Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.30544

Journal Basket: Supporting Cross-Disciplinary Literature Searching and Methodological Transparency

Michael Cahalane
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Business students beginning a research project must learn how to identify relevant scholarly publications, distinguish disciplinary sources, construct database searches, and report the decisions behind their literature reviews. These tasks can be difficult because journal classification systems and bibliographic databases organize scholarly information differently. This paper introduces Journal Basket, a browser-based tool developed to help business students conduct journal-bounded literature searches and currently available in beta. Journal Basket enables users to construct journal collections from the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List, choose from 42 business discipline presets, entire ABDC fields or the Financial Times FT50 list, apply journal rating thresholds, and generate search expressions for Scopus, Web of Science and Business Source. Users can also inspect and modify journal collections, download journal inventories, and generate methodological descriptions and deterministic identifiers for journal selections. Companion learning resources use explanations, examples and interactive activities to teach review methods, database choice, referencing and the use of contemporary AI tools. Drawing on the journal-basket concept used by Litbaskets.io, I describe the educational motivation, design rationale, technical architecture, and practical workflow of Journal Basket. I distinguish reproducing a journal collection from reproducing an entire database search and discuss the limitations of journal rankings as search boundaries. The paper addresses scholarly information retrieval through a workflow for defining journal boundaries, generating database-specific queries and documenting search decisions.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael Cahalane. 2026-10-21. Journal Basket: Supporting Cross-Disciplinary Literature Searching and Methodological Transparency. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30544

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Major Revision, Minor Accountability: LLMs as Reviewers of Published Articles in Top-Tier Journals

With the growth of scientific output, the peer review system is approaching a breaking point: reviewers are increasingly hard to secure, and turnaround times lengthen accordingly. LLM-assisted or LLM-generated peer review has been proposed as a remedy, but how such models would treat manuscripts already published in top-tier journals, the closest thing the current system has to a gold standard of scientific validity, is not known. Here we assembled a corpus of 200 articles, each released under a CC BY 4.0 license and published in 2026, from 20 general-science, life-science, and clinical-medicine journals including Nature, Science, and Cell, and asked four current LLMs (two proprietary, two open-weight) to produce independent peer-review reports of each one under a blinded protocol. Their decisions were overwhelmingly harsh and starkly inconsistent with each other: 605 of 800 reviews (75.6%) recommended major revision or rejection, but the rate at which any single model did so ranged from 17.5% to 100% (p < 0.001), disagreement on manuscripts that had, by construction, already survived real editorial review at the journals in question. When the same manuscripts were doctored with one deliberately planted, field-specific methodological or statistical flaw, detection rates varied from 17.0% to 60.5% across models (p < 0.001). Recommending revision for papers that had already passed editorial review (low specificity) while missing flaws deliberately placed in front of them (low sensitivity), these models produce output that should be read for what it is: an uneven, framing- and model-dependent signal.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Large Teams Consistently Develop Science

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 reaffirm that large teams consistently develop science and offer new insights into the measurement of scientific disruption.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Metadata conflicts and their impact on DataCite metadata completeness in disciplinary research data repositories

This paper presents results from a study that investigates how eight disciplinary research data repositories from the geosciences and social sciences navigate metadata conflicts - conflicts in implementations of the same standard and inter-standard conflicts - and how these conflicts affect the completeness of DataCite metadata. It combines results from analyzing DataCite metadata records, structural differences between three disciplinary metadata schemas and the DataCite Metadata Schema, and a direct comparison of two metadata records describing the same dataset. The results show that both conflicts in implementations of the same standard and inter-standard conflicts contribute to incomplete DataCite metadata. In addition to inherent differences between the metadata schemas, workflows and conscious decisions by the repositories also contribute to these conflicts. Some of these conflicts could be resolved by updated metadata crosswalks, emerging initiatives for retroactive collaborative metadata enrichment, the implementation of metadata application profiles or schema updates. Other conflicts can't be resolved or are strongly connected to the repository mission. The results also highlight that metadata completeness is multifaceted, and assessment requires careful consideration of context.

cs.DL↗