Journal of Informetrics最新文献

{"title":"The overrepresentation of the United States in the field of legal studies in the science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators","authors":"Péter Sasvári ,&nbsp;Gergely Ferenc Lendvai","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101680","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101680","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper investigates the overrepresentation of U.S.-based scholars in legal studies, focusing on patterns observed in the 2024 Ioannidis Science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. The study examines key differences between U.S. and non-U.S. scholars regarding citation metrics, publication patterns, and journal selection, while also evaluating the broader implications of this dominance on the global dissemination of legal knowledge. Via data from Scopus, the study analyzes 766 scholars and their 50,463 publications across both single-year and career-long datasets. The results reveal a marked U.S. dominance, with U.S.-based scholars not only comprising a large share of the dataset but also achieving top-ranking positions across various metrics. U.S. scholars predominantly publish in prestigious American law journals tied to Ivy League institutions, often resulting in higher citation counts and visibility than their non-U.S. counterparts. Conversely, non-U.S. scholars are more likely to publish in international or European journals, which generally yield lower citation metrics. Our results suggest that American legal scholarship maintains a citation ecosystem that reinforces its central position in the field, often sidelining Global South perspectives. These findings should also be interpreted in light of the substantial U.S.-bias inherent in the Scopus-indexed data underpinning the Stanford list, which structurally privileges U.S.-based publication formats and legal venues.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101680"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144068077","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":"Identifying high-impact interdisciplinary knowledge flows: An approach combining backward and forward citation analysis","authors":"Kehui Liu ,&nbsp;Quan Lu","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101677","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101677","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Identifying high-impact interdisciplinary knowledge flows can provide guidance for interdisciplinary innovation management. Previous studies insufficiently address the impact of interdisciplinary knowledge flow on the target discipline, which hinders the accurate capture of valuable interdisciplinary knowledge flow. This paper proposes an innovative method to identify high-impact interdisciplinary knowledge flows by combining backward and forward citation analysis. Backward citation analysis aims to reveal the critical interdisciplinary knowledge inflow, while forward citation analysis aims to understand the continuous impact of interdisciplinary knowledge. By integrating them, the whole process of interdisciplinary knowledge flow can be comprehensively analyzed. The discipline of Information Science &amp; Library Science (ISLS) and Biomedical Engineering are explored as the target disciplines in the case study, and the paper data from 2015 to 2023 is collected. The results reveal that the flow path can be divided into four types. In a total of 699 interdisciplinary knowledge flows of the ISLS discipline, 105 with high-impact are identified. In a total of 325 interdisciplinary knowledge flows of the Biomedical Engineering discipline, 71 with high-impact are identified. The interdisciplinary flowing knowledge units contained in them can be clustered into eight topics and six topics respectively. The three features of these knowledge units can be summarized as high expansibility and practicability, involving innovative applications and multidisciplinary integration. The method proposed offers a way to deeply understand and accurately capture the valuable interdisciplinary knowledge flow.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101677"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143947063","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":"Team size and its negative impact on the disruption index","authors":"Yiling Lin ,&nbsp;Linzhuo Li ,&nbsp;Lingfei Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101678","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101678","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As science transitions from the age of lone geniuses to an era of collaborative teams, the question of whether large teams can sustain the creativity of individuals and continue driving innovation has become increasingly important. Our previous research first revealed a negative relationship between team size and the Disruption Index—a citation network-based metric of innovation—by analyzing 65 million projects across papers, patents, and software over half a century. This work has sparked lively debates within the scientific community about the robustness of the Disruption Index in capturing the impact of team size on innovation. Here, we present additional evidence that the negative link between team size and disruption holds, even when accounting for factors such as reference length, citation impact, and historical time. We further show how a narrow 5-year window for measuring disruption can misrepresent this relationship as positive, underestimating the long-term disruptive potential of small teams. Like “sleeping beauties,” small teams need a decade or more to reveal their transformative contributions to science.