Search Results (518)

The Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²), introduced as a tool to identify universities at risk of compromised research integrity, adopts an overly reductive methodology by combining retraction rates and delisted journal proportions into a single, equally weighted composite score. While its stated aim is to promote accountability, this commentary critiques the RI² index for its flawed assumptions, lack of empirical validation, and disproportionate penalization of institutions in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how RI² misinterprets retractions, misuses delisting data, and fails to account for diverse academic publishing environments, particularly in Indonesia, where many high-performing universities are unfairly categorized as “high risk” or “red flag.” The index’s uncritical reliance on opaque delisting decisions, combined with its fixed equal-weighting formula, produces volatile and context-insensitive scores that do not accurately reflect the presence or severity of research misconduct. Moreover, RI² has gained significant media attention and policy influence despite being based on an unreviewed preprint, with no transparent mechanism for institutional rebuttal or contextual adjustment. By comparing RI² classifications with established benchmarks such as the Scimago Institution Rankings and drawing from lessons in global development metrics, we argue that RI², although conceptually innovative, should remain an exploratory framework. It requires rigorous scientific validation before being adopted as a global standard. We also propose flexible weighting schemes, regional calibration, and transparent engagement processes to improve the fairness and reliability of institutional research integrity assessments. Full article

Higher education and science (HES) is one of the key drivers of a country’s economic growth. In this study, we examine national projects and research capacity in HES in Kazakhstan from 2014 to 2024. We conducted a content review and scientometric analysis with network and temporal visualizations. Our data sources included policy documents, statistical reports, and the Scopus database. Our findings suggest that, while Kazakhstan aligns with global trends in the field (e.g., digitalization, scientometrics monitoring, and internationalization), these are achieved through a state-led, policy-driven approach shaped by its post-Soviet context. Additionally, we note a dual structure in Kazakhstan’s HES sector, characterized by a strong top-down direction and increasing institutional engagement. In terms of the thematic trends from the temporal analysis, the country experienced a three-staged evolution: foundational reforms and system modernization (2014–2017), capacity building and evaluation (2018–2021), and, most recently, strategic expansion, inclusivity, and globalization (2022–2024). Throughout the analyzed period, low R&D intensity, disciplinary imbalances, and structural barriers still undermine desired development efforts in HES. The analyzed case of Kazakhstan can serve as “lessons learned” for policymakers and researchers working in the science evaluation and scholarly communication area in similar emerging or transition countries. Full article

This study investigates how differing national research governance models impact academic performance by comparing European Research Council (ERC) grant winners in the social sciences and humanities from France and the Netherlands. Situated within the broader context of centralized versus decentralized research systems, the analysis aims to understand how these structures shape publication trends, thematic diversity, and collaboration patterns. Drawing on Scopus and SciVal data covering 9996 publications by 305 ERC winners between 2019 and 2023, we employed a multi-method approach, including latent Dirichlet allocation for topic modeling, compound annual growth rate analysis, and co-authorship network analysis. The results show that neuroscience, climate change, and psychology are dominant domains, with language and linguistics particularly prevalent in France and law and political science in the Netherlands. French ERC winners are more likely to be affiliated with national or sectoral institutions, whereas in the Netherlands, elite universities dominate. Collaboration emerged as a key success factor, with an average of four co-authors per publication and network analyses revealing central figures who bridge topical clusters. International collaborations were consistently linked with higher visibility, while single-authored publications showed limited impact. These findings suggest that institutional context and collaborative practices significantly shape research performance in both countries. Full article

This article presents a scoping review of the academic literature published between 2021 and 2024 on the intersection of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and disinformation. Drawing from 64 peer-reviewed studies, the review examines the current research landscape and identifies six key thematic areas: political disinformation and propaganda; scientific disinformation; fact-checking; journalism and the media; media literacy and education; and deepfakes. The findings reveal that generative AI plays a dual role: it enables the rapid creation and targeted dissemination of synthetic content but also offers new opportunities for detection, verification, and public education. Beyond summarizing research trends, this review highlights the broader societal and practical implications of generative AI in the context of information disorder. It outlines how AI tools are already reshaping journalism, challenging scientific communication, and transforming strategies for media literacy and fact-checking. The analysis also identifies key policy and governance challenges, particularly the need for coordinated responses from governments, platforms, educators, and civil society actors. By offering a structured overview of the field, the article enhances our understanding of how generative AI can both exacerbate and help mitigate disinformation, and proposes directions for research, regulation, and public engagement. Full article

This research aims to understand the evolving role of academic libraries, focusing on student perceptions of current services and their vision for the future. Data was collected using a survey at a midwestern research university in the United States. The survey contained both quantitative and qualitative questions. The objective of the survey was to understand the current utilization of library services and students’ future visions for academic libraries. Qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques were utilized as part of the study. Thematic analysis was employed as part of the qualitative analysis, while descriptive and inferential analysis techniques were utilized in the quantitative analysis. The findings reveal that many students use libraries for traditional functions such as studying and accessing resources. There is also an inclination toward digitalization due to convenience, accessibility, and environmental sustainability; however, print materials remain relevant as well. Another finding was a lack of awareness among some students regarding available library services, indicating a need for better marketing and communication strategies. Students envision future libraries as technology-driven spaces integrating artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and innovative collaborative environments. Ethical considerations surrounding AI, including privacy, bias, and transparency, are crucial factors that must be addressed. Some of the actionable recommendations include integrating ethical AI, implementing digital literacy initiatives, conducting ongoing usability and user experience (UX) research within the library, and fostering cross-functional collaboration to enhance library services and student learning. Full article

The purpose of this review is to synthesise the accumulated knowledge on Global Innovation Index (GII) research. We utilised a corpus from the Web of Science Core Collection to systematically examine the antecedents, consequences, and relationships among the GII’s dimensions. Additionally, we employed the bibliometric techniques of bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis to identify the leading areas of GII research and the foundational literature in this field. Our systematic review of GII empirical research allowed us to graphically represent the significant relationships among its dimensions. The findings from the bibliographic coupling revealed five recent lines of investigation in GII research: configurational methods; innovation efficiency and policy; competitiveness, entrepreneurship, and sustainable development; innovation rankings; and culture. Furthermore, the co-citation analysis highlighted four clusters of literature that have contributed to GII research. We aim to enhance the field of Innovation Studies by showcasing the current state of research on the GII, one of the most promising tools for measuring innovation activity, and to provide insights into potential future research avenues to further develop this area of study. Full article

This article investigates the architecture and institutional distribution of policy tools supporting open science (OS) in China. Based on a corpus of 199 policy documents comprising 25,885 policy statements, we apply an AI-assisted classification to analyze how the Chinese government mobilizes different types of tools. Using Qwen-plus, a large language model developed by Alibaba Cloud and fine-tuned for OS-related content, each policy statement is categorized into one of fifteen subcategories under three main types: supply-oriented, environment-oriented, and demand-oriented tools. Our findings reveal a strong dominance of supply-oriented tools (63%), especially investments in infrastructure, education, and public services. Demand-oriented tools remain marginal (11%), with little use of economic incentives or regulatory obligations. Environment-oriented tools show more balance but still underrepresent key components like incentive systems and legal mandates for open access. To deepen the analysis, we introduce a normalized indicator of institutional focus, which captures the relative emphasis of each policy type across administrative levels. Results show that supply-oriented tools are concentrated at top-level institutions, reflecting a top-down governance model. Demand tools are localized at lower levels, highlighting limited strategic commitment. Overall, China’s OS policy mix prioritizes infrastructure over incentives, limiting systemic transformation toward a more sustainable open science ecosystem. Full article

This work aims to use a suitable regression model to study a count response random variable, namely, the number of citations of a research paper, that is affected by some explanatory variables. The count variable exhibits substantial variation, as the sample variance is larger than the sample mean; thus, the classical Poisson regression model seems not to be appropriate. We concentrate our attention on the negative binomial regression model, which allows the variance of each measurement to be a function of its predicted value. Nevertheless, the process of citations of papers may be divided into two parts. In the first stage, the paper has no citations, while the second part provides the intensity of the citations. A hurdle model for separating documents with citations and those without citations is considered. The dataset for empirical application consisted of 43,190 research papers in the Economics and Business field from 2014–2021, which were obtained from The Lens database. Citation counts and social attention scores for each article were gathered from the Altmetric database. The main findings indicate that both collaboration and funding have positive impacts on citation counts and reduce the likelihood of receiving zero citations. Open access (OA) via repositories (green OA) correlates with higher citation counts and a lower probability of zero citations. In contrast, OA via the publisher’s website without an explicit open license (bronze OA) is associated with higher citation counts but also with a higher probability of zero citations. In addition, open access in subscription-based journals (hybrid OA) increases citation counts, although the effect is modest. There are clear disciplinary differences, with the prestige of the journal playing a significant role in citation counts. Articles with lower expert ratings tend to be cited less frequently and are more likely to be cited zero times. Meanwhile, news and blog mentions boost citations and reduce the likelihood of receiving no citations, while policy mentions also enhance citation counts and significantly lower the risk of being cited zero times. In contrast, patent mentions have a negative impact on citations. The influence of social media varies: X/Twitter and Wikipedia mentions increase citations and reduce the likelihood of being uncited, whereas Facebook and video mentions negatively impact citation counts. Full article

This article examines the resilience and volatility of academic publishing at the University of Maribor (UM) from 2004 to 2023, a period marked by significant economic and policy shifts in Slovenia. Using employment data from UM’s internal records and publication data from OpenAlex, we analyze the relationship between employed researchers and publishing authors. Despite a significant drop in researcher employment during the economic recession (2009–2013), the number of unique authors publishing under the UM affiliation surprisingly increased. Analysis of author turnover reveals a striking pattern: high short-term volatility (annual churn ~40–50%) contrasted with significant mid-term stability (5-year churn ~8–10%). Survival analysis confirms this pattern, revealing high initial attrition among publishing authors followed by long-term persistence for a core group of researchers. Network analysis of co-authorship patterns shows increasing resilience to the targeted removal of influential authors over time. Most significantly, we identify a fundamental shift in network structure around 2016, when the co-authorship network transitioned from dissassortative to assortative mixing patterns, coinciding with recovery in employment growth. This shift suggests a profound change in collaboration dynamics, from a system where highly connected researchers primarily collaborated with less-connected ones to one where highly connected researchers increasingly collaborate with each other. We discuss the implications for research policy and university management, emphasizing the need to balance short-term performance metrics with long-term stability and resilience. Full article

Innovation in science and technology arises from balanced supports for basic research, applied research, and societal implementation. However, changes in Japanese science policy that shifts toward top–down, evaluation-based, and competitive funding practices appear to have undermined Japan’s long-term research sustainability and innovation potential. The “selection and concentration” strategy (prioritization of specific research areas) and “competition principle”, combined with persistent reduction in Management Expenses Grants, have significantly altered Japan’s research environment for the worse. Together with these policy changes, the introduction of fixed-term contracts in academia has increased instability at both the institutional and the individual levels and has diminished the time and resources available for long-term basic research. Academic careers in science have become less attractive, as evidenced by declining doctoral student enrollment. These changes threaten the potential for scientific discoveries that lead to innovation. Although initiatives such as the introduction of University Research Administrators (URAs) have been implemented to support researchers, such efforts remain insufficient to counterbalance the systemic challenges faced by Japan’s research ecosystem. To re-establish a stable research environment, rethinking the strategy may be necessary, including restoration of stable institutional funding, sustainable career pathways, and balanced funding allocation to basic science that foster seeds for future innovation. Full article

The literature has shown that neonatal deaths contribute largely to the total number of deaths in children under 5 years of age worldwide and that 39% of all neonatal deaths recorded in 2019 were in Africa. Neonatal conditions (NCs) are the main cause of these losses. Therefore, NC research is critical to improve the ability to prevent, predict, detect, treat, and manage neonatal problems. However, this research must be properly funded to arrive at outcomes of interest. Regarding the funding of NC research, no study has addressed this issue. In this regard, a bibliometric analysis of the funding information reported in publications can assist scientists in seeking funds for ongoing or new NC research and those involved in developing and implementing strategies to improve NC funding. Using a bibliometric analysis, this study identified the African and non-African funders mentioned in articles on NC research in Africa published between 1990 and 2019. A set of indicators gives an initial picture of funding activities. The results show that the involvement of African and non-African funders in NC research has increased; NC research is highly dependent on foreign funders, especially from the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK); and the funding comes from few funders. Strategies are necessary to reduce the fragility of the funding structure of NC research due to its high dependence on foreign funders and concentration on few funders. Full article

Systematic reviews (SRs) reflect the best available evidence for informing vaccination recommendations. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of vaccination-related SRs aiming to uncover research trends. Vaccination-related SRs published from 2011 to 2023 in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Living Overview of Evidence database were considered. Trends over time, disease/pathogen, topic, population, geographical location, accessibility, methodological quality, and overlap were descriptively analyzed using R. A total of 2275 SRs were identified, most of which were freely accessible (n = 2083, 91.7%). The annual number of published SRs increased more than twelvefold from 2011 to 2023. COVID-19 (n = 861, 37.8%), influenza (n = 328, 14.4%), Human papillomavirus (n = 248, 10.9%), and pneumococcal disease (n = 152, 6.7%) were the most frequently addressed diseases/pathogens. Efficacy/effectiveness (n = 1066, 46.9%) and safety of vaccines (n = 812, 35.7%) were the most common topics. The methodological quality of SRs on intervention topics (n = 1376) was mostly critically low (n = 1155, 84.0%). Several SRs were identified that covered similar diseases/pathogens, topics and populations, indicating duplication and overlap, particularly for COVID-19. Our analysis showed a large increase in the number of published vaccination-related SRs. The results provide a basis for understanding the current state and priorities in vaccination research and decrease the overlap potential in newly developed SRs. Full article

Scientific disinformation has emerged as a critical challenge at the interface of science and society. This paper examines how false or misleading scientific content proliferates across both social media and traditional media and evaluates strategies to counteract its spread. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of research on scientific misinformation across disciplines and regions, with particular focus on climate change and public health as exemplars. Our findings indicate that social media algorithms and user dynamics can amplify false scientific claims, as seen in case studies of viral misinformation campaigns on vaccines and climate change. Traditional media, meanwhile, are not immune to spreading inaccuracies—journalistic practices such as sensationalism or “false balance” in reporting have at times distorted scientific facts, impacting public understanding. We review efforts to fight disinformation, including technological tools for detection, the application of inoculation theory and prebunking techniques, and collaborative approaches that bridge scientists and journalists. To empower individuals, we propose practical guidelines for critically evaluating scientific information sources and emphasize the importance of digital and scientific literacy. Finally, we discuss methods to quantify the prevalence and impact of scientific disinformation—ranging from social network analysis to surveys of public belief—and compare trends across regions and scientific domains. Our results underscore that combating scientific disinformation requires an interdisciplinary, multi-pronged approach, combining improvements in science communication, education, and policy. We conducted a scoping review of 85 open-access studies focused on climate-related misinformation and disinformation, selected through a systematic screening process based on PRISMA criteria. This approach was chosen to address the lack of comprehensive mappings that synthesize key themes and identify research gaps in this fast-growing field. The analysis classified the literature into 17 thematic clusters, highlighting key trends, gaps, and emerging challenges in the field. Our results reveal a strong dominance of studies centered on social media amplification, political denialism, and cognitive inoculation strategies, while underlining a lack of research on fact-checking mechanisms and non-Western contexts. We conclude with recommendations for strengthening the resilience of both the public and information ecosystems against the spread of false scientific claims. Full article

The Global Quality Score (GQS) is one of the most frequently used tools to evaluate the content quality of online health information. To the author’s knowledge, it is frequently misnamed as the Global Quality Scale, and occasionally secondary sources are cited as the original source of the tool. This work aimed to reveal the current situation especially regarding the citations among published studies. Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed were queried to identify papers that mentioned the use of the GQS. Among a total of 411 analyzed papers, 45.0% misnamed it as Global Quality Scale, and 46.5% did not cite the primary source published in 2007 to credit it as the original source. Another 80 references were also cited from time to time as the source of the GQS, led by a secondary source published in 2012. There was a decreasing trend in citing the primary source when using the GQS. Among the 12 papers that claimed that the GQS was validated, half of them cited the primary source to justify the claim, but in fact the original publication did not mention anything about its validation. To conclude, future studies should name and cite the GQS properly to minimize confusion. Full article

This manuscript introduces the Scientific Peer Review Index (SPR-index), a novel metric designed to enhance the H-index by incorporating verified peer review records from the Web of Science database. The SPR-index aims to provide a more comprehensive assessment of researchers by considering not only their publication record but also their contributions to the peer review system—an essential yet often overlooked aspect of academic work. Given the increasing difficulty in finding qualified reviewers, this metric aims to recognize and incentivize peer review efforts. The SPR-index is calculated as the product of a researcher’s H-index, normalized by their number of publications, and the total number of verified peer reviews, offering a more nuanced measure of their academic impact. Additionally, we propose factoring in review length to acknowledge researchers who provide in-depth evaluations that exceed the average word count. However, its successful implementation depends on improvements in Clarivate’s peer review data collection, particularly in enhancing the accuracy and completeness of verified review records. Researchers must also ensure their reviews are visible in the Web of Science by selecting appropriate visibility settings. The further refinement and validation of this metric are needed to support its widespread adoption in the academic community. Full article