https://arxiv.org/api/A/nwUbRxg4QlYG6XTryqeZlAfYw 2026-06-10T09:36:22Z 6061 165 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22811v1 2026-04-14T15:28:21Z

In the academic landscape, scientific research has been primarily conducted through research institutions, which requires a massive influx of funds from various sources. Presently, these funding bodies have been moving from trust-based funding to performance-based evaluation systems for granting funds to the research bodies. This has led to the rise in popularity of various indices or statistics that measure institutional research strength or expertise. Institutional research expertise usually focuses on publication volume and its impact measured using the widely used h- and g-indices. However, these indices fail to capture the thematic expertise of research for institutions. To address this gap, two new expertise indicators, namely the x-index, the x_d-index, and bias-adjusted variants, the field-normalised x_d-index, and the fractional x_d-index, were introduced recently. Additionally, we propose two new variants, the category-adjusted x-index and the inverse variance weighted x_d-index, which further account for resolvable bias, and a novel statistic, the x_o-index, which acts as a measure of the overall research expertise. While several packages that calculate the traditional h- and g-indices exist, these novel expertise indices are yet to be included in such existing packages. The 'xxdi' R package provides simple functions that implement these expertise indices and their variants, enabling their utilisation by the wider research community. A stable version of the package is available on CRAN (https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.xxdi) and an in-development version on GitHub (https://github.com/nilabhrardas/xxdi).

2026-04-14T15:28:21Z Abhirup Nandy Nilabhra R. Das http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03240v4 2026-04-14T13:00:47Z

Scientific progress has long been understood as recombinant, with breakthroughs arising when existing ideas are joined in new ways. Empirical work in this tradition has focused on the inputs to discovery, asking whether a paper draws together atypical or distant prior knowledge. Far less is known about how knowledge is supplied for downstream recombination, or how individual contributions are forged to play distinct and distant roles in the broader system of science. Using citation networks from tens of millions of publications in OpenAlex and the Web of Science, here we show that scientific contributions stably decompose into three functional types, foundations, extensions, and generalizations, distinguishable by the local structure of their forward citations. This decomposition of the 'functional role' of scientific work presents an unseen pattern of scientific production: foundational and extensional work, which respectively build and elaborate within disciplines, dominated the post-war decades but has declined steadily since the early 1990s, while generalizations, meaning compressed and modular contributions reused in distant fields, have risen sharply. Stacked difference-in-differences analyses that exploit venues' transitions to online access and authors' adoption of large language models provide causal evidence that digital knowledge infrastructure is driving this shift. The locus of innovation has thus migrated from within what Simon might characterize as nearly decomposable disciplinary modules to the interfaces between them, recasting the much-discussed decline of disruption as a structural reorganization of science rather than a slowdown, and revealing a growing misalignment between how science now advances and how it is recognized and rewarded.

2025-09-22T18:56:23Z 67 pages, 24 figures Hongbo Fang James Evans http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12471v1 2026-04-14T08:56:59Z

Scientific novelty drives advances at the research frontier, yet it is also associated with heightened uncertainty and potential resistance from incumbent paradigms, leading to complex patterns of scientific impact. Prior studies have primarily ex-amined the relationship between a single dimension of novelty -- such as theoreti-cal, methodological, or results-based novelty -- and scientific impact. However, because scientific novelty is inherently multidimensional, focusing on isolated dimensions may obscure how different types of novelty jointly shape impact. Consequently, we know little about how combinations of novelty types influence scientific impact. To this end, we draw on a dataset of 15,322 articles published in Nature Communications. Using the DeepSeek-V3 model, we classify articles into three novelty dimensions based on the content of their Introduction sections: theoretical novelty, methodological novelty, and results-based novelty. These dimensions may coexist within the same article, forming distinct novelty configura-tions. Scientific impact is measured using five-year citation counts and indicators of whether an article belongs to the top 1% or top 10% highly cited papers. Descriptive results indicate that results-based novelty alone and the simultaneous presence of all three novelty types are the dominant configurations in the sample. Regression results further show that articles with results-based novelty only re-ceive significantly more citations and are more likely to rank among the top 1% and top 10% highly cited papers than articles exhibiting all three novelty types. These findings advance our understanding of how multidimensional novelty configurations shape knowledge diffusion.