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101678"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143936399","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":"Exploring the change in scientific readability following the release of ChatGPT","authors":"Abdulkareem Alsudais","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101679","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101679","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The rise and growing popularity of accessible large language models have raised questions about their impact on various aspects of life, including how scientists write and publish their research. The primary objective of this paper is to analyze a dataset consisting of all abstracts posted on arXiv.org between 2010 and June 7th, 2024, to assess the evolution of their readability and determine whether significant shifts occurred following the release of ChatGPT in November 2022. Four standard readability formulas are used to calculate individual readability scores for each paper, classifying their level of readability. These scores are then aggregated by year and across the eight primary categories covered by the platform. The results show a steady annual decrease in readability, suggesting that abstracts are likely becoming increasingly complex. Additionally, following the release of ChatGPT, a significant change in readability is observed for 2023 and the analyzed months of 2024. Similar trends are found across categories, with most experiencing a notable change in readability during 2023 and 2024. These findings offer insights into the broader changes in readability and point to the likely influence of AI on scientific writing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101679"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143923775","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":"Trend analysis of the proportional allocation of funding by gender in Spanish National Research Projects: A study by disciplines and staff positions","authors":"Thamyres T. Choji ,&nbsp;Jose A. Moral-Munoz ,&nbsp;Manuel J. Cobo","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101672","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101672","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Given the critical role of research funding in driving knowledge production and promoting gender parity in academia, this study aimed to analyze gender differences in funding allocation over time across different disciplines or areas of knowledge and research staff categories. We analyzed data from 20,843 Spanish grants awarded between 2015 and 2022, matching these records with data on tenured research staff. Considering that in scientific systems, women represent a lower workforce, we analyzed the proportion of grants awarded relative to their presence as associate and full professors. To quantify these differences, we employed proportional gender funding and the women/men ratio. This approach was used to analyze whether the amount of grants awarded was proportional to their presence as tenured staff members. Our findings reveal significant disparities in grant allocation and tenured staff, with women receiving approximately 33% of the grants and representing 43% and 38% of associate and full professors, respectively. This difference was higher in terms of areas of knowledge, with <em>Engineering and Architecture</em> having the lowest women/men ratio and <em>Arts and Humanities</em> having the highest ratio. This pattern was repeated among associate and full professors with pronounced differences in <em>Engineering and Architecture</em>. Despite this, the longitudinal analysis showed that the differences decreased over time, showing a positive trend for both staff categories and across different areas of knowledge. Regarding proportionality, we observed that the proportion of grants awarded to women agreed with their representation as tenured staff, reaching its highest value by 2022. In areas where women received fewer grants and were fewer associate and full professors, such as <em>Engineering and Architecture</em>, the proportion of grants awarded to women was similar to that of men. Although our findings indicate a positive trend favoring women, more action needs to be taken. Future research could explore how grant allocations, productivity, and collaborative roles interact to deepen the understanding of gender dynamics in research funding.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101672"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143913221","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":"Uncovering gold in ash: identifying sleeping beauties among massive unprofitable patents","authors":"Wei Xu ,&nbsp;Nan Zhang ,&nbsp;Hongxun Jiang ,&nbsp;Shaokun Fan ,&nbsp;Bin Zhu","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101674","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101674","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper proposes an innovative deep-learning framework with multi-modal features to determine whether a currently unprofitable patent is a sleeping beauty at an early stage. Patent features include the textual content as well as the networked background information, such as the inventors and assignees, as well as the previous works they have created. The framework uses a Transformer to compare the patent with news or analytical reports concerning technological development trends, mining its content both semantically and syntactically. An active graphical convolutional network, mining the innovation collaboration network of a patent, is also employed as part of the framework to reveal the relationship between patents, companies, and inventors. This framework finally utilizes the obtained features to construct a multi-head self-attention model to predict a patent with the probability of being a sleeping beauty. This paper examines the proposed model by comparing it to several well-known baseline methods using real-world cases from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The proposed deep learning solution outperforms all baseline methods according to all performance metrics. Its long-term forecasting accuracy significantly exceeds its rivals. In the ablation experiments, features extracted from texts and networks are shown to improve the performance of prediction models.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101674"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143900269","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":"Regional profile of questionable publishing","authors":"Taekho You ,&nbsp;Jinseo Park ,&nbsp;June Young Lee ,&nbsp;Jinhyuk Yun","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101670","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101670","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Countries and authors in the academic periphery have occasionally been criticized for contributing to the expansion of questionable publishing, because they share a major fraction of papers in questionable journals. On the other side, both quantitative evaluation systems and social stratification in academic publishing drive authors toward questionable journals rather than legitimate publications. Questionable journals are sometimes perceived as serving local academia, a function considered essential for regional scientific development in certain countries. However, this requires rigorous examination. In this study, we performed an in-depth analysis of the distribution of questionable publications and journals along with their interplay with countries, quantifying the influence of questionable publications on academic inequality. We found that low-impact journals play a vital role in the regional academic environment, whereas questionable journals with equivalent impacts publish papers globally, both geographically and academically. The business model of questionable journals differs from that of regional journals, and may thus be detrimental to the broader academic community.