Journal of Informetrics最新文献

{"title":"Enhancing the prediction of publications’ long-term impact using early citations, readerships, and non-scientific factors","authors":"Giovanni Abramo ,&nbsp;Tindaro Cicero ,&nbsp;Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101725","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101725","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to improve the accuracy of long-term citation impact prediction by integrating early citation counts, Mendeley readership, and various non-scientific factors, such as journal impact factor, authorship and reference list characteristics, funding and open-access status. Traditional citation-based models often fall short by relying solely on early citations, which may not capture broader indicators of a publication’s potential influence. By incorporating non-scientific predictors, this model provides a more nuanced and comprehensive framework that outperforms existing models in predicting long-term impact. Using a dataset of Italian-authored publications from the Web of Science, regression models were developed to evaluate the impact of these predictors over time. Results indicate that early citations and Mendeley readership are significant predictors of long-term impact, with additional contributions from factors like authorship diversity and journal impact factor. The study finds that open-access status and funding have diminishing predictive power over time, suggesting their influence is primarily short-term. This model benefits various stakeholders, including funders and policymakers, by offering timely and more accurate assessments of emerging research. Future research could extend this model by incorporating broader altmetrics and expanding its application to other disciplines and regions. The study concludes that integrating non-citation-based factors with early citations captures a more complex view of scholarly impact, aligning better with real-world research influence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 4","pages":"Article 101725"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144908249","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}

{"title":"From 'sleeping beauties' to 'rising stars': The religious and philosophical roots of bibliometrics","authors":"Juan Gorraiz","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101711","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101711","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article explores the often-overlooked religious and philosophical roots of bibliometrics. Drawing on motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Christian theology—including the Chosen People, the Matthew Effect, David’s census, and the Tower of Babel—it argues that bibliometrics, while presented as a neutral and quantitative science, is deeply embedded in cultural narratives of worth, selection, judgment, and transcendence. The paper reflects on how metaphors of purification, idolatry, and incommensurability help us understand both the power and the limits of bibliometric practices. Rather than offering prescriptive rules, it concludes with a series of critical reflections that emphasize humility, interpretative context, and the need to continually question the values embedded in metrics—reminding us that in bibliometrics, as in faith, what we measure may never fully capture what truly matters.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 4","pages":"Article 101711"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144780237","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}

{"title":"Sex differences in research productivity among doctoral students in Sweden: A quantile regression approach","authors":"Jonas Lindahl ,&nbsp;Rickard Danell ,&nbsp;Kaylee Litson ,&nbsp;David F. Feldon","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101702","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101702","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the sex productivity gap among doctoral students in Sweden using a comparative design. It focuses particularly on how the gap increases at the higher end of the productivity distribution, with men consistently publishing more than women. The study is based on a large dataset of 10,804 doctoral students who graduated between 2010 and 2019 in the research areas of the natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, and the social sciences. By applying multiple quantile regression analysis, we were able to conduct a nuanced analysis of the sex productivity gap across the whole productivity distribution. Results indicate a consistent productivity gap by sex across all research areas and that the gap increases towards the higher end of the distribution, i.e., the sex differences in productivity increase among the top performers. However, the comparison of research areas revealed some heterogeneity. In engineering and technology, the increasing sex gap levels off in the middle of the distribution but takes a leap at the extreme tail. In the social sciences, the gap peaks just before the extreme end of the distribution and then starts decreasing. The natural sciences and medical and health sciences show a more gradual increase in the gap towards the higher end. Taking into account the Swedish context – with its widespread adoption of the collective model of doctoral education and the thesis-by-publication format – our main conclusions are: (1) there exists a consistent sex productivity gap across all studied research areas, and (2) the increasing sex gap at the upper end of the productivity distribution, commonly seen in later career stages, can already be observed during doctoral studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101702"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144829272","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}

