https://arxiv.org/api/DvOJCv9/qy0BSUMRl+14oRtNh0U 2026-06-10T08:30:27Z 6061 150 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07934v3 2026-04-20T08:23:55Z

This paper presents Lishu, a deployable web artifact for searching, monitoring, and interpreting literature from elite business and management journals. The system integrates the UTD-24 and Financial Times 50 (FT50) journal pools and combines Crossref, OpenAlex, Unpaywall, and optional CORE enrichment to support a broader research workflow than article retrieval alone. In the current implementation, users can search across curated journal pools, apply multi-journal filters, preview open full-text excerpts when available, generate citations and exports, inspect topic and affiliation structure, produce review drafts, simulate virtual peer review, and assemble grant-oriented research narratives. Unlike static journal directories or general-purpose academic search engines, the artifact is explicitly scoped to high-status management outlets and is designed to support sensemaking tasks that matter to researchers, doctoral students, and lab managers: identifying recent work, surfacing topical concentration, comparing themes, and converting search output into actionable research material. Architecturally, the system emphasizes source transparency, modularity, and low-cost public deployability through a lightweight Node.js service layer, a multi-page client interface, optional large-language-model enhancement for interpretation and writing support, and a free-tier persistence path through Supabase. The paper contributes both a functioning design artifact and an extensible architectural pattern for journal-pool-specific scholarly discovery and writing support, with implications for digital research infrastructure in information systems and business scholarship.

2026-04-09T07:52:07Z Chuang Zhao Hongke Zhao Yichen Li Xiaoquan Zhi Songyue Guo http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10389v2 2026-04-20T01:17:36Z

Teams now drive most scientific advances, yet the impact of absolute beginners -- authors with no prior publications -- remains understudied. Analyzing over 29 million articles published between 1941 and 2020 across disciplines and team sizes, we uncover a near-universal and previously undocumented pattern: teams with a higher fraction of beginners are systematically more disruptive and innovative. Their contributions are linked to distinct knowledge-integration behaviors, including drawing on broader and less canonical prior work and producing more atypical recombinations. Collaboration structure further shapes outcomes: disruption is high when beginners work with early-career colleagues or with co-authors who have disruptive track records. Although disruption and citations are negatively correlated overall, highly disruptive papers from beginner-heavy teams are highly cited. These findings reveal a ``beginner's charm'' in science, highlighting the underrecognized yet powerful value of beginner fractions in teams and suggesting actionable strategies for fostering a thriving ecosystem of innovation in science and technology.

2025-09-12T16:29:39Z Mahdee Mushfique Kamal Raiyan Abdul Baten http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17264v1 2026-04-19T05:32:47Z

In modern scientific collaboration networks, certain researchers play a pivotal role in bridging scholars who have never worked together - a phenomenon we term academic "match-makers." Despite their potential importance, the prevalence, characteristics, benefits, and long-term trajectory of these individuals remain underexplored. Using the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), we operationalized a match-maker as an author who, in a given publication, introduced a first-time collaboration between two co-authors, each of whom had previously collaborated with the match-maker but not with each other. We employed a configuration null model to distinguish observed patterns from random chance. Our findings reveal that the match-maker phenomenon is deliberate, prevalent, and consequential. Among authors with over 20 publications, nearly 30% have served as a match-maker, and the probability of acting as one increased eightfold from 1980 to 2019. Publications involving a match-maker are more likely to appear in high-impact journals and exhibit higher disruptiveness - particularly in larger teams - suggesting that match-makers help facilitate what we term integrative disruption. Match-makers tend to emerge early in their careers, peaking around the 20th publication and at an academic age of roughly ten years. While nearly all match-makers eventually experience "abandonment" in the sense that the connected researchers later collaborate without them, their continued involvement remains substantial and is driven by research needs rather than structural factors. This reframes abandonment not as exclusion but as a natural evolution within project-based collaborations. The academic match-maker phenomenon is a strategic feature of collaboration networks characterized by early-career emergence, context-dependent persistence, and tangible contributions to high-impact, disruptive research.

2026-04-19T05:32:47Z 28 pages Hongkan Chen Qingshan Zhou Robin Haunschild Yi Bu http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27392v1 2026-04-18T06:49:17Z

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Gemini seem to be increasingly used for knowledge discovery, information retrieval, and knowledge summaries, including for academic topics. This can result in users being misled, such as due to hallucinations. These problems may be exacerbated for academic knowledge if LLMs base their answers on journal article abstracts when they lack full text access. To test whether the information content of abstracts can be misleading, full text articles were submitted to the GPT-OSS 120B, an LLM from OpenAI, asking it to assess separately the strength the claims for the main result in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion. Outside the social sciences and humanities, claims tended to be stronger in the abstract and conclusions than the discussion, suggesting that relying on the strength of claims in abstracts would be misleading. Thus, if LLMs ingest abstracts but not full texts, there is a risk that they will be overconfident about the findings and pass it on to users in response to relevant prompts. This is another reason to be cautious about using LLMs for academic-related knowledge discovery and summaries.

2026-04-18T06:49:17Z Mike Thelwall http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16872v1 2026-04-18T06:45:04Z

Large Language Models (LLMs) can be helpful for literature search and summarisation, but retracted articles can confuse them. This article asks three open weights (offline) LLMs whether 161 high profile retracted articles had been retracted, performing a similar check for a benchmark multidisciplinary set of 34,070 non-retracted articles. Based on titles and abstracts, in over 80% of cases the LLMs claimed that a retracted article had not been retracted (GPT OSS 120B: 82%; Gemma 3 27B: 84%; DeepSeek R1 72B: 88%). The reasons given for a correct retraction declaration were often wrong, even if detailed. This confirms that LLMs have little ability to distinguish between valid and retracted studies, unless they are allowed to, and do, check online. For the benchmark test, there were only 55 false retraction claims from 34,070 non-retracted full text articles, and 28 false claims when only the title and abstract were entered, suggesting that there is only a small chance that LLMs discount valid studies. When retractions are erroneously claimed, this does not seem to be due to mistakes in the article. Overall, the results give new reasons to be cautious about LLM claims about academic findings.

2026-04-18T06:45:04Z Mike Thelwall http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16764v1 2026-04-18T00:42:14Z

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and publisher-mediated process is now being supplemented by critiques on open, distributed platforms. We call this practice, a blend of three open peer review variants, informal peer review as it is accessible to outsiders, unmediated by publishers, and conducted across public platforms. Informal peer reviewers range from occasional error detectors to experienced sleuths who identify plagiarism, fraud, errors, conflicts of interest, and conceptual flaws. They may interpret methods, clarify jargon, assess value, and connect to related work. Here, we asked four questions: (1) Who are informal peer reviewers? (2) Where do they work? (3) How do they evaluate research? and (4) What are their impacts? To answer these questions, we conducted a cross-platform digital ethnography with participant observation. We traced discourse across communities over four months and revisited cases after nine and twelve months. From 15 communities, we selected 12 case mentions (10 unique cases) and 8 meta-commentaries from 26 reviewers. Using open and axial coding, we generated 1,080 codes and four themes: reviewers are a motley crew, they self-organize across subpar digital spaces, use deep, uncommon strategies, and they face resistance from authors, publishers, and editors. Informal peer review, we concluded, is a fragile, minimally governed patchwork of people, platforms, and practices, as well as an emerging evidence infrastructure that can be scaled up. We advise advocates and tool-builders to evolve informal review tools, communities, training, and governance by connecting to scholars' values, reducing participation friction, and rewarding attempts to extend the scholarly dialogue.

2026-04-18T00:42:14Z 108 pages, 17 figures, 7 tables, version 1.0 Jay Patel Joel Chan http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15150v1 2026-04-16T15:31:42Z

Science advances not only by accumulating discovered patterns but by changing how new problems and solutions are expressed. While structural indicators track scholarly attention, they offer only an indirect proxy for the reorganization of meaning. We propose a semantic geometry based on the R-P-C (references, focal publication, and citing publications) framework to quantify how a publication positions itself relative to its knowledge base and diffusion. This geometry identifies three publication types: consolidating, exploratory and balanced. Our results show that the semantic similarity and distance between a publication's knowledge base and diffusion serve as a mechanistic explanation for disruption, with novelty (atypical reference combinations) acting as an antecedent disturbance that triggers a semantic rupture. This is related to team size, where small teams preserve a higher potential for exploratory departures while large collaborations systematically align with paradigmatic consolidation. Crucially, this geometry explains why citation trajectories differ; consolidating research earns rapid recognition by lowering comprehension costs, while exploratory work faces high paradigm conversion costs that result in slower, more selective diffusion. Collectively, this R-P-C framework provides a robust instrument for monitoring the dynamic of scientific paradigms.

2026-04-16T15:31:42Z 26 pages,8figures Jinchang Liu Qingshan Zhou Hongkan Chen Yi Bu http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15145v1 2026-04-16T15:19:58Z

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

2026-04-16T15:19:58Z 9 pages, 0 figures Miri Liu ChengXiang Zhai http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14838v2 2026-04-16T11:20:11Z

Understanding the impact of scientific publications is crucial for identifying breakthroughs and guiding future research. Traditional metrics based on citation counts often miss the nuanced ways a paper contributes to its field. In this work, we propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries that capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents. We introduce an evaluation framework tailored to this task, showing moderate to strong human correlation on subjective metrics such as insightfulness. Expert feedback from professors reveals a strong interest in these summaries and suggests future improvements. Data and code are made available.

2025-05-20T19:11:06Z ACL 2026 Hiba Arnaout Noy Sternlicht Tom Hope Iryna Gurevych http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14126v1 2026-04-15T17:50:16Z

Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet their broader implications for the organization of scientific knowledge remain unclear. We examine whether AI-assisted writing intensity, measured as the share of text in a paper that is predicted to exhibit features consistent with LLM-generated text, is associated with scientific disruption and knowledge recombination. Using approximately two million full-text research articles published between 2021 and 2024 and linked to citation networks, we document a sharp temporal pattern beginning in 2023. Before 2023, higher AI-assisted writing intensity is weakly or negatively associated with disruption; after 2023, the association becomes positive in within-author, within-field analyses. Over the same period, the positive association between AI-assisted writing intensity and cross-field citation breadth weakens substantially, and the negative association with citation concentration attenuates. Thus, the post-2023 increase in disruption is not accompanied by broader knowledge sourcing. These patterns suggest that generative AI is associated with more disruptive citation structures without a corresponding expansion in cross-field recombination. Rather than simply broadening the search space of science, AI-assisted writing may be associated with new forms of recombination built from relatively narrower knowledge inputs.

2026-04-15T17:50:16Z Erjia Yan Chaoqun Ni http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14047v1 2026-04-15T16:23:53Z

Peer review shapes which scientific claims enter the published record, but its internal dynamics are hard to measure at scale because reviewer criticism and author revision are usually embedded in long, unstructured correspondence. Here we use a fixed-prompt large language model pipeline to convert the review correspondence of \textit{Nature Communications} papers published from 2017 to 2024 into structured reviewer--author interactions. We find that review pressure is concentrated in the first round and focused disproportionately on core claims rather than peripheral presentation. Higher average opinion strength is also associated with more reviewer disagreement, while review patterns vary little with broad team attributes, consistent with relatively impartial evaluation. Contrary to the intuition that stronger papers should pass review more smoothly, with greater reviewer--author agreement and less extensive revision, we find that stronger criticism, higher-quality comments, and greater revision burden are associated with higher later citation impact within accepted papers. We finally show that fields differ more in review style than in review length, pointing to disciplinary variation in how criticism is negotiated and resolved. These findings position open peer review not just as a gatekeeping mechanism but as a measurable record of how influential scientific claims are challenged, defended, and revised before entering the published record.