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101670"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143894817","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":"Quantitative model of firms’ weight using a gravity model in relative coordinates: Case study of photo film industry facing digital innovation","authors":"Katsuyuki Kaneko ,&nbsp;Yuya Kajikawa","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101676","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101676","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Dynamic capabilities and organizational deadweights are essential managerial concepts that are crucial in navigating a turbulent environment. However, their measurements still rely on qualitative methods such as questionnaires and interviews, rather than factual data. This study aims to quantify firms' attitudes toward emerging technological innovations by applying a gravity model using patent data. Four major global firms in the photo film industry, forced into a crisis of existence by the advent of digital technologies, are investigated. The distance in the gravity model is calculated as the technological distance using the patent data of each firm. The weight of each firm, quantified from the coefficients estimated using the gravity model, is validated by comparing it with the historical information of the firms. Additionally, we estimate the changes in dynamic capabilities and organizational deadweights when firms in the industry could sense the threat of digital cameras. The results show that surviving firms had an increase in capabilities relative to disappeared firms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101676"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143894816","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":"Journal internationalization of non-English-speaking countries: Indicator framework design and influencing factor analysis","authors":"Tian-Yuan Huang ,&nbsp;Li Li ,&nbsp;Ping Meng","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101671","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101671","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>English is widely recognized as the predominant lingua franca in the global scientific community, in such context many non-English-speaking countries have started to establish their own English-language scientific journals, so as to enhance academic influence and promote international collaboration. Despite the inherent nature of English-language scientific journals in non-English-speaking countries is facilitating transnational knowledge exchange, current mainstream evaluation metrics (such as Journal Impact Factor) fail to assess this characteristic objectively. To fill this gap, our study analyzed 3,077 English-language journals from 17 non-English-speaking countries, using data from the Journal Citation Report (JCR) and InCites to evaluate journal internationalization degree (JID) across three levels: journal-level (Level 1), paper-level (Level 2), and citation-level (Level 3). Results show that JID varies across countries and does not necessarily exhibit consistency at different levels. At country level, correlation analyses revealed that Human Development Index (HDI) positively relates to all levels of JID, while English Proficiency Index (EPI) only affects the proportion of non-domestic papers. At the journal level, we examine the effects of open access (OA), article processing charges (APC), and Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) on JID. The findings show that while OA modestly enhances international visibility, higher APCs negatively impact international submissions. Among these factors, CNCI emerges as the strongest driver of global reach, showing a strong correlation with both international submissions and citations. Potentially, our research can provide insights for journals to adjust their development strategies and advance their internationalization process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101671"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143873852","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":"How do intra- and inter-organisational collaboration affect research performance? Evidence from German universities","authors":"Cecilia Garcia Chavez ,&nbsp;Sonia Gruber ,&nbsp;Torben Schubert","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101675","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101675","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper examines how organisational boundaries shape the relationship between collaboration and research performance in universities. Using meso-level co-authorship networks and matched registry data from 83 German universities between 2006 and 2019, this study advances the understanding of how organisational structures condition collaborative knowledge production and its research performance outcomes. By examining the contingency effects of intra- and inter-organisational networks, we offer new insights into the cost-benefit trade-offs of collaboration, highlighting the importance of balancing internal cohesion with external diversity. While intra-organisational networks reinforce strong relational ties that support existing knowledge, they may constrain the formation of novel knowledge combinations. Conversely, inter-organisational networks expand opportunities for new knowledge combinations, but at the cost of weaker ties, which may reduce the depth and stability of knowledge exchange. Our findings highlight the strategic value of integrating intra- and inter-organisational networks to optimise the research impact of universities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101675"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143876702","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}