{"title":"Tracing the evolution of library and information science through three anchored dimensions: Library, people, and algorithm","authors":"Renli Wu ,&nbsp;Ruiyang Chen ,&nbsp;Lu An ,&nbsp;Chuanfu Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101712","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101712","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With rapid technological advancements and societal changes, the field of <em>Library and Information Science</em> (LIS) is dramatically evolving. To capture these shifts, we analyzed over 140,000 LIS publications ranging from 1990 to 2023, examining the discipline’s research evolution across three semantic dimensions: <strong><em>library</em></strong>, representing the historical foundation and institutional infrastructure of LIS; <strong><em>people</em></strong>, representing the core interacting participants and human-centered focus of LIS; and <strong><em>algorithm</em></strong>, representing the methodological advancements driven by emerging technologies in LIS. Utilizing Doc2Vec with a multi-label joint training scheme, we created a consistent embedding space for various LIS entities, including research terms, papers, journals, and countries. By mapping these entities onto a unified framework underpinned by three anchored dimensions, we reveal that the publications of the <strong><em>library</em></strong> dimension, dominant since the 1990s, have declined after 2011, reflected in the focus shifts of LIS research, journal clusters, and nations. Concurrently, LIS research has gravitated toward the <strong><em>people</em></strong> dimension, with people-related studies evolving into a more independent branch. The <strong><em>algorithm</em></strong> dimension is rapidly emerging, with journals more closely associated with it exhibiting higher impact factors, and the research centroids of journals and countries are converging toward it. However, <em>algorithm</em>-dominated research is increasingly detached from the other two dimensions, especially the <em>library</em>. Additionally, developed countries prioritize the research related to <em>library</em> and <em>people</em> dimensions, while developing countries exhibit a stronger emphasis on <em>algorithms</em>-focused publications. To ensure robustness, we further validated our results using a recent <em>ModernBERT</em> model fine-tuned for the LIS context. The findings reveal the developmental dynamics and potential fragmentation within LIS, offering insights for scholars, journals, institutions, and policymakers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101712"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144810071","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}

{"title":"Evaluating the speed of citation in scientific journals: A survival analysis-based approach","authors":"Giuseppe Giordano ,&nbsp;Michelangelo Misuraca ,&nbsp;Marialuisa Restaino","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101714","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101714","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This research addresses the need to understand how quickly scientific papers gain citations. Survival analysis is employed to model the time until papers receive their first citation. Leveraging the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the discrete-time model, the study evaluates the likelihood of citation over time and analyses factors influencing citation speed, focusing on the number of coauthors, the journal's impact factor, and the number of cited references. The approach is applied to a set of top journals in the Information Science &amp; Library Science subject category defined by Web of Science. The main findings reveal notable differences in the citation probability between different journals, with specific sources exhibiting faster citation rates. By modelling citation speed, the study offers a data-driven basis for informed journal selection, aimed at maximising early scholarly recognition. It provides a practical, empirically grounded decision-support framework for authors seeking timely scientific appraisal through strategic journal selection.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101714"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144810070","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}

{"title":"Investigating the effect of publication text similarity between reviewers and authors on the rigor of peer review: An intellectual proximity perspective","authors":"Yanlan Kang ,&nbsp;Chenwei Zhang ,&nbsp;Zhuanlan Sun ,&nbsp;Yiwei Li","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101709","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101709","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The involvement of experienced peers as reviewers plays a crucial role in manuscript evaluation during the peer review process. Nonetheless, concerns have arisen regarding potential cognitive bias when reviewers assess research that is outside their areas of expertise. Despite these concerns, quantitative analysis of this issue remains limited. This study aims to empirically investigate whether submissions reviewed by peers with academic backgrounds similar to the authors’ research areas correlate with more rigorous comments during the peer review process. Utilizing a dataset of 2,147 papers published in the journal <em>eLife</em>, along with their publicly available peer review reports and reviewers’ publication records, we employed natural language processing techniques to measure the publication text similarity of reviewers to that of the manuscript’s authors, representing a minuscule part of intellectual proximity. We then used a linear regression model to examine whether such similarity was associated with review rigor, quantified by the frequency of statistical terms from two well-known glossaries. We observed no statistically significant differences in the rigor of comments made by peers with varying levels of publication text similarity in the constructed dataset and setting. The findings remained consistent across several robustness checks and alternative specifications. This suggests that no discernible cognitive bias is introduced by the reviewers’ academic background during the peer review process, enriching the extant literature and offering important insights into understanding the role of reviewers in maintaining fairness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101709"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144723707","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}

{"title":"Corrigendum to “Small but not least changes: The art of creating disruptive innovations” [Journal of Informetrics, Volume 19 , Issue 3, (August 2025), 101703]","authors":"Youwei He,&nbsp;Jeong-Dong Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101708","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101708","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101708"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144686811","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}

{"title":"Identification of home bias in journal ranking lists","authors":"Dengsheng Wu ,&nbsp;Qiudan Su ,&nbsp;Jianping Li","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101707","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101707","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Journal evaluation is essential for scientific research, influencing academic assessment, journal reputation, and the development of researchers. However, significant differences in journal quality evaluations across countries often contain ‘home bias’. To identify this bias, we propose an improved method based on the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, which has traditionally been used to analyse wage gaps and discrimination. Rather than relying on a hypothetical non-discrimination state that considers only the journal rankings of a single country, we employ the Weighted Average Percentile (WAP) approach to integrate journal rankings from multiple countries, thereby reflecting the evaluation consensus from a global perspective. This revision adapts the methodology to journal evaluation, offering a more comprehensive and balanced assessment of academic market expectations, and bringing it closer to an unbiased state in the journal evaluation process. Our analysis incorporated four national journal lists, comprising a total of 1,188 selected journals. We find that the Association of Business School (ABS) lists from the United Kingdom (UK) organizations exhibit 'home bias', favouring domestic journals and undervaluing foreign ones. This bias may impact the fairness of global scholarly communication and journal evaluation. Recognizing these home biases and transnational limitations is crucial when using journal lists.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101707"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144633443","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}

{"title":"Boosting science through state support: Armenian state grants as a driver of scientific and international advancement","authors":"Gevorg Kesoyan ,&nbsp;Ruzanna Shushanyan ,&nbsp;Maria Ohanyan ,&nbsp;Aleksan Shahkhatuni ,&nbsp;Mariam Yeghikyan ,&nbsp;Viktor Blaginin","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101704","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101704","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>After the Soviet Union's dissolution, Armenia faced a rigorous transition that profoundly affected its scientific infrastructure. The evolution of Armenia's scientific landscape following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has taken place during a period marked by significant challenges including reduced funding, a \"brain drain,\" and a shift away from Soviet-era scientific priorities. In response, the Armenian government has implemented reforms to revitalize the scientific community, notably by establishing the State Science Committee in 2007 and introducing competitive research grant programs. The study analyzes the volume and trends of state research grants and their impact on scientific advancement in Armenia. The alignment of Armenian science with global standards and the visibility of scholarly output were assessed utilizing the Web of Science (WOS) database for quantitative analysis. Key objectives include evaluating the dynamics of research grants, identifying successful programs across academic fields, and exploring the implications for young scholars' career prospects. Findings reveal the transformative effects of these grants on both the quality and internationalization of Armenian research, providing insights into the role of state competitive funding in fostering a sustainable and innovative scientific environment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101704"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144632823","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}

{"title":"Publishing instincts: An exploration-exploitation framework for studying academic publishing behavior and “Home Venues”","authors":"Teddy Lazebnik ,&nbsp;Shir Aviv-Reuven ,&nbsp;Ariel Rosenfeld","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101705","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101705","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholarly communication is vital to scientific advancement, enabling the exchange of ideas and knowledge. When selecting publication venues, scholars consider various factors, such as journal relevance, reputation, outreach, and editorial standards and practices. However, some of these factors are inconspicuous or inconsistent across venues and individual publications. This study proposes that scholars' decision-making process can be conceptualized and explored through the biologically inspired exploration-exploitation (EE) framework, which posits that scholars balance between familiar and under-explored publication venues. Building on the EE framework, we introduce a grounded definition for “Home Venues” (HVs) – an informal concept used to describe the set of venues where a scholar consistently publishes – and investigate their emergence and key characteristics. Our analysis reveals that the publication patterns of roughly three-quarters of computer science scholars align with the expectations of the EE framework. For these scholars, HVs typically emerge and stabilize after approximately 15-20 publications. Additionally, scholars with higher h-indexes, greater number of publications, or higher academic age tend to have higher-ranking journals as their HVs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101705"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144623710","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}