2026-04-14T08:56:59Z AII-EEKE 2026 Yi Zhao Yang Chenggang Yuzhuo Wang Tong Bao Zhang Heng Chengzhi Zhang http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22802v1 2026-04-13T20:01:46Z

This study presents a large-scale network dataset, NIH-MPINet, curated from NIH RePORTER and PubMed, characterizing collaboration among multiple Principal Investigators (multi-PIs) on NIH R01-equivalent grants from 2006 to 2023. The network characterizes 30,127 PIs as nodes and their collaborations on 86,743 NIH R01-equivalent grants as edges, spanning 888 recipient organizations and supported by 40 NIH Institutes and Centers. We also curated comprehensive metadata, including node-level features such as PI affiliation, alongside edge-level features comprising grant years, titles, and abstracts. Using these data, we constructed a PI collaboration network and identified 19 communities as well as 20 major research topics. Several collaboration communities showed distinct thematic profiles, such as cardiovascular health, cancer immunotherapy, neuroscience, and microbiome research, while genetics and genomics were broadly represented across communities. By incorporating temporal analysis, we observed shifts in research topics and collaboration patterns over time. Topics like healthcare and outcomes research, cognitive health, and Alzheimer's disease have become more prominent in recent years, whereas molecular and cellular biology has seen a relative decline. Overall, this work provides a high-fidelity, feature-rich resource for advancing statistical learning methods and network analysis-based discoveries in the study of long-term biomedical collaboration.

2026-04-13T20:01:46Z Cuiran Shi Shuying Han Shreya Kusumanchi Mia Zhou Didong Li http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11543v1 2026-04-13T14:35:17Z

Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.

2026-04-13T14:35:17Z ACL 2026 Wenqing Wu Yi Zhao Yuzhuo Wang Siyou Li Juexi Shao Yunfei Long Chengzhi Zhang http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11343v1 2026-04-13T11:41:11Z

To better align theories of paradigm shifting discoveries and empirics identifying them, we pro-pose a novel measure that incorporates a discovery impact, novelty, and tendency to break with the past into a single, coherent measure. Calibration using the National Inventor Hall of Fame data reveals that impact, novelty, and disruptiveness are strict complements meaning, for example, that greater impact cannot substitute for moderate novelty. We illustrate the workings of the measure using data on USPTO patents from 1982 to 2015.

2026-04-13T11:41:11Z Industrial and Corporate Change, 2026 Sajad Ashouri Arash Hajikhani Ari Hyytinen Petri Rouvinen Arho Suominen 10.1093/icc/dtag002 http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10932v1 2026-04-13T03:07:47Z

The way science is currently practiced shows conclusions but hides how they were reached. Researchers work privately, polish their results, publish a finished paper, and defend it. Errors are punished by retraction rather than corrected by amendment. Alternative directions are pursued through competing papers with no shared history. The reasoning, the dead ends, the trade-offs, the corrections: everything that would let others understand how a conclusion was reached is invisible. Two decades of open science reform have addressed this by opening specific artifacts: papers, data, code, notebooks, protocols. Each is valuable, but the unit remains a finished product. None opens the thinking process itself: the evolving sequence of questions, interpretations, dead ends, and direction changes that constitutes the actual scientific contribution. This paper argues that opening the process of science (not just its outputs) would produce a step change in the speed of scientific progress, the accessibility of scientific reasoning, the trustworthiness of scientific claims, and the scalability of scientific quality assurance. We identify three properties the workflow needs: visible (the process is open, not just the product), trackable (every change is recorded and attributable), and forkable (anyone can branch from any point with shared history preserved). A visible, trackable flow is inherently verifiable: by humans, by automated tools, by AI agents. Software development adopted this flow decades ago, and the results (faster correction, broader contribution, maintained quality at scale) demonstrate the opportunity for science.

2026-04-13T03:07:47Z Sergey V. Samsonau http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17853v4 2026-04-13T01:44:44Z

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful assistants for scientific writing. However, concerns remain about the quality and reliability of the generated text, including citation accuracy and faithfulness. While most recent work relies on methods such as LLM-as-a-Judge, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge alone is also in doubt. In this work, we reframe citation evaluation as a problem of citation attribution alignment, which assesses whether LLM-generated citations match those a human author would include for the same text. We propose CiteGuard, a retrieval-aware agent framework designed to provide more faithful grounding for citation validation. CiteGuard improves over the prior baseline by 10 percentage points and achieves up to 68.1% accuracy on the CiteME benchmark, approaching human performance (69.2%). It also identifies alternative valid citations and demonstrates generalization ability for cross-domain citation attribution. Our code is available at https://github.com/KathCYM/CiteGuard.

