EN

The ‘Big Three’ of Scientific Information: A comparative bibliometric review of Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenAlex

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Daniel Torres-Salinas, Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado

The present comparative study examines the three main multidisciplinary bibliographic databases, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenAlex, with the aim of providing up-to-date evidence on coverage, metadata quality, and functional features to help inform strategic decisions in research assessment.

The report is structured into two complementary methodological sections. First, it presents a systematic review of recent scholarly literature that investigates record volume, open-access coverage, linguistic diversity, reference coverage, and metadata quality; this is followed by an original bibliometric analysis of the 2015-2024 period that explores longitudinal distribution, document types, thematic profiles, linguistic differences, and overlap between databases. The text concludes with a ten-point executive summary and five recommendations.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.21908

EN

How multilingual is scholarly communication? Mapping the global distribution of languages in publications and citations

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Carolina Pradier, Lucía Céspedes, Vincent Larivière

Language is a major source of systemic inequities in science, particularly among scholars whose first language is not English. Studies have examined scientists’ linguistic practices in specific contexts; few, however, have provided a global analysis of multilingualism in science.

Using two major bibliometric databases (OpenAlex and Dimensions), we provide a large-scale analysis of linguistic diversity in science, considering both the language of publications (N = 87,577,942) and of cited references (N = 1,480,570,087).

For the 1990–2023 period, we find that only Indonesian, Portuguese, and Spanish have expanded at a faster pace than English. Country-level analyses show that this trend is due to the growing strength of the Latin American and Indonesian academic circuits. Our results also confirm the same-language preference phenomenon (particularly for languages other than English), the strong connection between multilingualism and bibliodiversity, and that social sciences and humanities are the least English-dominated fields.

Our findings suggest that policies recognizing the value of both national-language and English-language publications have had a concrete impact on the distribution of languages in the global field of scholarly communication.

URL : How multilingual is scholarly communication? Mapping the global distribution of languages in publications and citations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.70055

EN

The scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of Gen – Z researchers: a pathfinding study

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : David Nicholas, David Clark, Abdullah Abrizah, Jorge Revez, Blanca Rodrí guez-Bravo, Marzena Swigon, John Akeroyd

In preparation for a major study of Generation–Z early career researchers’ (ECRs) scholarly communications attitudes and practices we report on how different Gen-Z researchers included in our earlier studies of ECRs were.

It is a qualitative, pilot study that covered a convenience sample of around 30 Gen-Z ECRs from 8 countries and all subjects and compared to 120 of their older colleagues. Conversational, in-depth interviews lasting an hour or more were the main form of data collection.

An AI analysis, employing Claude AI, was used both to provide an initial analysis of the data and also assess the published literature on the topic. The findings were that there is enough evidence to suggest that there are enough differences between Gen-Z and their Millennial colleagues – even though all are ECRs – to merit further research.

Younger researchers in particular appear to be strategically adopting AI for efficiency and career advancement, while older researchers possess heightened awareness, and caution, regarding the philosophical and ethical consequences of technological transformation in scholarly communication.

URL : The scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours of Gen – Z researchers: a pathfinding study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2026-s8b36

 

EN

Data stewardship through the lens of Open Science Career Assessment Matrix

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Antti M. Rousi, Xiaolong Li, Lara Ejtehadia, Richard Dars, Pedro E.S. Silv, Udayanto Dwi Atmoj

Data stewardship is a key expertise needed for the transformation towards more open and transparent science. This is particularly relevant in research institutions, where data stewards play a direct role in supporting research under open science requirements.

However, the absence of established frameworks and merits for assessing this expertise has hindered recognition, professional development, and the integration of data stewardship into institutional practices.

This work aims to examine how multidisciplinary data stewardship work transpires through the Open Science Career Assessment Matrix (OS-CAM); a tool designed to assess open science contributions across various dimensions. Using a case study approach, we report findings from a workshop where a multidisciplinary team of experts engaged in data stewardship described their work in relation to OS-CAM.

This work presents a summary of the CV narratives and suggested merits for data stewardship developed in the workshop. Assessing data stewardship through OS-CAM provides a structured framework for evaluating, recognising, and rewarding these contributions, thereby increasing their visibility in academic and professional evaluations.

However, our study also reveals notable gaps in OS-CAM’s coverage of data stewardship, particularly the underrepresentation of infrastructure-related activities such as the management of data repositories.

It is important to note that while OS-CAM may offer value in academic research settings, it is less applicable for data stewardship roles that extend beyond research or open science.

Therefore, we recommend further research to include diverse institutions and participants, combined with other complementary frameworks, for a more comprehensive understanding of data stewardship’s contribution to science and its recognition in or beyond academic communities.

URL : Data stewardship through the lens of Open Science Career Assessment Matrix

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v19i1.1088

EN

To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Caspar J. Van Lissa, Aaron Peikert, Maximilian S. Ernst, Noah N. N. van Dongen, Felix D. Schönbrod, Andreas M. Brandmaier

Open science innovations have focused on rigorous theory testing, yet methods for specifying, sharing, and iteratively improving theories remain underdeveloped. To address this limitation, we introduce FAIR theory, a standard for specifying theories as findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable digital objects.

FAIR theories are findable in well-established archives; accessible in terms of their availability and ability to be understood; interoperable for specific purposes, such as selecting control variables; and reusable in that they can be iteratively and collaboratively improved on.

This article adapts the FAIR principles for theory; reflects on current FAIR practices in relation to psychological theory; and discusses FAIR theories’ potential impact in terms of reducing research waste, enabling metaresearch on theories’ structure and development, and incorporating theory into reproducible research workflows—from hypothesis generation to simulation studies.

We present a conceptual workflow for FAIRifying theory that builds on existing open science principles and infrastructures. More detailed tutorials, worked examples, and convenience functions to automate this workflow are available in the theorytools R package.

FAIR theory constitutes a structured protocol for archiving, communicating about, and iteratively improving theory, addressing a critical gap in open scholarly practices and potentially increasing the efficiency of cumulative knowledge acquisition in psychology and beyond.

URL : To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251401850

EN

Author Name Disambiguation in Scholarly Research: A Bibliometric Perspective

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Hesham Amin Hamdy El Shamly, Subaveerapandiyan A.

The rapid expansion of scholarly publishing has amplified the long-standing challenge of author name ambiguity in academic databases. This issue, manifesting as homonymy and synonymy, undermines the accuracy of bibliometric analyses, author-level metrics, and research evaluation systems. Author Name Disambiguation (AND) has thus emerged as a critical focus area in digital scholarship, with evolving strategies ranging from supervised machine learning and graph-based models to the adoption of persistent digital identifiers like ORCID.

Despite notable advancements, significant challenges remain – particularly in linguistically diverse and underrepresented regions – where metadata inconsistencies, transliteration issues, and limited ORCID adoption exacerbate disambiguation errors. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 2,004 publications on AND from 2005 to 2024, sourced from the Scopus database.

Using tools such as Biblioshiny and VOSviewer, the analysis identifies publication trends, leading authors and institutions, core sources, co-authorship networks, and thematic evolution in the field. Findings highlight increasing international collaboration, the dominance of computer science-driven methodologies, and the critical role of metadata quality and institutional frameworks.

The study concludes with recommendations for inclusive, multilingual, and interoperable disambiguation systems, advocating for cross-disciplinary collaboration to ensure equitable author identification in global scholarly communication.

URL : Author Name Disambiguation in Scholarly Research: A Bibliometric Perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2025-0035

EN

Who supports STEM early career researchers’ active science communication? A qualitative ego-network-analysis

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Lennart Banse, Fenja Heinke, Friederike Hendriks

Early career researchers (ECRs) are increasingly socialised in professional environments where science communication is seen as part of their academic role.

ECRs respond to these expectations differently, shaped in part by social relationships within and beyond academia. stThis study uses ego-network interviews with 24 highly communicative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ECRs in Germany to examine how social relationships influence the importance as well as the integration of science communication in their professional identity.

Results show that recognition and support often come from private contacts and the science communication community, while workplace environments are perceived as less supportive and formative. Moreover, different formats and processes of science communication seem to be tied to distinct networks and underlying communication motives.

URL : Who supports STEM early career researchers’ active science communication? A qualitative ego-network-analysis

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/156620251115064727