Publications

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly permeating research practices, yet knowledge about its use and topical profile remains fragmented across tools and disciplines. In this study, we present a cross-disciplinary map of GenAI research based on the Web of Science Core Collection (as of 4 November 2025) for the ten tool lines with the largest number of publications. We employed a transparent query protocol in the Title (TI) and Topic (TS) fields, using Boolean and proximity operators together with brand-specific exclusion lists. Thematic similarity was estimated with the Jaccard index for the Top–50, Top–100, and Top–200 sets. In parallel, we computed volume and citation metrics using Python and reconstructed a country-level co-authorship network. The corpus comprises 14,418 deduplicated publications. A strong concentration is evident around ChatGPT, which accounts for approximately 80.6% of the total. The year 2025 shows a marked increase in output across all lines. The Jaccard matrices reveal two stable clusters: general-purpose tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot) and open-source/developer-led lines (LLaMA, Mistral, Qwen, DeepSeek). Perplexity serves as a bridge between the clusters, while Grok remains the most distinct. The co-authorship network exhibits a dual-core structure anchored in the United States and China. The study contributes to bibliometric research on GenAI by presenting a perspective that combines publication dynamics, citation structures, thematic profiles, and similarity matrices based on the Jaccard algorithm for different tool lines. In practice, it proposes a comparative framework that can help researchers and institutions match GenAI tools to disciplinary contexts and develop transparent, repeatable assessments of their use in scientific activities.

Ranking research groups plays a crucial role in various contexts, such as ensuring the fair allocation of research grants, assigning projects, and evaluating journal editorial boards. In this paper, we analyze the distribution of h-indexes within research groups and propose a single metric to quantify their overall performance, termed the α-index. This index integrates two complementary aspects: the homogeneity of members’ h-indexes, captured by the Gini coefficient (g), and the h-group, an extension of the individual h-index to groups. By combining both uniformity and collective research output, the α-index provides a consistent and equitable metric for comparative evaluation, essentially calculated as the average relative h-group multiplied by and normalized by the maximum value of this quantity across all analyzed groups. We describe the full procedure for computing the index and its components and illustrate its application to computer science conferences, where program committees are compared through a resampling procedure that ensures fair comparisons across groups of different sizes. Additional results are presented for postgraduate programs, further demonstrating the method’s applicability. Correlation analyses are used to establish rankings; however, our primary goal is to recommend a fairer index that reduces deviations from those currently used by governmental agencies to evaluate conferences and graduate programs. The proposed approach offers a more nuanced assessment than simply averaging members’ h-indexes and can be applied broadly–for example, to university departments and research councils–contributing to a more equitable distribution of research funding, an issue of increasing importance.

Recent decades have seen a rise of anti-science rhetoric, fueled by scientific scandals and failures of peer review, and the rise of trainable generative AI spreading misinformation. We argue, moreover, that the continued erosion of scientific authority also arises from inherent features in science and academia, including a reliance on publication as a method for gaining professional credibility and success. Addressing this multifaceted challenge necessitates a concerted effort across several key areas: strengthening scientific messaging, combating misinformation, rebuilding trust in scientific authority, and fundamentally rethinking academic professional norms. Taking these steps will require widespread effort, but if we want to rebuild trust with the public, we must make significant and structural changes to the production and dissemination of science.