arXiv subjects

Jens Peter Andersen

Publications and source records attributed to Jens Peter Andersen.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Generative AI and the future of scientometrics: current topics and future questions

In this paper, we contribute to the debate on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in scientometrics. We argue that moving from a trial-and-error approach to an explainable and actionable use requires a principled understanding of strengths and weaknesses of GenAI as compared with other techniques and with human judgment. To this end, we introduce a conceptual framework based on the distinction between the semantic dimensions of texts, i.e. the meanings attributed to words, and their pragmatic dimension, i.e. their embedding within communicative situations. We leverage this framework to interpret the results of applications of GenAI in scientometrics and to provide guidance to users. Specifically, we conclude that key parameters to be considered are the nature of the task, the level of granularity of the analysis and whether the goal was descriptive, inferential or evaluative. These parameters lead to different strategies for using GenAI and human-machine integration. Finally, we suggest that, by generating large amounts of scientific language, GenAI might affect textual characteristics used to measure science, such as authors, words, and references. We argue that careful empirical work and theoretical reflection will be essential to remain capable of interpreting the evolving patterns of knowledge production in the age of AI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Citation proximus: the role of social and semantic ties in citing behaviour

Citations are a key indicator of research impact but are shaped by factors beyond intrinsic research quality, including prestige, social networks, and thematic similarity. While the Matthew Effect explains how prestige accumulates and influences citation distributions, our study contextualizes this by showing that other mechanisms also play a crucial role. Analyzing a large dataset of disambiguated authors (N=43,467) and citation linkages (N=264,436) in U.S. economics, we find that close ties in the collaboration network are the strongest predictor of citation, closely followed by thematic similarity between papers. This reinforces the idea that citations are not only a matter of prestige but mostly of social networks and intellectual proximity. Prestige remains important for understanding highly cited papers, but for the majority of citations, proximity--both social and semantic--plays a more significant role. These findings shift attention from extreme cases of highly cited research toward the broader distribution of citations, which shapes career trajectories and the production of knowledge. Recognizing the diverse factors influencing citations is critical for science policy, as this work highlights inequalities that are not based on preferential attachment, but on the role of self-citations, collaborations, and mainstream versus no mainstream research subjects.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Uncited articles and their effect on the concentration of citations

Empirical evidence demonstrates that citations received by scholarly publications follow a pattern of preferential attachment, resulting in a power-law distribution. Such asymmetry has sparked significant debate regarding the use of citations for research evaluation. However, a consensus has yet to be established concerning the historical trends in citation concentration. Are citations becoming more concentrated in a small number of articles? Or have recent geopolitical and technical changes in science led to more decentralized distributions? This ongoing debate stems from a lack of technical clarity in measuring inequality. Given the variations in citation practices across disciplines and over time, it is crucial to account for multiple factors that can influence the findings. This article explores how reference-based and citation-based approaches, uncited articles, citation inflation, the expansion of bibliometric databases, disciplinary differences, and self-citations affect the evolution of citation concentration. Our results indicate a decreasing trend in citation concentration, primarily driven by a decline in uncited articles, which, in turn, can be attributed to the growing significance of Asia and Europe. On the whole, our findings clarify current debates on citation concentration and show that, contrary to a widely-held belief, citations are increasingly scattered.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2020

Meta-Research: COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1,893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index

The recently proposed Euclidean index offers a novel approach to measure the citation impact of academic authors, in particular as an alternative to the h-index. We test if the index provides new, robust information, not covered by existing bibliometric indicators, discuss the measurement scale and the degree of distinction between analytical units the index offers. We find that the Euclidean index does not outperform existing indicators on these topics and that the main application of the index would be solely for ranking, which is not seen as a recommended practice.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers

Twitter has been identified as one of the most popular and promising altmetrics data sources, as it possibly reflects a broader use of research articles by the general public. Several factors, such as document age, scientific discipline, number of authors and document type, have been shown to affect the number of tweets received by scientific documents. The particular meaning of tweets mentioning scholarly papers is, however, not entirely understood and their validity as impact indicators debatable. This study contributes to the understanding of factors influencing Twitter popularity of medical papers investigating differences between medical study types. 162,830 documents indexed in Embase to a medical study type have been analysed for the study type specific tweet frequency. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews and clinical trials were found to be tweeted substantially more frequently than other study types, while all basic research received less attention than the average. The findings correspond well with clinical evidence hierarchies. It is suggested that interest from laymen and patients may be a factor in the observed effects.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Association between quality of clinical practice guidelines and citations given to their references

It has been suggested that bibliometric analysis of different document types may reveal new aspects of research performance. In medical research a number of study types play different roles in the research process and it has been shown, that the evidence-level of study types is associated with varying citation rates. This study focuses on clinical practice guidelines, which are supposed to gather the highest evidence on a given topic to give the best possible recommendation for practitioners. The quality of clinical practice guidelines, measured using the AGREE score, is compared to the citations given to the references used in these guidelines, as it is hypothesised, that better guidelines are based on higher cited references. AGREE scores are gathered from reviews of clinical practice guidelines on a number of diseases and treatments. Their references are collected from Web of Science and citation counts are normalised using the item-oriented z-score and the PPtop-10% indicators. A positive correlation between both citation indicators and the AGREE score of clinical practice guidelines is found. Some potential confounding factors are identified. While confounding cannot be excluded, results indicate low likelihood for the identified confounders. The results provide a new perspective to and application of citation analysis.

cs.DL↗