2025-10-15T00:32:26Z Project Page: https://kathcym.github.io/CiteGuard_Page/. ACL 2026 Main Conference Yee Man Choi Xuehang Guo Yi R. Fung Qingyun Wang http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09827v1 2026-04-10T18:58:01Z

This paper empirically examines the practical validity of the official evaluation criteria underpinning the Research Productivity (PQ) Grant framework, as governed by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). By operationalizing regulatory dimensions (including bibliographic output, human resource training, and scientific recognition) as measurable variables extracted from CVs and OpenAlex bibliometric data, we treat policy-defined indicators as testable hypotheses rather than a priori assumptions. Using a block-based adaptation of the Boruta feature selection algorithm across several machine learning classifiers, we evaluate the statistical contribution of each dimension in distinguishing grant levels, with a focus on identifying top-tier (Level 1A) researchers. Our models achieve high predictive performance, with mean AUC scores reaching 0.96, indicating that PQ levels carry a robust and structured statistical signal. However, explanatory power is heavily concentrated within a limited subset of features, specifically bibliographic production, graduate-level supervision and institutional management roles. Conversely, several criteria explicitly emphasized in the regulations demonstrated no detectable statistical contribution to classification outcomes. These findings reveal a potential misalignment between the formal regulatory framework and the effective signals driving evaluation outcomes, suggesting that the practical evaluative signal is substantially more compact than officially stated and providing evidence-based insights for the refinement and transparency of research assessment policies.

2026-04-10T18:58:01Z Rafael P. Gouveia Thiago C. Silva Diego R. Amancio http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07565v1 2026-04-08T20:06:44Z

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and DeepSeek for translation and language polishing is a welcome development, reducing the longstanding publishing barrier to non-English speakers. Assessing the uptake of this facility is useful to give insights into changing nature of scientific writing. Although the prevalence of LLM-associated terms has been tracked across science in abstracts and for full text biomedical research, their science-wide prevalence in full texts is unknown. In response, this article investigates an expanded set of 80 potentially LLM-associated terms during 2021-2025 in a science-wide full text collection from the publisher MDPI (1.25 million articles), partly focusing on the 73 journals that published at least 500 articles in 2021. The results demonstrate the increasing prevalence of LLM-associated terms science-wide in full texts to 2024, with some terms declining from 2024 to 2025 and others continuing to increase. LLMs seem to avoid some terms (e.g., thus, moreover) and a few terms have stronger associations with abstracts than full texts (e.g., enhanced) or the opposite (e.g., leveraged). The term family "underscore" had the biggest increase: up to 29-fold. There are substantial differences between journals in the apparent use of LLMs for writing, from lower uptake in the life sciences to higher uptake in social sciences, electronic engineering and environmental science. Fields in which there is currently low uptake may need improved or specialist support, such as for reliably translating complex formulae, before the full benefits of automatic translation can be realised.

2026-04-08T20:06:44Z Mike Thelwall Kayvan Kousha http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07530v1 2026-04-08T19:12:09Z

Scaling laws describe how language model capabilities grow with compute and data, but say nothing about how long a model matters once released. We provide the first large-scale empirical account of how scientists adopt and abandon language models over time. We track 62 LLMs across over 108k citing papers (2018-2025), each with at least three years of post-release data, and classify every citation as active adoption or background reference to construct per-model adoption trajectories that raw citation counts cannot resolve. We find three regularities. First, scientific adoption follows an inverted-U trajectory: usage rises after release, peaks, and declines as newer models appear, a pattern we term the \textit{scientific adoption curve}. Second, this curve is compressing: each additional release year is associated with a 27\% reduction in time-to-peak adoption ($p < 0.001$), robust to minimum-age thresholds and controls for model size. Third, release timing dominates model-level attributes as a predictor of lifecycle dynamics. Release year explains both time-to-peak and scientific lifespan more strongly than architecture, openness, or scale, though model size and access modality retain modest predictive power for total adoption volume. Together, these findings complement scaling laws with adoption-side regularities and suggest that the forces driving rapid capability progress may be the same forces compressing scientific relevance.

2026-04-08T19:12:09Z Ana Trišović http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08602v1 2026-04-08T03:05:14Z

Background: Server-based screening tools impose subscription costs, while open-source alternatives require coding skills. Objectives: We developed a browser extension that provides no-code, serverless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted title and abstract screening and examined its functionality. Methods: TiAb Review Plugin is an open-source Chrome browser extension (available at https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tiab-review-plugin/alejlnlfflogpnabpbplmnojgoeeabij). It uses Google Sheets as a shared database, requiring no dedicated server and enabling multi-reviewer collaboration. Users supply their own Gemini API key, stored locally and encrypted. The tool offers three screening modes: manual review, large language model (LLM) batch screening, and machine learning (ML) active learning. For ML evaluation, we re-implemented the default ASReview active learning algorithm (TF-IDF with Naive Bayes) in TypeScript to enable in-browser execution, and verified equivalence against the original Python implementation using 10-fold cross-validation on six datasets. For LLM evaluation, we compared 16 parameter configurations across two model families on a benchmark dataset, then validated the optimal configuration (Gemini 3.0 Flash, low thinking budget, TopP=0.95) with a sensitivity-oriented prompt on five public datasets (1,038 to 5,628 records, 0.5 to 2.0 percent prevalence). Results: The TypeScript classifier produced top-100 rankings 100 percent identical to the original ASReview across all six datasets. For LLM screening, recall was 94 to 100 percent with precision of 2 to 15 percent, and Work Saved over Sampling at 95 percent recall (WSS@95) ranged from 48.7 to 87.3 percent. Conclusions: We developed a functional browser extension that integrates LLM screening and ML active learning into a no-code, serverless environment, ready for practical use in systematic review screening.

