Gergely Ferenc Lendvai – InfoDoc MicroVeille

Authors : Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Péter Sasvári, Arūnas Gudinavičius

This study examines the evolution of scientific journals in the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, through a scientometric lens, assessing their international integration, publication trends, and impact within the global research ecosystem.

Using Scopus and SciVal databases, we analysed 49,695 articles from 122 Baltic journals indexed in Scopus, focusing on quartile rankings, subject area distributions, citation impact, and international collaborations.

The findings reveal that while the number of Baltic journals has increased significantly since 1990, these journals remain largely positioned in the lower quartiles (Q3 and Q4), with few achieving Q1 status. Social sciences and humanities dominate the Baltic publishing landscape, yet these disciplines exhibit relatively low citation metrics compared to STEM fields. International collaboration remains limited, with single-country publications (SCPs) prevailing, though a notable rise in co-authorship with Chinese scholars in Lithuanian journals has emerged.

Despite digitalization efforts, there are still systemic problems. Peer review challenges persist due to small academic communities and language barriers. Furthermore, Baltic journals are not visible internationally. Citation impact remains modest, with older articles experiencing diminishing citation rates over time.

Our study highlights the need for enhanced journal management practices, greater international collaboration, and increased indexing efforts to improve the global visibility and prestige of Baltic journals.

URL : The evolution of Baltic scientific journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05580-7

Authors : Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Aczél Petra

The present study investigates how the five largest academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE) are responding to the epistemic and procedural challenges posed by generative AI through formal policy frameworks.

Situated within ongoing debates about the boundaries of authorship and the governance of AI-generated content, our research aims to critically assess the discursive and regulatory contours of publishers’ authorship guidelines (PGs).

We employed a multi-method design that combines qualitative coding, semantic network analysis, and comparative matrix visualization to examine the official policy texts collected from each publisher’s website. Findings reveal a foundational consensus across all five publishers in prohibiting AI systems from being credited as authors and in mandating disclosure of AI usage.

However, beyond this shared baseline, marked divergences emerge in the scope, specificity, and normative framing of AI policies. Co-occurrence and semantic analyses underline the centrality of ‘authorship’, ‘ethics’, and ‘accountability’ in AI discourse. Structural similarity measures further reveal alignment among Wiley, Elsevier, and Taylor & Francis, with Springer as a clear outlier.

Our results point to an unsettled regulatory landscape where policies serve not only as instruments of governance but also as performative assertions of institutional identity and legitimacy.

Consequently, the fragmented field of PG highlights the need for harmonized, inclusive, and enforceable frameworks that recognize both the potential and risks of AI in scholarly communication.

URL : Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag004