Publications

13 pages, 209 KB

Open AccessEditorial

Sci-Tech Journals Serving Scientific and Technological Innovation in the Context of the “Planning–Communication–Empowerment” Path

by Yuan Liu, Yanyan Huang, Lingxian Xie, Tiantian Guo, Yi Zheng, Xudong Hu and Wenjin Huang

Publications 2026, 14(3), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14030042 - 9 Jul 2026

Abstract

Currently, the “Planning–Dissemination–Empowerment” approach has become a widely adopted practice paradigm for scientific journals to serve industrial scientific and technological innovation. Nevertheless, how to achieve the effective transformation from knowledge production to scientific and technological innovation remains a core issue urgently to be [...] Read more.

Currently, the “Planning–Dissemination–Empowerment” approach has become a widely adopted practice paradigm for scientific journals to serve industrial scientific and technological innovation. Nevertheless, how to achieve the effective transformation from knowledge production to scientific and technological innovation remains a core issue urgently to be addressed in the academic publishing sector. Taking Yangtze River as the research sample, this paper constructs and conducts an in-depth analysis of a systematic practical path of “Planning–Dissemination–Empowerment” targeting the improvement of research achievement transformation efficiency. Under this path, the planning segment accurately identifies core issues aligned with national strategies and frontline engineering demands through demand anchoring, ensuring the pertinence and application value of academic content; the dissemination segment relies on a diversified digital matrix to realize precise delivery and efficient diffusion of research findings, accelerating the transmission of academic outputs; the empowerment segment intervenes from three dimensions of talent cultivation, decision support, and technology implementation, promoting the conversion of academic achievements into practical innovation capabilities. Practice demonstrates that this path has not only produced more than 1500 high-impact papers but also directly facilitated multiple scientific and technological innovations. Talent empowerment has fostered a cohort of young scientific and technological backbones; decision empowerment has directly underpinned national emergency decision-making via 3 policy advisory reports adopted by central authorities; technology empowerment has driven breakthroughs in key technologies such as barrier lake emergency disposal, with relevant achievements winning the First Prize of Hubei Provincial Science and Technology Progress Award. In addition, the optimal reservoir operation technology was applied in the 2024 basin-wide flood control, reducing flooded arable land by 170,000 hectares and preventing the evacuation of tens of thousands of residents, thus achieving the integration of academic influence and tangible social benefits. Rather than a mere restatement of industry consensus, the path proposed in this paper reveals the underlying mechanism through which scientific journals are deeply embedded in the innovation chain and catalyze the shift from “consensus” to “practical outcomes” via systematic design. Combined with discussions of multi-industry cases, this path provides an operable theoretical framework and practical paradigm for scientific journals to play more substantial and verifiable roles in the national innovation system. Full article

26 pages, 1055 KB

Open AccessReview

Cross-Level Inference Errors in Scientific Interpretation—From Ecological Correlation to the Control of Inference and Communication Levels

by Adam Szromek

Publications 2026, 14(3), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14030041 - 9 Jul 2026

Abstract

Cross-level inference errors constitute a specific source of misleading scientific interpretation. They arise when the meaning assigned to a finding is transferred from one level of analysis to another without sufficient methodological justification. The conceptual aim of this article is to explain how [...] Read more.

Cross-level inference errors constitute a specific source of misleading scientific interpretation. They arise when the meaning assigned to a finding is transferred from one level of analysis to another without sufficient methodological justification. The conceptual aim of this article is to explain how a formally valid statistical association may become misleading when its interpretation or communication goes beyond the level at which the data were collected and the association was estimated. The practical aim is to propose a procedure for checking level alignment. The article is conceptual and review-based in nature. It relies on a purposive, problem-oriented synthesis of literature from research methodology, social epidemiology, multilevel analysis, selection bias, spin and exaggeration in scientific communication, and misinformation in and about science. Its contribution consists of linking the classical methodological problem of ecological and atomistic fallacies with the communicative processes through which scientific findings are reformulated in abstracts, press releases, media reports, and secondary summaries. On this basis, the article proposes a model of alternative pathways leading from a statistical association specific to a given level to a public claim, distinguishing a level-aligned pathway from a pathway leading to a Level-Misaligned Public Claim. The article also introduces the Inference-Level Alignment Procedure as a procedure for checking the alignment between the level of inference and the level of communication. This procedure includes two diagnostic checkpoints: alignment between analysis and inference, and alignment between inference and communication. The article argues that responsible scientific interpretation and communication require not only fact-checking, but also checking whether the level of analysis, the level of inference, and the level of communication or recommendation remain aligned. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Open Science: Developments and Disinformation Regarding Scientific Information)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1874 KB

Open AccessArticle

A Bibliometric Analysis of Microbiology and Parasitology Research Indexed in SciELO Peru, 2000–2023

by Kenny Cesar Alca Carrasco, Obert Marín-Sánchez, Ruy D. Chacón, Jimmy Ango-Bedriñana and Homero Ango-Aguilar

Publications 2026, 14(3), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14030040 - 1 Jul 2026

Cited by 1

Abstract

Scientific output in health sciences has grown exponentially, yet its landscape remains under-analyzed in emerging economies. In Peru, Microbiology and Parasitology are disciplines of strategic relevance for public health, but no specific bibliometric analysis exists. This study provides the first baseline to identify [...] Read more.

Scientific output in health sciences has grown exponentially, yet its landscape remains under-analyzed in emerging economies. In Peru, Microbiology and Parasitology are disciplines of strategic relevance for public health, but no specific bibliometric analysis exists. This study provides the first baseline to identify thematic gaps and characterize research patterns within the SciELO Peru collection. Through a descriptive bibliometric analysis of 549 Microbiology and Parasitology articles indexed in the SciELO Peru collection (2000–2023), temporal, regional, and institutional indicators, methodological design, and journal characteristics were evaluated using R v4.4.0. Results show that production peaked in 2021, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic period and accompanied by a marked increase in Virology-related publications. Lima accounted for 77.3% of the SciELO Peru corpus national output, with UPCH (17.5%), INS (14.9%), and UNMSM (13.7%) leading institutional activity. Bacteriology was the dominant area (44.1%), while Mycology was the most underrepresented (2.4%), and cross-sectional designs predominated (63.9%). Notably, real international collaboration was limited to 1.8%, and RPMESP was the sole Bradford core journal, accounting for 48.5% of the corpus, with no articles appearing in Q1 journals. These findings reveal that while production shows sustained growth, it is marked by high geographic concentration and a scarcity of applied technological research within the analyzed corpus. These findings highlight the urgent need to decentralize research and reorient Peru’s health science agenda toward critical, under-studied disciplines. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diamond Open Access)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 243 KB

Open AccessCommentary

Understanding the Quartile Conundrum: Research Evaluation in Spain and Latin America

by Ana Chacón-Luna, Patricio Álvarez-Muñoz, Ayrton Mariño-Arreaga, Ángel Morán-Herrera and Marco Faytong-Haro

Publications 2026, 14(3), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14030039 - 30 Jun 2026

Abstract

Quartile rankings of journals have become shorthand for research quality in many national evaluation systems. This Commentary offers a non-systematic documentary analysis of this phenomenon in Spain and selected Latin American systems. It conceptualizes these arrangements as quartile regimes: configurations of rules, indicators, [...] Read more.

Quartile rankings of journals have become shorthand for research quality in many national evaluation systems. This Commentary offers a non-systematic documentary analysis of this phenomenon in Spain and selected Latin American systems. It conceptualizes these arrangements as quartile regimes: configurations of rules, indicators, organizational routines, and incentives that make the Journal Citation Reports or SCImago quartile position of a journal function as a high-stakes proxy for research quality. The article draws on legal and policy texts, agency criteria, reform documents, peer-reviewed literature, and selected integrity cases used as illustrative vignettes rather than prevalence evidence. Spain is analyzed as an early and influential case in which sexenios and accreditation made journal indicators central to individual careers, although the 2024 sexenio criteria now move explicitly toward qualitative narratives, broader outputs, and responsible indicators. Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and Peru are treated as purposive Latin American cases that show distinct pathways through individual recognition schemes, graduate-program evaluation, journal-indexing systems, career committees, and publication bonuses. The article argues that quartile regimes reshape publication language, research agendas, disciplinary hierarchies, authorship practices, and integrity risks, with particularly strong effects in the social sciences and humanities and in regional journal ecosystems. Current reform efforts, including the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, FOLEC-CLACSO, and the ALAEC manifesto, show that quartiles can be repositioned as weak contextual signals within broader, field-sensitive frameworks that value quality, bibliodiversity, multilingual communication, open science, and societal relevance. Full article

13 pages, 347 KB

Open AccessArticle

How Unique Are Hallucinated Citations Offered by Generative Artificial Intelligence Models?

by Dirk H. R. Spennemann

Publications 2026, 14(3), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14030038 - 29 Jun 2026

Abstract

This paper investigates how generative AI produces and propagates hallucinated academic references, focusing on the recurring non-existent citation “Education Governance and Datafication” attributed to Ben Williamson and Nelli Piattoeva. Drawing on 196 accessible source papers identified through Google Scholar and Google searches, the [...] Read more.

This paper investigates how generative AI produces and propagates hallucinated academic references, focusing on the recurring non-existent citation “Education Governance and Datafication” attributed to Ben Williamson and Nelli Piattoeva. Drawing on 196 accessible source papers identified through Google Scholar and Google searches, the study analyses the structure, recurrence, and onward citation of this phantom reference. It shows that hallucinated citations are not random inventions but patterned re-combinations of real authors, journals, dates, and keywords, with duplication occurring in nearly 30% of these hallucinated citations. The paper also reports a structured interrogation of ChatGPT 5-mini about how it generates citations and finds that, absent of verification, the model reconstructs plausible references from learned patterns rather than factual recall. Finally, 110 AI-generated essays on datafication and school governance were examined: while most references were genuine or partly accurate, 29.8% remained fully hallucinated citations, including exact matches to the most common phantom citation, and an additional 29% were partially hallucinated citations. The findings highlight ongoing risks to academic integrity and show that web-enabled AI still does not fully eliminate fabricated references. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of AI on Disinformation or Misinformation in Science Communication)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 694 KB

Open AccessViewpoint

Manuscript Reviews Performed by a Health Sciences Researcher: A Reviewer’s Reflection on the Process and Outcomes

by Gina Joubert

Publications 2026, 14(2), 37; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020037 - 2 Jun 2026

Abstract

Finding willing peer reviewers is challenging. This viewpoint describes a health sciences reviewer’s experience regarding the decision to decline or accept review invitations, and the review process and outcome in terms of journal communication and duration. This audit included all manuscript review invitations [...] Read more.

Finding willing peer reviewers is challenging. This viewpoint describes a health sciences reviewer’s experience regarding the decision to decline or accept review invitations, and the review process and outcome in terms of journal communication and duration. This audit included all manuscript review invitations received by the researcher in 2022–2024. Information was noted from emails received from the journals. Of 130 review invitations received, 49 (38%) were accepted. The most common reason for declining review invitations (23/81; 28%) was that the researcher, a biostatistician, did not regard herself as having the necessary clinical background. Of the 49 accepted invitations, reviews were submitted for 46 manuscripts (94%), with 24 manuscripts (52%) requiring more than one review round. The reviewer was informed of the journal decision after each review round for 22 (48%) reviewed manuscripts. However, the final journal decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript was received for only 14 (30%) reviewed manuscripts. Journals provided comments of other reviewers for 44% (n = 20/46) of reviewed manuscripts. To align with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, journals should provide feedback to reviewers regarding other reviewers’ comments and the final journal decision. Journal information regarding the usual number of review rounds and duration may influence potential reviewers’ willingness to participate. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

6 pages, 194 KB

Open AccessOpinion

Literature Search Query in Academic Databases: Artificial Intelligence Think Tank Guideline for Literature Reviews

by Shahryar Sorooshian

Publications 2026, 14(2), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020036 - 1 Jun 2026

Abstract

Literature reviews are essential for synthesizing existing knowledge, mapping research domains, identifying intellectual structures, and highlighting research gaps within a field. However, many literature reviews are incomplete because database search strategies are not adequately specified or validated. Search strategies are frequently underreported and [...] Read more.

