ALT Scientific progress depends on both developing established knowledge and disrupting it to make way for new ideas. Using the disruption index (D), our previous work showed that large teams tend to develop science, while small teams are more likely to disrupt it. Recent work challenges this finding, arguing that D mechanically depends on reference-list length. Using an alternative measure (oneD), it reaches the opposite conclusion: large teams are more disruptive. Combining Nobel Prize case studies, mathematical analysis, and large-scale publication data, we show that oneD misclassifies developmental contributions as disruptive and introduces the very sensitivity to reference-list length that it seeks to eliminate. The original measure, D, however, shows no evidence of the claimed systematic dependence on reference-list length. More fundamentally, even after controlling for reference-list length, larger teams remain more likely to produce strongly developmental work. Our findings reaffir

ALT Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT can estimate research quality from article titles and abstracts, and decision makers may increasingly use LLM scores to support research assessment. In this context, it is a concern that LLM scores may be influenced by linguistic signals rather than the quality of the research described. This study investigates whether explicit novelty claims in research abstracts are associated with higher ChatGPT scores. Using 99,245 journal articles submitted to the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021, ChatGPT scores and percentile rank gains relative to REF departmental average scores (as a proxy for article-level scores) were compared between abstracts with and without any of 282 three-word phrases identified as indicating a novelty claim. Abstracts containing novelty claim phrases had higher mean ChatGPT quality scores in all four main REF research groupings (panels). Moreover, the score difference was higher for the originality dimension of re

ALT The increasing specialization of scientific research calls for fine-grained representations of publication content that can be applied at scale. SCALE extends the OpenAlex taxonomy with approximately 114,000 Scientific Concepts derived from author keywords, but assigning these Concepts to individual publications remains challenging. We introduce MATCH (Multi-stage Article Tagging to Concept Hierarchies), a framework that assigns SCALE Concepts using article titles, abstracts, and author keywords. MATCH combines multi-view embedding retrieval, deterministic taxonomy-aware filtering, and language-model reranking to select relevant Concepts while preserving their hierarchical paths. Its modular design supports both API-based and self-hosted inference. In a blind evaluation involving 22 domain experts across 11 fields and 110 articles, the self-hosted and API-based configurations achieved Precision of 81.5% and 83.3%, respectively, and Precision@5 of approximately 89% for both, with no sta

ALT Scientific document embeddings such as SPECTER2 are optimized for retrieval over large, heterogeneous corpora. On a small specialized corpus their similarity distributions can become highly compressed, which limits their usefulness for exploratory literature mapping. We study whether weakly supervised in-domain adaptation, using only metadata already available in open citation databases, changes this geometry. On ArtCon, a curated corpus of 704 publications on artificial and machine consciousness, we adapt the SPECTER2 proximity model with a lightweight LoRA adapter trained on positive pairs derived from bibliographic coupling in OpenAlex, using no manually annotated similarity labels. We compare the adapted embeddings with lexical (TF-IDF), citation-based (bibliographic coupling) and generic semantic (SPECTER2) representations under thresholded, fixed-density and symmetric k-nearest-neighbour graph constructions. Adaptation substantially decompresses the similarity distribution (mean

ALT This short conceptual paper recalls to the attention of the scientometrics community some long-standing open methodological problems and proposes new directions that might be taken in renewed engagements with them. These problems are the differential dependency of the global reference score on the included units' observed scores and the dilution of impact measurement accuracy due to collaboration, which causes a global convergence in country citation impact due to international collaborative research. Advantages and disadvantages of existing and new solutions are discussed.

ALT Two documents can be close because they cite the same works or because they write about the same things, and the two kinds of proximity often disagree. Science mapping reads them in separate maps or merges them, as hybrid clustering does; either way the disagreement is lost. We introduce multiplex coupling, a framework that couples the same documents by their references and by their terms, keeps the two layers separate and analyses their relation. Similarities are standardised against a null model, and the agreement between the layers is measured on random pairs of documents. Consensus clustering partitions each layer into roots, groups sharing an intellectual base, and themes, groups sharing a topic. A test on the roots × themes table identifies branching roots and convergent themes, and pairs of roots are followed over time. Every structure is reported with its persistence across numbers of neighbours, which on synthetic data identifies most false branching. Applications to Web of Sc

ALT Digital libraries and knowledge graphs need a way to organize very large collections so that related works are close and any work is quick to reach. The classifications libraries inherited for this, such as LCC and DDC, are maintained by editorial staff, are partly closed, and were not built against a stated, measurable objective. We propose the opposite: a general classification that is fitted, under the constraints that make a classification usable on a shelf or in a browse list, to the same quantity that a companion survey and benchmark (Awad, 2026) ranks existing schemes by. The objective is J = D + 0.005 N, where D is the normalized Dasgupta cost of the class tree on a fixed similarity graph (Dasgupta, 2016) and N is an expected navigation cost in bits with a per-level charge. Two constraints are hard: every class is a contiguous run of one fixed shelf order (the optimal-alphabetic-tree constraint of Hu and Tucker, 1971), and new works are filed by splitting leaf classes only, so

