arXiv subjects

Andrey Lovakov

Publications and source records attributed to Andrey Lovakov.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Comparison of OpenAlex and Scopus coverage of German institutions' publications in top-tier journals

OpenAlex has recently emerged as a leading alternative to proprietary bibliometric sources. However, concerns remain regarding the quality of its metadata, especially the institutional profiles which are crucial for evaluating organizations. This study assesses the quality of affiliation data in OpenAlex using German research institutions. Publications from top-tier journals were analyzed and institutional publication counts in OpenAlex were systematically compared with counts in Scopus. The results show that OpenAlex generally contains more publications at the journal level, reflecting its broader coverage. However, institutional publication counts in OpenAlex are consistently lower, indicating missing or incorrectly assigned affiliations. Nevertheless, the correlations between institutional outputs in both databases are very high, suggesting that relative institutional rankings remain stable. These findings suggest that OpenAlex is suitable for comparative institutional analyses in academic research but requires further improvement in affiliation metadata before it can be used for evaluation contexts that rely on absolute publication counts.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness?

The recent surge in bibliometric studies published has been accompanied by increasing diversity in the completeness of reporting these studies' details, affecting reliability, reproducibility, and robustness. Our study systematises the reporting of bibliometric research using open peer reviews. We examined 182 peer reviews of 85 bibliometric studies published in library and information science (LIS) journals and conference proceedings, and non-LIS journals. We extracted 968 reviewer comments and inductively classified them into 11 broad thematic categories and 68 sub-categories, determining that reviewers largely focus on the completeness and clarity of reporting data, methods, and results. We subsequently derived 49 recommendations for the details authors should report and compared them with the GLOBAL, PRIBA, and BIBLIO reporting guidelines to identify (dis)similarities in content. Our recommendations addressed 60-80% of the guidelines' items, while the guidelines covered 45-65% of our recommendations. Our recommendations provided greater range and specificity, but did not incorporate the functions of guidelines beyond addressing academic content. We argue that peer reviews provide valuable information for the development of future guidelines. Further, our recommendations can be read as the implicit community standards for reporting bibliometric studies and could be used by authors to aid complete and accurate reporting of their manuscripts.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Stakes are higher, risk is lower: Citation distributions are more equal in high quality journals

Psychology is a discipline standing at the crossroads of hard and social sciences. Therefore it is especially interesting to study bibliometric characteristics of psychology journals. We also take two adjacent disciplines, neurosciences and sociology. One is closer to hard sciences, another is a social science. We study not the journal citedness itself (impact factor etc.) but the citation distribution across papers within journals. This is, so to say, "indicators of the second order" which measure the digression from the journal's average of the citations received by individual papers. As is shown, such information about journals may also help authors to correct their publication strategies.

cs.DL↗