Literature reviews are essential for synthesizing existing knowledge, mapping research domains, identifying intellectual structures, and highlighting research gaps within a field. However, many literature reviews are incomplete because database search strategies are not adequately specified or validated. Search strategies are frequently underreported and undermotivated across the systematic review literature and bibliometrics, while query formulation remains time-consuming, error-prone, and particularly difficult in interdisciplinary or rapidly evolving topics. This article fills that void by developing a guideline for designing a professional topic query in existing academic databases and emphasizing search design as the front-end validity problem in bibliometric research. The article uses the Artificial Intelligence Think Tank framework as a methodological engine and applies it to bibliometric retrieval engineering via structured interaction with generative AI systems and human experts. The paper assists scholars performing bibliometric studies, scientometric analyses, systematic literature reviews, scoping reviews, and hybrid evidence-synthesis projects. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue AI in Academic Metrics and Impact Analysis)

17 pages, 1137 KB

Open AccessArticle

Scientific Production in Global Mental Health: A Meta-Research Study of Income-Stratified Trends, Gaps, and Health Metrics Impact

by David A. Hernandez-Paez, Mónica Acuña-Rodriguez, Kevin Fernando Montoya-Quintero and Jhon Victor Vidal-Durango

Publications 2026, 14(2), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020035 - 1 Jun 2026

Abstract

Aligning mental health research with territorial health needs remains a critical goal, yet the global distribution, coherence, and impact of scientific output across income groups remain poorly understood. We conducted a meta-research study combining scientometric analyses with longitudinal data on 60 health and [...] Read more.

Aligning mental health research with territorial health needs remains a critical goal, yet the global distribution, coherence, and impact of scientific output across income groups remain poorly understood. We conducted a meta-research study combining scientometric analyses with longitudinal data on 60 health and development indicators. Over 386,000 peer-reviewed publications were retrieved from five major databases. Linear regressions, meta-analyses, and meta-regressions were performed, stratified by World Bank income classification. We find that high-income countries (HICs) accounted for 67% of publications, exhibiting the highest research density but the lowest potential marginal health returns. In contrast, low-income countries (LICs) showed the strongest associations between research volume and improvements in life expectancy (β = 0.13; p < 0.01) and child mortality (β = −1.38; p < 0.01). Structural moderators such as governance quality, health expenditure, and education explained up to 48% of between-group variance. In conclusion, the global landscape of mental health research remains unequal. While scientific production is concentrated in HICs, its population-level association is greatest in LICs. These findings underscore the need to redirect investments and enhance research coherence with health needs, particularly through governance safeguards and capacity building in underrepresented regions. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 13132 KB

Open AccessArticle

An Open-Source Reproducible Preprocessing Pipeline for Merging Bibliometric Data from Multiple Databases

by Kasaraneni Purna Prakash, Kasaraneni HimaJyothi, Salini Rosaline, Yellapragada Venkata Pavan Kumar, Gogulamudi Pradeep Reddy and Naveen Mukkapati

Publications 2026, 14(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020034 - 1 Jun 2026

Abstract

Bibliometric data from various databases are crucial for exploring research trends through a bibliometric analysis. Usually, deduplicating records and merging several citation index databases for bibliometric research is tedious, particularly when dealing with larger datasets. Although several manual and automatic merging processes are [...] Read more.

Bibliometric data from various databases are crucial for exploring research trends through a bibliometric analysis. Usually, deduplicating records and merging several citation index databases for bibliometric research is tedious, particularly when dealing with larger datasets. Although several manual and automatic merging processes are available in the academic literature, some key issues were identified during the implementation of existing merging processes. To address such issues, this paper proposes an open-source preprocessing pipeline developed using R programming for a simple merging of bibliometric data collected from multiple databases. This open-source reproducible preprocessing pipeline precompiles and deduplicates records based on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). To implement this proposed research work, bibliometric data are considered from Scopus, Web of Science and Lens databases. The key outcomes of this research work are identifying multiple DOIs and Titles, standardizing the DOIs, and deduplicating records to obtain a merged dataset without noisy data. This enables researchers to conduct an effective bibliometric analysis. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 1008 KB

Open AccessArticle

Experimenting with Grant Peer Review: A Mixed Methods Case Study of the Effects on Time Use and the Quality of Reviewing

by Peter van den Besselaar and Charlie Mom

Publications 2026, 14(2), 33; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020033 - 27 May 2026

Abstract

Rejection of review invitations due to time constraints is putting pressure on the peer review system, showing that less time-consuming ways of reviewing are needed. This paper presents the results of a field experiment with a new format for grant peer review and [...] Read more.