ALT Paper-to-patent citations connect scientific and technological documents, but their interpretability depends on how patents are used in the citing text. This study examines citation contexts and paper-level outcome associations in AI-related articles in PubMed Central (PMC). Screening 189,073 articles identified 746 with explicitly tagged patent references (0.395%), including 713 with 1,544 identifiable in-text patent-citation instances. Three large language models classified these instances by represented content, motivation, textual position, and evaluative stance. Regression models examined associations among these dimensions, and propensity-score-matched regressions compared patent-citing papers with XML-screened controls. Background-oriented citations were predominantly neutral and introductory, whereas adoption-oriented citations were more closely associated with methodological positions and supportive evaluations. These patterns suggest heuristic configurations of contextualizat

ALT Research evaluation has developed around quantity, citation impact and, more recently, the accumulation of research excellence, but these dimensions remain largely dependent on citations, which describe how research is received rather than what it contains. We propose uniqueness as a complementary dimension and measure it with the Research Uniqueness Index (RUI), which asks how far a university's research sits from what is typical in its field, using no citations but the content of the research itself. Each researcher is represented by an embedding of their abstracts, and an unbalanced version of Optimal Transport returns the share of that work which cannot be matched into a random sample of same-field researchers, the standard population; that unmatched share is the score. Because every researcher is scored, a university is a distribution rather than one number, and we treat that distribution as the indicator: it shows whether uniqueness is spread across an institution or concentrated

ALT Science maps describe relationships between papers. Text embedding models build these relationships by turning a paper's text into a list of numbers that gives it a position. Would another model give the same picture? I compare ten models using titles and abstracts of 500,000 publications from the OpenAlex bibliographic catalogue, published in 2000-2024 across 26 disciplines, including Medicine and Physics. Representing each discipline by its papers' average position produces similar arrangements across models, including when other papers are selected. Yet within a discipline and period, two models share, on average, only eight of the 25 papers closest to a given paper. Supplying titles alone also changes much of that list, with effects that vary between models. Models can also disagree about which discipline's papers are more spread out. One measure of spread compares angles between lines drawn from a common point to each paper's position. Moving that point can reverse which disciplin

ALT Artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied to an expanding range of scientific activities, including literature analysis, hypothesis generation, software development and automated experimentation. Yet these capabilities rely on a more fundamental condition: scientific information must remain identifiable and traceable across systems and over time. In practice, different versions of a work and their associated records and files are often scattered across services and local directories. This fragmentation forces researchers to identify and contextualize the same work repeatedly, disrupting continuity from discovery to interpretation and reuse. Here we present Gewu Insight, a research information infrastructure that addresses this discontinuity by organizing scientific works as persistent, stateful research objects. It unifies venue-, topic- and author-based discovery records through a shared paper identity. Within a local library, metadata, versioned resources and research context can

ALT Digital libraries increasingly host scientific publications whose figures encode primary research findings, yet making this visual content searchable, accessible, and reusable remains an open challenge. Large language and multimodal models (LLMs/LMMs) provide the possibility to automate many figure parsing tasks such as determining data trends or extracting data from plots. In this work, we consider if these models can reliably support task-oriented visual data analysis when presented with synthetic, but realistic, scientific figures that contain multiple charts. Our Visual Question Answering (VQA) process scaffolds our tasks along a four-level description model from basic conceptual answers to interpretive and analytical understanding. Additionally, we outline our process for synthetically generating our single and multi-panel (charts in which there are multiple panels present) plots and testing the data with various LMMs using quantitative analysis. In general, we find LMMs become le

ALT Author Name Disambiguation benchmarks are predominantly derived from closed infrastructures that may not reflect conditions in open bibliographic environments. We present OC-AND, an open citation-enriched benchmark for AND constructed by remapping the WhoIsWho dataset with bibliographic and citation metadata from OpenCitations. The dataset is produced through a reproducible five-stage pipeline involving DOI verification, metadata validation, OpenCitations enrichment, and author-centric transformation. OC-AND retains the WhoIsWho ground-truth files and partition structure unchanged, while its publication files are restricted to publications that could be matched to a validated DOI and an OpenCitations record. It introduces realistic characteristics of open environments: heterogeneous metadata completeness, absent abstracts and affiliations, asymmetric citation coverage, and sparse graph connectivity. The dataset contains author records with associated citations, enabling evaluation of A

ALT Author Name Disambiguation systems are commonly evaluated using pairwise and B³ metrics, which summarize clustering quality through aggregate precision and recall but do not explicitly distinguish between lumping (merging publications from different authors) and splitting (fragmenting the publications of a single author). Because these errors can have asymmetric consequences in bibliographic applications, we propose a precision-driven evaluation framework that decomposes clustering quality into complementary instance-level and cluster-level signals. The framework introduces cluster-level Lumping Error and Splitting Error to separately quantify contamination and fragmentation, combines them with standard pairwise and B³ metrics through a Composite Score, and uses the resulting measures for model selection. We characterize the diagnostic behavior of the framework through a controlled synthetic case study and assess the sensitivity of the Composite Score to its weighting scheme. The resul

ALT Selective databases such as Scopus periodically re-evaluate the titles they index and remove those that no longer meet their quality criteria. Once a journal is removed, its subsequent output is no longer recorded, and the consequences of this process have therefore received little attention. This study analyzes the publication output and citation impact of 514 sources delisted from Scopus between 2018 and 2024, based on 678,162 documents retrieved from OpenAlex over a window of three years before and after delisting. Differences between periods are tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples, globally and by geographic region, field of knowledge and SJR quartile. Output grows until the year of delisting and falls sharply afterwards. The median annual output per journal drops from 35 to 22 documents (-37.1%; p < 0.001; r = 0.30), 61.7% of journals publish less, and 84 (16.3%) have no documents recorded in OpenAlex after delisting. Citations per document, measured over

ALT Cell permeability is a key bottleneck for PROTAC development, and public data available to model it is scarce and inconsistent. We adapt an expert-in-the-loop LLM extraction workflow to mine PAMPA measurements from the primary literature, recovering image-only structures by optical chemical structure recognition and hand-verifying every record, expanding the public record from 31 PROTACs to 87. Ridge models trained on PROTAC-DB 3.0 reach R² = 0.67 within that resource but collapse on the newly extracted chemistry (ρ=0.12), while models trained on the new compounds transfer back successfully (ρ=0.80). We conclude that the current composition of the published records, and not dataset size, is limiting the construction of more generalizable models, and we outline what would need to change in reporting practices for better data-driven permeability models.

ALT Paradigm shifts in science are visible in what researchers assert and contest before they are visible in the citation graph. We ask whether a cheap, content-level signal of epistemic instability, derived from the changing distribution of stated modelling beliefs in paper abstracts, can anticipate a paradigm shift earlier than the dominant citation-based disruption index (CD5). On the displacement of recurrent networks by Transformers in NLP, a pre-registered content signal crosses its detection threshold in 2016-Q1, whereas a real-time CD5 monitor cannot even observe the 2017 breakthrough until 2022-Q2, since CD5 needs a five-year forward-citation window: a lead of about 25 quarters. The flat citation baseline is not an artifact of one index, as our CD5, a reference-normalised variant, and an authoritative precomputed index all sit near zero across the shift. The lead is also not a faster proxy: at equal latency the signal beats the content competitors tested, including a learned CD-fr

ALT Modern science has moved decisively toward larger and more collaborative research teams. Yet an influential 2019 study reported that small teams are more disruptive than large teams, a conclusion difficult to reconcile with both the well-known trend toward increasing collaboration and the disproportionately large teams behind widely recognized disruptive research, such as work that has been awarded Nobel Prizes. Here we show that the reported disruptive advantage of small teams is largely an artifact of measurement rather than a fact about teams. Analyzing about 60 million scientific publications, we find that larger teams cite more references and that the standard disruption index declines mechanically as reference lists lengthen. Equalizing reference-count distributions across team sizes reverses the negative gradient within the index's own framework. Evaluating each paper against one reference at a time yields a reference-robust measure that distinguishes recognized breakthroughs fr

ALT Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for literature search and synthesis. However, it is unclear whether they retrieve accurate bibliographic information in environmental science. Therefore, we quantitatively compared the errors of widely used LLM platforms in retrieving references related to original articles from five leading environmental science journals (Energy and Environmental Science, Nature Sustainability, Nature Climate Change, Lancet Planetary Health, and Environmental Science and Technology) published in 2024 to 2025. Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Perplexity, and Gemini were used as the LLM platforms. LLMs retrieved 10 references for each of the 50 randomly selected original article using either the article's abstract or its full-text as prompt. The retrieved references were subject to a multimetric score ratio combining validity of bibliographic data, Google Scholar link, digital object identifier, Scopus Electronic Identifier and relevance score (cited by

ALT Research results are prioritised by search engines, large language models and knowledge graphs chiefly through restatement rather than through the originating source. Although the open-access share of annual scholarly output has recently exceeded half, a substantial subscription corpus remains outside what machine readers may legitimately access under prevailing licences. A mechanism is described whereby subscription content is drawn into the open corpus through its citation and restatement in open-access articles—a process termed human mining, by analogy with the text and data mining performed by machines. An optimistic upper bound on what may thereby be inferred by a machine reader confined to the open literature is modelled, and the completeness, latency and licence constraints of that bound are quantified. A majority of subscription articles that have ever been cited is found to be reachable through at least one open citation, and the median interval between a subscription article'