2026-04-15T16:23:53Z Huihuang Jiang Heyang Li Zifan Wang Ying Fan An Zeng http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00912v2 2026-04-15T13:17:23Z

Recent initiatives advocating responsible, transparent research assessment have intensified the call to use open research information rather than proprietary databases. This study evaluates the coverage and citation representation of publications recorded in the Current Research Information Systems (CRIS), all instances of the IRIS software platform, of six Italian universities within OpenCitations, a community-owned open infrastructure. Using persistent identifiers (DOIs, PMIDs, and ISBNs) specified in the IRIS installations involved, we matched the publications recorded in OpenCitations Meta and extracted the related citation links from the OpenCitations Index. Results show that OpenCitations covers, on average, over 40% of IRIS publications, which is quantitatively comparable to those reported by Scopus and Web of Science in another study. However, gaps persist, particularly for publication types prevalent in the Social Sciences and Humanities, such as monographs and critical editions. Overall, the findings demonstrate the growing maturity of OpenCitations and, more broadly, of Open Science infrastructures as viable alternatives as sources of research information, while highlighting areas where further metadata enrichment and interoperability efforts are needed.

2026-01-31T21:46:35Z Erica Andreose Ivan Heibi Silvio Peroni Leonardo Zilli http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13288v1 2026-04-14T20:32:29Z

We present a unified pipeline for synthesizing high-quality Quechua and Spanish speech for the Peruvian Constitution using three state-of-the-art text-to-speech (TTS) architectures: XTTS v2, F5-TTS, and DiFlow-TTS. Our models are trained on independent Spanish and Quechua speech datasets with heterogeneous sizes and recording conditions, and leverage bilingual and multilingual TTS capabilities to improve synthesis quality in both languages. By exploiting cross-lingual transfer, our framework mitigates data scarcity in Quechua while preserving naturalness in Spanish. We release trained checkpoints, inference code, and synthesized audio for each constitutional article, providing a reusable resource for speech technologies in indigenous and multilingual contexts. This work contributes to the development of inclusive TTS systems for political and legal content in low-resource settings.

2026-04-14T20:32:29Z John E. Ortega Rodolfo Zevallos Fabricio Carraro http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15366v1 2026-04-14T18:10:08Z

Adding citations while drafting in LaTeX often requires leaving the editor, searching for a paper in mind, copying its BibTeX entry into the project bibliography, renaming the cite key, and then returning to the sentence. \texttt{OverCite} is an open-source, lightweight tool that lets authors find, select, and insert citations without leaving the writing environment. In Overleaf, \texttt{OverCite} uses rough citation placeholders (e.g., $\texttt{\textbackslash citep\{Perlmutter1999\}}$) and local sentence context to query ADS/SciX-indexed literature, rank likely matches, and insert the selected reference, without leaving the editor. A companion \texttt{VS Code} extension provides the same functionality for local LaTeX projects. The ADS/SciX database includes astronomy, physics, computer science, mathematics, biology, and \emph{all} indexed arXiv e-prints, making \texttt{OverCite} useful across a broad range of scientific disciplines.

2026-04-14T18:10:08Z 3 pages, 1 figure. OverCite is available at https://github.com/cheyanneshariat/OverCite Cheyanne Shariat http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00997v4 2026-04-14T16:25:47Z

The Impact Factor (IF), despite its widespread use, suffers from well-known biases that remain incompletely addressed in practice -- most notably its sensitivity to journal size and its lack of field normalization. Because of size sensitivity, a randomly formed journal of $n$ papers can attain a range of IF values that decreases sharply with size, as $\sim 1/\sqrt{n}$. The Central Limit Theorem, which underlies this effect, also allows us to correct for it by standardizing citation averages for scale and field in a manner analogous to calculating the $z$-score in statistics. We thus introduce the $Φ$ (Phi) index, defined as $Φ= (f - μ)\sqrt{n}/σ$, where $f$ is a journal's average citation count (akin to the IF), $n$ its publication count, and $μ, σ$ the mean and standard deviation of citations in its field. Applying the $Φ$ index to 12,173 journals in Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports, we obtain rankings that correct for size bias and elevate journals from underrepresented fields such as mathematics, law, and history. We validate the $Φ$ index via a Monte Carlo random sample test, which we propose as a standard diagnostic for any citation indicator. The methodology extends readily to departments, universities, and countries.

2024-01-02T02:39:11Z 28 pages, 14 figures, 13 tables Manolis Antonoyiannakis