showed that published peer review reports were longer and had more informative content, with the greatest difference found in the number of “suggestion and solution” sentences. Published peer review reports were also more readable and more similar to each other in terms of content structure. Reports by women had higher information scores and were more readable than reports by men, while reports by reviewers from non-Western institutions had lower information scores and were less readable than reports by reviewers from Western institutions. Our results suggest that increasing the transparency of review reports could lead to more detailed reports focusing on suggestions for improving manuscripts.
{"title":"Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports","authors":"Elena Álvarez-García , Daniel García-Costa , Flaminio Squazzoni , Mario Malički , Bahar Mehmani , Francisco Grimaldo","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101760","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101760","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although publishing peer review reports increases editorial transparency, little is known about the differences in terms of information content, readability and similarity between open and unpublished peer review reports across journals. We compared 140,844 published and 117,250 unpublished peer review reports from 233 medical journals published by Elsevier and Springer Nature between 2016 and 2021 using natural language processing. Our results showed that published peer review reports were longer and had more informative content, with the greatest difference found in the number of “suggestion and solution” sentences. Published peer review reports were also more readable and more similar to each other in terms of content structure. Reports by women had higher information scores and were more readable than reports by men, while reports by reviewers from non-Western institutions had lower information scores and were less readable than reports by reviewers from Western institutions. Our results suggest that increasing the transparency of review reports could lead to more detailed reports focusing on suggestions for improving manuscripts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101760"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145798704","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-13DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101757
Tolga Yuret
We asked academics from the economics, political science, psychology, and sociology departments of the top 500 universities to state their top 3 publications. 2331 researchers who work in 42 countries responded to the survey. We collected the respondents’ Google Scholar (GS) and Scopus profiles to identify the publications which they did and did not select as their top 3 publications. Therefore, our study links researchers’ self-evaluated top publications with detailed bibliometric profiles, enabling a comparison between subjective assessments and bibliometric statistics. Around 30 % of respondents’ top 3 publications in political science and sociology are not indexed in Scopus, largely because many are books or non-English works. The top 3 publications demonstrate greater citation performance and are published in higher-impact journals compared to the average output. However, only 40 % of the publications identified as top 3 in self-evaluations also rank among the top 3 by citation performance. Self-evaluations offer additional insights that complement bibliometric measures, helping to address issues such as limited coverage, neglect of locally relevant research, and underrepresentation of certain academic fields.
{"title":"Assessing scientific output through self-evaluation: Evidence from four social science fields","authors":"Tolga Yuret","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101757","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101757","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We asked academics from the economics, political science, psychology, and sociology departments of the top 500 universities to state their top 3 publications. 2331 researchers who work in 42 countries responded to the survey. We collected the respondents’ Google Scholar (GS) and Scopus profiles to identify the publications which they did and did not select as their top 3 publications. Therefore, our study links researchers’ self-evaluated top publications with detailed bibliometric profiles, enabling a comparison between subjective assessments and bibliometric statistics. Around 30 % of respondents’ top 3 publications in political science and sociology are not indexed in Scopus, largely because many are books or non-English works. The top 3 publications demonstrate greater citation performance and are published in higher-impact journals compared to the average output. However, only 40 % of the publications identified as top 3 in self-evaluations also rank among the top 3 by citation performance. Self-evaluations offer additional insights that complement bibliometric measures, helping to address issues such as limited coverage, neglect of locally relevant research, and underrepresentation of certain academic fields.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101757"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750314","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-12DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101759
Ashkan Ebadi , Alain Auger , Yvan Gauthier
The landscape of science and technology is characterized by its dynamic and evolving nature, constantly reshaped by discoveries, innovations, and paradigm shifts. Moreover, science is undergoing a remarkable shift towards increasing interdisciplinary collaboration, where the convergence of diverse fields fosters innovative solutions to complex problems. Detecting emerging scientific topics is paramount as it enables industries, policymakers, and innovators to adapt their strategies, investments, and regulations proactively. As the common approach for detecting emerging technologies, despite being useful, bibliometric analyses may suffer from oversimplification and/or misinterpretation of complex interdisciplinary trends. In addition, relying solely on domain experts to pinpoint emerging technologies from science and technology trends might restrict the ability to systematically analyze extensive information and introduce subjective judgments into the interpretations. To overcome these drawbacks, in this work, we present an automated artificial intelligence-enabled framework, called WISDOM, for (1) detecting emerging research themes using advanced topic modelling and weak signal analysis, and (2) generating candidate labels for identified themes to assist experts. The proposed approach can assist strategic planners and domain experts in more effectively recognizing and tracking trends related to emerging topics by swiftly processing and analyzing vast volumes of data, uncovering hidden cross-disciplinary patterns, and offering unbiased insights, thereby enhancing the efficiency and objectivity of the detection process. As the case technology, we assess WISDOM's performance in identifying emerging research as well as its trends, in the field of underwater sensing technologies using scientific papers published between 2004 and 2021.