Rejection of review invitations due to time constraints is putting pressure on the peer review system, showing that less time-consuming ways of reviewing are needed. This paper presents the results of a field experiment with a new format for grant peer review and answers the question of whether this new format is less time-consuming while still providing high-quality reviews. In the new approach, the Peer Circle (PC), a team of reviewers collectively evaluates several grant applications. The PC was applied to four fields and compared with four similar fields using conventional peer review. Qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to analyze heterogeneous data such as interviews with and a survey of the peer reviewers; text analysis of the review reports; and statistical analysis of bibliometric applicant data. The comparison suggests that the PC saves time and enlarges the reviewer population considerably. Most reviewers felt that the quality of the PC evaluations was at least as good as that of the conventional evaluations, if not better. Given these findings, the experiment is now continued on a much larger scale. Apart from that, the theoretical implication is that the way of organizing peer review has an important effect on the functioning of the system. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

33 pages, 2867 KB

Open AccessArticle

Novelty First Policy-Based Intelligent Review Framework (IRF) for the Evaluation of Research Proposals

by Hiran H. Lathabai, Raghu Raman and Prema Nedungadi

Publications 2026, 14(2), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020032 - 15 May 2026

Abstract

Despite its many limitations, peer review is the most preferred research assessment scheme for research proposal assessment at the individual level. Although scientometric assessment offers effective assessment frameworks, certain limitations, including the proven and potential misuse of scientometric indicators, hinder its wide adoption. [...] Read more.

Despite its many limitations, peer review is the most preferred research assessment scheme for research proposal assessment at the individual level. Although scientometric assessment offers effective assessment frameworks, certain limitations, including the proven and potential misuse of scientometric indicators, hinder its wide adoption. Informed peer review is viewed as an effective way of harnessing the advantages of peer review and scientometric/quantitative assessment wherein one may complement the limitations of the other. Informed peer review frameworks are still prone to many inherent challenges in scientometric assessment and peer review. The importance of intelligent review frameworks that can be more advanced and effective than informed review frameworks lies there. With the advent of AI and generative AI (GenAI), a plethora of opportunities are available to convert informed peer review frameworks to intelligent review frameworks but not without challenges and concerns. In this work, we discuss the possible opportunities for effective AI intervention in an existing informed peer review framework to transform it into an intelligent review framework. Although the selected existing informed peer review framework emphasized the ‘novelty first’ policy, it did not provide any means or guidelines to execute it. The proposed conceptual ‘intelligent review framework’ addresses this very well by exploring the effective use of AI/ML techniques for the process and is envisioned to have the flexibility to adapt to future technological developments in AI, GenAI, etc. Possible challenges and a roadmap for possible evolution with anticipated technological changes, etc., are also discussed. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue AI in Academic Metrics and Impact Analysis)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 2586 KB

Open AccessSystematic Review

Applying Bibliometrics and a RoBERTa Transformer in the Circular Bioeconomy: A PRISMA 2020 Systematic Review

by Gary Christiam Farfán-Chilicaus, Alexander Fernando Haro-Sarango, Angela Fremiot Rodriguez-Armas, César Augusto Herrera-Asmat, Silvia Mabel Cachay-Salcedo, Rosa Amable Salcedo-Dávalos, Violeta Claros-Aguilar de Larrea and Emma Verónica Ramos-Farroñán

Publications 2026, 14(2), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020031 - 13 May 2026

Abstract

This exploratory methodological study demonstrates an integrated workflow that combines systematic evidence collection Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020), bibliometric mapping, and Transformer-based natural language processing (RoBERTa) to generate multi-layer insights from Circular Economy-related scholarship, using circular bioeconomy literature [...] Read more.

This exploratory methodological study demonstrates an integrated workflow that combines systematic evidence collection Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020), bibliometric mapping, and Transformer-based natural language processing (RoBERTa) to generate multi-layer insights from Circular Economy-related scholarship, using circular bioeconomy literature as a domain case (2017–2025). Searches across Scopus, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE retrieved 2643 records; after deduplication and screening, 50 studies were included (mean quality 13.2/16; 68% high quality). Bibliometric mapping (VOSviewer; Scopus subset n = 1468) revealed three thematic clusters that converge with five conceptual framings extracted via qualitative synthesis, providing cross-method validation of the pipeline’s structural and interpretive outputs. The NLP layer identified a predominantly positive discursive valence in the English-language title–abstract–keyword corpus derived from Scopus records, with declining polarity and increasing subjectivity over time. Because these estimates were obtained from composite bibliographic text fields rather than full-text discussion sections, they should be interpreted as indicators of narrative framing rather than as direct evidence of epistemic bias or empirical overstatement. Within that scope, the joint reading of polarity, subjectivity, hedging, and measurement gaps suggests a possible mismatch between acknowledged evaluative limitations and the caution used to communicate them. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 1799 KB

Open AccessReview

Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions in Annotation and Indexing of Classical Chinese Medical Texts: A Narrative Review

by Sizhe Liu, Ying Zhou, Yongmei Song and Cong Chen

Publications 2026, 14(2), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020030 - 11 May 2026

Abstract

Annotation and indexing of classical Chinese medical texts enable the extraction of core information, facilitating structured annotation and standardised indexing. These processes provide essential support for knowledge retrieval, digital utilisation, and in-depth analysis of these texts. Recent advances in digital technologies have opened [...] Read more.

Annotation and indexing of classical Chinese medical texts enable the extraction of core information, facilitating structured annotation and standardised indexing. These processes provide essential support for knowledge retrieval, digital utilisation, and in-depth analysis of these texts. Recent advances in digital technologies have opened new possibilities for annotation and indexing, offering transformative approaches to address challenges arising from the abstract, concise, and complex nature of classical Chinese medical literature. However, existing research has largely overlooked the intrinsic interconnection and synergistic mechanisms between annotation and indexing within the workflow. This study examines annotation and indexing as an integrated whole, reviewing the current state of research, identifying existing challenges, and proposing future directions. The findings reveal that major challenges in the annotation and indexing of classical Chinese medical texts centre on four key areas: cultural connotation, rule formulation, result dissemination, and technical algorithms. Addressing these issues requires a systematic approach, including the development of a cultural heritage framework for Traditional Chinese Medicine, the establishment of standardised annotation and indexing principles, the construction of high-quality corpora, the optimisation of data circulation mechanisms, and the refinement of intelligent algorithms. Advancing the annotation and indexing of classical Chinese medical texts not only promotes their efficient circulation and secondary utilisation but also lays a solid foundation for the large-scale mining of Traditional Chinese Medicine knowledge, its modern transmission, and cross-disciplinary intelligent applications, thereby driving the innovative development of the field. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Humanities and Ancient Manuscripts)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 329 KB

Open AccessEssay

Reassessing the Role of Google Scholar in PRISMA-Informed Systematic Reviews Through a Critical Analysis of Influential Research Identifying Its Limitations and Empirical Evidence

by Carol Nash

Publications 2026, 14(2), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020029 - 4 May 2026

Abstract

There is contested use of Google Scholar as a primary database for PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reviews. However, well-cited articles identify Google Scholar as insufficiently reliable and evaluate its use as supplementary. Subsequent systematic review searches have accepted [...] Read more.

There is contested use of Google Scholar as a primary database for PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reviews. However, well-cited articles identify Google Scholar as insufficiently reliable and evaluate its use as supplementary. Subsequent systematic review searches have accepted this relegation of Google Scholar to supplementary status, citing these articles as the reason. This study questions this acceptance by (1) revealing the type of difficulties with Google Scholar identified in these well-cited publications compared with PRISMA guidelines, and (2) examining several PRISMA scoping review primary database searches performed by this author since 2023 for the adequacy of Google Scholar results compared with them. The results reveal that the reasons for considering Google Scholar a supplementary database regarding PRISMA status are not convincing, as they are unrelated to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Google Scholar returned the greatest number of included studies for the majority of post-2023 scoping reviews conducted by this author. These results demonstrate that the accepted advice to authors that Google Scholar should be a supplementary database is unsupported. Based on the results of this research, the suggestion is to accept Google Scholar as a primary database, comparable in all relevant ways to other primary databases for a PRISMA-style review. Full article

19 pages, 1536 KB

Open AccessArticle

Economic Journals of the BRICS Countries: Assessment of Academic Influence

by Irina D. Turgel and Olga A. Chernova

Publications 2026, 14(2), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020028 - 1 May 2026

Abstract

The BRICS countries are playing an increasingly significant role in shaping a multipolar model of global science. This study aims to assess the academic influence of economic journals published in BRICS countries from the following key perspectives: academic standing, relevance, influence sustainability, internationalization, [...] Read more.

