• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• Publicationsclose
• Research dataclose
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• Open Access close
• 050905 science studies close
• Scientometrics close

The Yule-Simpson paradox refers to the fact that outcomes of comparisons between groups are reversed when groups are combined. Using Essential Sciences Indicators, a part of InCites (Clarivate), data for countries, it is shown that although the Yule-Simpson phenomenon in citation analysis and research evaluation is not common, it isn't extremely rare either. The Yule-Simpson paradox is a phenomenon one should be aware of, otherwise one may encounter unforeseen surprises in scientometric studies. ispartof: SCIENTOMETRICS vol:126 issue:4 pages:3501-3511 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

Scholars all over the world have produced a large body of COVID-19 literature in an exceptionally short period after the outbreak of this rapidly-spreading virus. An analysis of the literature accumulated in the first 150 days hints that the rapid knowledge accumulation in its early-stage development was expedited through a wide variety of journal platforms, a sense and pressure of national urgency, and inspiration from journal editorials.

The humanities are often characterized by sociologists as having a low mutual dependence among scholars and high task uncertainty. According to Fuchs' theory of scientific change, this leads over time to intellectual and social fragmentation, as new scholarship accumulates in the absence of shared unifying theories. We consider here a set of specialisms in the discipline of history and measure the connectivity properties of their bibliographic coupling networks over time, in order to assess whether fragmentation is indeed occurring. We construct networks using both reference overlap and textual similarity. It is shown that the connectivity of reference overlap networks is gradually and steadily declining over time, whilst that of textual similarity networks is stable. Author bibliographic coupling networks also show signs of a decline in connectivity, in the absence of an increasing propensity for collaborations. We speculate that, despite the gradual weakening of ties among historians as mapped by references, new scholarship might be continually integrated through shared vocabularies and narratives. This would support our belief that citations are but one kind of bibliometric data to consider --- perhaps even of secondary importance --- when studying the humanities, while text should play a more prominent role.

This article describes a procedure to generate a snapshot of the structure of a specific scientific community and their outputs based on the information available in Google Scholar Citations (GSC). We call this method MADAP (Multifaceted Analysis of Disciplines through Academic Profiles). The international community of researchers working in Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics was selected as a case study. The records of the top 1,000 most cited documents by these authors according to GSC were manually processed to fill any missing information and deduplicate fields like the journal titles and book publishers. The results suggest that it is feasible to use GSC and the MADAP method to produce an accurate depiction of the community of researchers working in Bibliometrics (both specialists and occasional researchers) and their publication habits (main publication venues such as journals and book publishers). Additionally, the wide document coverage of Google Scholar (specially books and book chapters) enables more comprehensive analyses of the documents published in a specific discipline than were previously possible with other citation indexes, finally shedding light on what until now had been a blind spot in most citation analyses. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4 Research funded by Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (FPU2013/05863). Universitat Politècnica de València (PAID-10-14).

Intriguing unforced regularities in human behaviors have been reported in varied research domains, including scientometrics. In this study we examine the manuscript submission behavior of researchers, with a focus on its monthly pattern. With a large and reliable dataset which records the submission history of articles published on 10 multidisciplinary journals and 10 management journals over a five-year period (2013-2017), we observe a prominent turn-of-the-month submission effect for accepted papers in management journals but not multidisciplinary journals. This effect gets more pronounced in submissions to top-tier journals and when the first day of a month happens to be a Saturday or Sunday. Sense of ceremony is proposed as a likely explanation of this effect, since the first day of a month is a fundamental temporal landmark which has a 'fresh start effect' on researchers. To conclude, an original and interesting day-of-the-month effect in the academia is reported in this study, which calls for more research attention.

Proceeding from Moravcsik's paradigmatic ideas of how to build indigenous capability and sustainable science systems in developing countries, we attempted to further focus on the peculiarities of the twenty-first century and the new challenges of globalisation. In doing so, we selected three particular topics deemed relevant in this context: increase of international visibility and reception by the international community, international collaboration and the participation in research in emerging fields. We analysed these issues using the example of 16 developing countries and emerging economies. We found that several countries achieve an impressive citation impact with a considerable share of highly cited papers. The high impact proved to be associated with international collaboration. We also found two extreme situations in international collaboration, both of which might form challenges in building sustainable national science systems and research structures. Research activity in emerging research topics, finally, showed the presence of developing countries in highly topical research and their capability to contribute also to newest research trends.

Author name ambiguity in a digital library may affect the findings of research that mines authorship data of the library. This study evaluates author name disambiguation in DBLP, a widely used but insufficiently evaluated digital library for its disambiguation performance. In doing so, this study takes a triangulation approach that author name disambiguation for a digital library can be better evaluated when its performance is assessed on multiple labeled datasets with comparison to baselines. Tested on three types of labeled data containing 5,000 ~ 700K disambiguated names and 6M pairs of disambiguated names, DBLP is shown to assign author names quite accurately to distinct authors, resulting in pairwise precision, recall, and F1 measures around 0.90 or above overall. DBLP's author name disambiguation performs well even on large ambiguous name blocks but deficiently on distinguishing authors with the same names. When compared to other disambiguation algorithms, DBLP's disambiguation performance is quite competitive, possibly due to its hybrid disambiguation approach combining algorithmic disambiguation and manual error correction. A discussion follows on strengths and weaknesses of labeled datasets used in this study for future efforts to evaluate author name disambiguation on a digital library scale. Comment: Scientometrics (2018)

A study released by the Google Scholar team found an apparently increasing fraction of citations to old articles from studies published in the last 24 years (1990-2013). To demonstrate this finding we conducted a complementary study using a different data source (Journal Citation Reports), metric (aggregate cited half-life), time spam (2003-2013), and set of categories (53 Social Science subject categories and 167 Science subject categories). Although the results obtained confirm and reinforce the previous findings, the possible causes of this phenomenon keep unclear. We finally hypothesize that first page results syndrome in conjunction with the fact that Google Scholar favours the most cited documents are suggesting the growing trend of citing old documents is partly caused by Google Scholar. 12 pages, 2 tables

The present study analyzes scientific publications on mass gatherings, characterizing its development as an emerging research field. We identified publications on mass gatherings, analyzing the scientific production and carrying out a co-citation analysis. We identified the works of reference that have laid the intellectual foundation for the field as well as the main scientific disciplines and journals that have contributed to its development. We identified 278 documents that cited 7149 bibliographic references. The 2006-2010 period saw a dramatic increase in the number of works published. Papers on mass gatherings also appeared frequently in multidisciplinary journals of high visibility and impact. The co-citation analysis revealed the existence of five clusters or thematic nuclei in research of the area. One large cluster brings together different studies on the prevalence of infectious diseases associated with pilgrimages to Mecca, and another cluster focuses on planning and response for health services in the context of mass gatherings associated with sporting events. Different indicators help characterize the nature of this emerging field, in which we observe the absence of a stable research community, the recentness of the bibliographic citations, and a high concentration of publications on the topic, with no peripheral areas of investigation. The study of mass gatherings is an emerging area of research with a notably multidisciplinary nature. Given the relevance and incidence of mass gatherings in relation to population health, it is necessary to foster the conditions that favor the consolidation of the field as a topic of research.

Research is often described as a problem-solving activity, and as a result, descriptions of problems and solutions are an essential part of the scientific discourse used to describe research activity. We present an automatic classifier that, given a phrase that may or may not be a description of a scientific problem or a solution, makes a binary decision about problemhood and solutionhood of that phrase. We recast the problem as a supervised machine learning problem, define a set of 15 features correlated with the target categories and use several machine learning algorithms on this task. We also create our own corpus of 2000 positive and negative examples of problems and solutions. We find that we can distinguish problems from non-problems with an accuracy of 82.3%, and solutions from non-solutions with an accuracy of 79.7%. Our three most helpful features for the task are syntactic information (POS tags), document and word embeddings.