2026-04-08T03:05:14Z 25 pages, 2 figures. Abstract submitted to Cochrane Colloquium 2026. Code: https://github.com/youkiti/tiab-review-plugin Yuki Kataoka Masahiro Banno Michihito Kyo Shuri Nakao Tomoo Sato Shunsuke Taito Tomohiro Takayama Takahiro Tsuge Yasushi Tsujimoto Ryuhei So Toshi A. Furukawa http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06321v1 2026-04-07T18:00:29Z

Grant recommendation systems remain one of the least explored areas within academic recommender systems, and existing proposals are typically tied to specific funding agencies or disciplinary domains. This paper presents an institution-level reproducible framework for matching researchers to funding opportunities by combining bibliometric profiling with semantic matching. Rather than representing each researcher through a single aggregated profile, the framework constructs multiple publication sets defined by bibliometric criteria such as authorship position and time window, each independently compared against funding calls using word embeddings. Within-researcher normalisation and percentile-based ranking transform cosine similarity scores into actionable recommendations. A case study applied to 3,013 researchers from the University of Granada and 291 Horizon Europe topics verify it and shows that the four indicators capture complementary signals.

2026-04-07T18:00:29Z 19 pages, 6 tables, 2 figures Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado Laura Lázaro-Soraluce Clara Ortega-Sevilla Enrique de la Fuente-Gutiérrez Daniel Torres-Salinas http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05866v1 2026-04-07T13:27:40Z

As conference submission volumes continue to grow, accurately recommending suitable reviewers has become a challenge. Most existing methods follow a ``Paper-to-Paper'' matching paradigm, implicitly representing a reviewer by their publication history. However, effective reviewer matching requires capturing multi-dimensional expertise, and textual similarity to past papers alone is often insufficient. To address this gap, we propose P2R, a training-free framework that shifts from implicit paper-to-paper matching to explicit profile-based matching. P2R uses general-purpose LLMs to construct structured profiles for both submissions and reviewers, disentangling them into Topics, Methodologies, and Applications. Building on these profiles, P2R adopts a coarse-to-fine pipeline to balance efficiency and depth. It first performs hybrid retrieval that combines semantic and aspect-level signals to form a high-recall candidate pool, and then applies an LLM-based committee to evaluate candidates under strict rubrics, integrating both multi-dimensional expert views and a holistic Area Chair perspective. Experiments on NeurIPS, SIGIR, and SciRepEval show that P2R consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Ablation studies further verify the necessity of each component. Overall, P2R highlights the value of explicit, structured expertise modeling and offers practical guidance for applying LLMs to reviewer matching.

2026-04-07T13:27:40Z Accepted by IJCNN-2026 Yicheng Pan Zhiyuan Ning Ludi Wang Yi Du http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28816v2 2026-04-06T12:03:14Z

The global landscape of art-technology institutions, including festivals, biennials, research labs, conferences, and hybrid organizations, has grown increasingly diverse, yet systematic frameworks for analyzing their multidimensional characteristics remain scarce. This paper proposes ASTRA (Art-technology Institution Spatial Taxonomy and Relational Analysis), a computational methodology combining an eight-axis conceptual framework (Curatorial Philosophy, Territorial Relation, Knowledge Production Mode, Institutional Genealogy, Temporal Orientation, Ecosystem Function, Audience Relation, and Disciplinary Positioning) with a text-embedding and clustering pipeline to map 78 cultural-technology institutions into a unified analytical space. Each institution is characterized through qualitative descriptions along the eight axes, encoded via E5-large-v2 sentence embeddings and quantized through a word-level codebook into TF-IDF feature vectors. Dimensionality reduction using UMAP, followed by agglomerative clustering (Average linkage, k=10), yields a composite score of 0.825, a silhouette coefficient of 0.803, and a Calinski-Harabasz index of 11196. Non-negative matrix factorization extracts ten latent topics, and a neighbor-cluster entropy measure identifies boundary institutions bridging multiple thematic communities. An interactive React-based tool enables curators, researchers, and policymakers to explore institutional similarities and cross-disciplinary connections. Results reveal coherent groupings such as an art-science hub cluster anchored by ZKM and ArtScience Museum, an innovation and industry cluster including Ars Electronica, transmediale, and Sonar, an ACM academic cluster comprising TEI, DIS, and NIME, and an electronic music cluster including CTM Festival, MUTEK, and Sonic Acts. Code and data: https://github.com/joonhyungbae/astra

2026-03-28T17:09:17Z Joonhyung Bae