The BRICS countries are playing an increasingly significant role in shaping a multipolar model of global science. This study aims to assess the academic influence of economic journals published in BRICS countries from the following key perspectives: academic standing, relevance, influence sustainability, internationalization, and external institutional recognition (lack of isolation). The methods of bibliometric, comparative, and cluster analysis were used. The study revealed that the BRICS countries have significantly increased their presence in the Scopus database. However, their scientific publishing landscape is highly heterogeneous. Russia and India exhibit the highest publication volumes among the BRICS countries, albeit with relatively low citation rates and a low level of internationalization. Meanwhile, Chinese, South African, and Indonesian journals have the highest citation rates and strongest integration into the global discourse. Cluster analysis identified five groups of journals with a range of academic influence levels, from peripheral contributors to international leaders. Additionally, country-specific features of their distribution were determined. The present research provides insights into the pivotal role of national journals in overcoming peripherality and strengthening the academic influence of nationwide science. The research methodology can be used to develop strategies that promote nations to become part of the global research community. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 3356 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Attention Mismatch: Mapping the Structural Academic Governance Deficit in the Age of Generative AI

by Zhenning Guo, Haoran Mao and Fang Zhang

Publications 2026, 14(2), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020027 - 17 Apr 2026

Abstract

With the rapid advancement in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), AI-generated content (AIGC) lacking human cognitive oversight is increasingly permeating open web environments and academic communication systems. This study integrates longitudinal retraction data (Retraction Watch Database, 1990–2026), web-scale analyses of AI-content penetration (Common Crawl, [...] Read more.

With the rapid advancement in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), AI-generated content (AIGC) lacking human cognitive oversight is increasingly permeating open web environments and academic communication systems. This study integrates longitudinal retraction data (Retraction Watch Database, 1990–2026), web-scale analyses of AI-content penetration (Common Crawl, 2013–2026), and bibliometric mapping of governance scholarship (Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Google Scholar, 2020–2026) to diagnose the cross-level misalignment between synthetic-content diffusion, AI-related misconduct pressure, and governance attention. On this basis, it proposes a Normalized Coverage Index (NCI) to measure the relative relationship between scholarly attention to AI-related academic misconduct governance and the level of misconduct pressure observed through retraction data across disciplines. The results reveal pronounced asymmetries at the disciplinary level. Fields such as chemistry (0.04), physics, mathematics & statistics (0.11), and life sciences & biology (0.34) exhibit clear governance gaps, whereas Education shows a comparatively excessive level of attention (NCI = 29.26). Since 2022, AIGC has expanded rapidly across open web corpora, accompanied by a sharp rise in AI-related retractions, which also exhibit a longer detection lag than traditional forms of misconduct (2.77 years vs. 1.91 years). Although the volume of academic governance-related research has grown rapidly, its proportion within the broader body of AI-related research has declined, suggesting that scholarly attention to governance has not kept pace with technological diffusion. Consequently, a structural misalignment in governance—closely tied to the allocation of attention—has emerged within the academic system in the era of GenAI. This misalignment may pose potential risks to the robustness of the knowledge production system. Addressing it requires rebuilding epistemic infrastructure through provenance transparency, auditable workflows, and governance-aware seed corpora aligned with empirically concentrated risks. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Large Language Models Across the Lifecycle of Scholarly Publishing)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 899 KB

Open AccessReview

An Integrated Framework for Publishable Sport Science Research

by Spyridon Plakias

Publications 2026, 14(2), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020026 - 16 Apr 2026

Abstract

The rapid growth of scientific publications in sport science has intensified competition for publication and increased the importance of methodological rigor, transparent reporting, and effective scientific communication. Despite the availability of general guidance on scientific writing, recommendations specifically tailored to the context of [...] Read more.