{"title":"WISDOM: An AI-powered framework for emerging research detection using weak signal analysis and advanced topic modelling","authors":"Ashkan Ebadi , Alain Auger , Yvan Gauthier","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101759","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101759","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The landscape of science and technology is characterized by its dynamic and evolving nature, constantly reshaped by discoveries, innovations, and paradigm shifts. Moreover, science is undergoing a remarkable shift towards increasing interdisciplinary collaboration, where the convergence of diverse fields fosters innovative solutions to complex problems. Detecting emerging scientific topics is paramount as it enables industries, policymakers, and innovators to adapt their strategies, investments, and regulations proactively. As the common approach for detecting emerging technologies, despite being useful, bibliometric analyses may suffer from oversimplification and/or misinterpretation of complex interdisciplinary trends. In addition, relying solely on domain experts to pinpoint emerging technologies from science and technology trends might restrict the ability to systematically analyze extensive information and introduce subjective judgments into the interpretations. To overcome these drawbacks, in this work, we present an automated artificial intelligence-enabled framework, called WISDOM, for (1) detecting emerging research themes using advanced topic modelling and weak signal analysis, and (2) generating candidate labels for identified themes to assist experts. The proposed approach can assist strategic planners and domain experts in more effectively recognizing and tracking trends related to emerging topics by swiftly processing and analyzing vast volumes of data, uncovering hidden cross-disciplinary patterns, and offering unbiased insights, thereby enhancing the efficiency and objectivity of the detection process. As the case technology, we assess WISDOM's performance in identifying emerging research as well as its trends, in the field of underwater sensing technologies using scientific papers published between 2004 and 2021.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101759"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145718862","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}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101761
Weiye Gu, Chaoqun Ni
Understanding how universities contribute to policymaking is crucial for assessing the societal impact of research. This study analyzes 80,650 U.S. policy documents (2017–2022) that cite 295,428 US-affiliated academic publications, linking Overton policy data with Scopus affiliation records and federal research funding from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Universities account for over 70 % of all policy-cited research, confirming their central role in evidence-informed governance. Yet this influence is uneven: a small number of research-intensive institutions dominate, while most universities contribute modestly. Health sciences account for the largest share of university-cited research, with additional contributions in economics, education, and social sciences. Federal agencies cite university research more heavily than local governments or think tanks, and policy visibility is geographically concentrated in states with strong research ecosystems. Correlation analyses indicate that productivity, federal funding, and institutional prestige strongly predict policy influence, whereas government involvement is not consistently associated.
{"title":"Universities as central actors in evidence-based policymaking in the US","authors":"Weiye Gu, Chaoqun Ni","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101761","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101761","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding how universities contribute to policymaking is crucial for assessing the societal impact of research. This study analyzes 80,650 U.S. policy documents (2017–2022) that cite 295,428 US-affiliated academic publications, linking Overton policy data with Scopus affiliation records and federal research funding from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Universities account for over 70 % of all policy-cited research, confirming their central role in evidence-informed governance. Yet this influence is uneven: a small number of research-intensive institutions dominate, while most universities contribute modestly. Health sciences account for the largest share of university-cited research, with additional contributions in economics, education, and social sciences. Federal agencies cite university research more heavily than local governments or think tanks, and policy visibility is geographically concentrated in states with strong research ecosystems. Correlation analyses indicate that productivity, federal funding, and institutional prestige strongly predict policy influence, whereas government involvement is not consistently associated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"Article 101761"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145718861","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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号