Search

Large bibliometric databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenAlex, facilitate bibliometric analyses, but are performative, affecting the visibility of scientific outputs and the impact measurement of participating entities. Recently, these databases have taken up the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their respective classifications, which have been criticised for their diverging nature. This work proposes using the feature of large language models (LLMs) to learn about the "data bias" injected by diverse SDG classifications into bibliometric data by exploring five SDGs. We build a LLM that is fine-tuned in parallel by the diverse SDG classifications inscribed into the databases' SDG classifications. Our results show high sensitivity in model architecture, classified publications, fine-tuning process, and natural language generation. The wide arbitrariness at different levels raises concerns about using LLM in research practice.

Research funding through third-party financing is of considerable importance for the German science system. The funds of the German Research Foundation (DFG) serve as the central focus due to the high reputation of the foundation. However, it has not been clarified yet to what extent the chances of successfully acquiring these funds depend on the structure of the university as an institution. The present study analyses DFG funding in the context of university research and examines the role of organisational conditions in the acquisition of funding. Several factors, such as size of the institution, equipment, and teaching activities, are analysed. The empirical study focuses on four subjects and investigates the correlation between funding success and conditional factors using a Bayesian approach. Results reveal the considerable relevance of the factors size as well as provision of academic and non-academic personnel. This implies that the organisational conditions are to be taken into account while evaluating third-party financing success., Comment: in German

Dimensions was introduced as an alternative bibliometric database to the well-established Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, however all three databases have fundamental differences in coverage and content, resultant from their owners' indexation philosophies. In light of these differences, we explore here, using a citation network analysis and assessment of normalised citation impact of "duplicate" publications, whether the three databases offer structurally different perspectives of the bibliometric landscape or if they are essentially homogenous substitutes. Our citation network analysis of core and exclusive 2016-2018 publications revealed a large set of core publications indexed in all three databases that are highly self-referential. In comparison, each database selected a set of exclusive publications that appeared to hold similarly low levels of relevance to the core set and to one another, with slightly more internal communication between exclusive publications in Scopus and Dimensions than WoS. Our comparison of normalised citations for 41,848 publications indexed in all three databases found that German sectors were valuated as more impactful in Scopus and Dimensions compared to WoS, particularly for sectors with an applied research focus. We conclude that the databases do present structurally different perspectives, although Scopus and Dimensions with their additional circle of applied research vary more from the more base research-focused WoS than they do from one another.

Identifying and monitoring Open Access (OA) publications might seem a trivial task while practical efforts prove otherwise. Contradictory information arise often depending on metadata employed. We strive to assign OA status to publications in Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus while complementing it with different sources of OA information to resolve contradicting cases. We linked publications from WOS and Scopus via DOIs and ISSNs to Unpaywall, Crossref, DOAJ and ROAD. Only about 50% of articles and reviews from WOS and Scopus could be matched via a DOI to Unpaywall. Matching with Crossref brought 56 distinct licences, which define in many cases the legally binding access status of publications. But only 44% of publications hold only a single licence on Crossref, while more than 50% have no licence information submitted to Crossref. Contrasting OA information from Crossref licences with Unpaywall we found contradictory cases overall amounting to more than 25%, which might be partially explained by (ex-)including green OA. A further manual check found about 17% of OA publications that are not accessible and 15% non-OA publications that are accessible through publishers' websites. These preliminary results suggest that identification of OA state of publications denotes a difficult and currently unfulfilled task., Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures, 6 tables, submitted to ISSI2019

National bibliometric performance is commonly measured via relative impact indicators which appraise absolute national values through a global environment. Consequenty the resulting impact values mirror changes in the national performance as well as in its embedding. In order to assess the importance of the environment in this ratio, we analyse the increase in Chinese publications as an example for a structural change altering the whole database. Via a counterfactual comparison we quantify how Chinese publications benefit a large set of countries on their impact values, identify explanatory factors and describe the underelying mechanism due to longer reference lists and a non-uniform citation distribution among recipient countries. We argue that such structural changes in the environment have to be taken into account for an unbiased measurement of national bibliometric performance.