The rapid growth of scientific publications in sport science has intensified competition for publication and increased the importance of methodological rigor, transparent reporting, and effective scientific communication. Despite the availability of general guidance on scientific writing, recommendations specifically tailored to the context of sport science publishing remain fragmented. The aim of this narrative review was to synthesize methodological, conceptual, and editorial perspectives in order to identify the key factors that influence the quality and publishability of sport science research. The review examines major dimensions of research quality, including theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, statistical inference, open science practices, and the structure of scientific manuscripts. In addition, common weaknesses that frequently lead to manuscript rejection, such as limited scientific contribution, methodological flaws, statistical misinterpretation, and inadequate scientific writing, are discussed. Building on this synthesis, the article proposes an integrated conceptual framework that conceptualizes publishable sport science research as a progressive process moving from conceptual foundations to methodological and analytical rigor, research transparency, and effective scientific communication. The framework, presented as a funnel, illustrates how these interconnected dimensions ultimately contribute to two complementary outcomes: the advancement of scientific knowledge and the practical application of research findings in sport contexts. By providing a structured overview of these elements, the proposed framework aims to support researchers in designing more rigorous studies, improving manuscript quality, and strengthening the impact of sport science research. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 447 KB

Open AccessSystematic Review

Evolving Roles of Information Professionals in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Systematic Literature Review

by Dyah Puspitasari Srirahayu, Dian Ekowati, Tiara Kusumaningtiyas, Esti Putri Anugrah, Alifian Sukma, Misita Anwar and Hanis Diyana Kamarudin

Publications 2026, 14(2), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020025 - 16 Apr 2026

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the landscape of library and information science, significantly altering the roles and responsibilities of information professionals. This paper aims to examine the transformations of information professional roles in the era of artificial intelligence. This [...] Read more.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the landscape of library and information science, significantly altering the roles and responsibilities of information professionals. This paper aims to examine the transformations of information professional roles in the era of artificial intelligence. This study conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) emulating the PRISMA 2020 protocol. Titles and abstracts were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria, including English full-text journal articles, review papers, and conference papers indexed in Scopus addressing the roles and competencies of information professionals in the era of artificial intelligence. The study employed a conceptual and review analysis of documents to examine the use of AI and its impact on the roles of information professionals. We investigated the positive and negative effects of AI on the roles of information professionals, as well as the evolving role of information professionals in routine process automation. AI’s presence and transformation of virtually all the information professionals’ roles are profound, with pertinent challenges. The impact of AI on the roles of information professionals are both positive and negative, while the roles of information professionals have undergone significant changes in the AI era. This paper presents a unique perspective on the evolving roles of information professionals in the era of artificial intelligence. It offers original insights into how AI is reshaping the profession, highlighting the profound impacts and transformations that are redefining traditional practices and skill sets. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue AI in Open Access)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 1374 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Coverage of Non-Traditional Research Outputs in Repositories and Current Research Information Systems: An Exploratory Study at the University of Bologna

by Alberto Ciarrocca, Ivan Heibi, Ahmadreza Nazari, Anna Nicoletti, Martina Pensalfini, Silvio Peroni, Lucrezia Pograri, Pietro Tisci and Sergei Slinkin

Publications 2026, 14(2), 24; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications14020024 - 15 Apr 2026

Abstract

The diversification of research outcomes produced within scholarly communication practices has led to a growing production of non-traditional research outputs (NTROs) such as datasets, software, databases, exhibitions, and multimedia materials, which are often poorly tracked by institutional systems. This study presents an exploratory [...] Read more.

The diversification of research outcomes produced within scholarly communication practices has led to a growing production of non-traditional research outputs (NTROs) such as datasets, software, databases, exhibitions, and multimedia materials, which are often poorly tracked by institutional systems. This study presents an exploratory study about knowledge production at the University of Bologna (UNIBO). This prominent national research institution offers a compelling case study to assess coverage, cross-repository overlap, and citation activity of NTROs across repositories. By harvesting and integrating metadata from the University of Bologna’s institutional CRIS system, the institutional repository AMS Acta, the general-purpose repository Zenodo, the disciplinary archive Software Heritage, and OpenCitations to gather citation information, we analyse the availability of UNIBO-affiliated NTROs and show that, while the UNIBO CRIS platform (i.e., IRIS) remains the primary registry for information on NTROs, a substantial number of them are hosted exclusively in external repositories. These findings highlight structural gaps in tracking NTROs in UNIBO IRIS and underline the need for improved interoperability and coordinated Open Science strategies and policies, at least at the local level, to ensure recognition of diverse research outputs. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Description

Publications

Latest Articles

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Highly Accessed Articles

Latest Books

E-Mail Alert

News

Topics

Conferences

Special Issues

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI