https://arxiv.org/api/zr2ltQAKnRLJi0scArfvnDtDN+E 2026-03-22T10:27:50Z 5870 30 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00399v2 2026-03-03T22:40:07Z

Charting the intellectual evolution of a scientific discipline is crucial for identifying its core contributions, challenges, and future directions. The IISE Annual Conference proceedings offer a rich longitudinal archive of the Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE) community's development, but the sheer volume of scholarship produced over two decades makes a holistic analysis difficult. Traditional reviews often fail to capture the full scale of thematic shifts and complex collaboration networks that define the community's growth. This paper presents a computational analysis of IISE proceedings from 2002 to 2025, drawing on an initial dataset of 9,350 titles from ProQuest for thematic analysis and 8,958 titles from Google Scholar for citation analysis, to deliver a cartography of the ISE field's intellectual history. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for domain-aware classification, Natural Language Processing, and Network Science, our study systematically maps thematic evolution to identify dominant, emerging, and receding research topics. We analyze citation data and co-authorship networks to uncover influential papers and authors, providing critical insights into knowledge diffusion and community structure. Through this comprehensive analysis, we establish a baseline for understanding the trajectory of ISE research and offer valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and educators. The findings illuminate the field's intellectual assets and provide a data-informed map to guide the future of ISE. To foster reproducibility and further research, the curated dataset used in this study and the results will be made publicly available.

2026-02-28T01:10:46Z 7 pages, 3 figures, IISE Annual Conference Proceedings 2026 H. Sinan Bank Casey E. Eaton http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03457v1 2026-03-03T19:15:02Z

Over the last two decades, research funders have adopted Open Access (OA) mandates, with various forms and success. While some funders emphasize gold OA through article processing charges, others favour green OA and repositories, leading to a fragmented policy landscape. Compliance with these mandates depends on several factors, including disciplinary field, monitoring, and availability of repository infrastructure. Based on 5 million papers supported by 36 funders from 20 countries, 11 million papers funded by other organisations, and 10 million papers without any funding reported, this study explores how different policies influence the adoption of OA. Findings indicate a sustained growth in OA overall, especially hybrid and gold OA, and that funded papers are more likely to be OA than unfunded papers. Those results suggest that policies such as Plan S, as well as read-and-publish agreements, have had a strong influence on OA adoption, especially among European funders. However, the global low uptake of Diamond OA and limited indexing of OA outputs in Latin American countries highlight ongoing disparities, influenced by funding constraints, journal visibility, and regional infrastructure challenges.

2026-03-03T19:15:02Z 17 pages (incl. supplementary materials) Lucía Céspedes Madelaine Hare Simon van Bellen Philippe Mongeon Vincent Larivière http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03126v1 2026-03-03T15:58:18Z

Scholarly data are largely fragmented across siloed databases with divergent metadata and missing linkages among them. We present the Science Data Lake, a locally-deployable infrastructure built on DuckDB and simple Parquet files that unifies eight open sources - Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, SciSciNet, Papers with Code, Retraction Watch, Reliance on Science, a preprint-to-published mapping, and Crossref - via DOI normalization while preserving source-level schemas. The resource comprises approximately 960GB of Parquet files spanning ~293 million uniquely identifiable papers across ~22 schemas and ~153 SQL views. An embedding-based ontology alignment using BGE-large sentence embeddings maps 4,516 OpenAlex topics to 13 scientific ontologies (~1.3 million terms), yielding 16,150 mappings covering 99.8% of topics ($\geq 0.65$ threshold) with $F1 = 0.77$ at the recommended $\geq 0.85$ operating point, outperforming TF-IDF, BM25, and Jaro-Winkler baselines on a 300-pair gold-standard evaluation. We validate through 10 automated checks, cross-source citation agreement analysis (pairwise Pearson $r = 0.76$ - $0.87$), and stratified manual annotation. Four vignettes demonstrate cross-source analyses infeasible with any single database. The resource is open source, deployable on a single drive or queryable remotely via HuggingFace, and includes structured documentation suitable for large language model (LLM) based research agents.

2026-03-03T15:58:18Z 18 pages, 8 figures, 7 tables. Dataset DOI: 10.57967/hf/7850. Code: https://github.com/J0nasW/science-datalake Jonas Wilinski http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00008v3 2026-03-03T09:52:49Z

In this research, we quantify an inflow of women into science in the past three decades. Structured Big Data allow us to estimate the contribution of women scientists to the growth of science by disciplines (N = STEMM 14 disciplines) and over time (1990-2023). A monolithic segment of STEMM science emerges from this research as divided between the disciplines in which the growth was powerfully driven by women - and the disciplines in which the role of women was marginal. There are four disciplines in which 50% of currently publishing scientists are women; and five disciplines in which more than 50% of currently young scientists are women. But there is also a cluster of four highly mathematized disciplines (MATH, COMP, PHYS, and ENG) in which the growth of science is only marginally driven by women. Digital traces left by scientists in their publications indexed in global datasets open two new dimensions in large-scale academic profession studies: time and gender. The growth of science in Europe was accompanied by growth in the number of women scientists, but with powerful cross-disciplinary and cross-generational differentiations. We examined the share of women scientists coming from ten different age cohorts for 32 European and four comparator countries (the USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan). Our study sample was N = 1,740,985 scientists (including 39.40% women scientists). Three critical methodological challenges of using structured Big Data of the bibliometric type were discussed: gender determination, academic age determination, and discipline determination.

2024-10-17T12:26:08Z 29 pages, 5 figures Marek Kwiek Lukasz Szymula http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00084v2 2026-03-03T07:41:40Z

LLM-agents are increasingly used to accelerate the progress of scientific research. Yet a persistent bottleneck is data access: agents not only lack readily available tools for retrieval, but also have to work with unstrcutured, human-centric data on the Internet, such as HTML web-pages and PDF files, leading to excessive token consumption, limit working efficiency, and brittle evidence look-up. This gap motivates the development of \textit{an agentic data interface}, which is designed to enable agents to access and utilize scientific literature in a more effective, efficient, and cost-aware manner. In this paper, we introduce DeepXiv-SDK, which offers a three-layer agentic data interface for scientific literature. 1) Data Layer, which transforms unstructured, human-centric data into normalized and structured representations in JSON format, improving data usability and enabling progressive accessibility of the data. 2) Service Layer, which presents readily available tools for data access and ad-hoc retrieval. It also enables a rich form of agent usage, including CLI, MCP, and Python SDK. 3) Application Layer, which creates a built-in agent, packaging basic tools from the service layer to support complex data access demands. DeepXiv-SDK currently supports the complete ArXiv corpus, and is synchronized daily to incorporate new releases. It is designed to extend to all common open-access corpora, such as PubMed Central, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and chemRxiv. We release RESTful APIs, an open-source Python SDK, and a web demo showcasing deep search and deep research workflows. DeepXiv-SDK is free to use with registration.

2026-02-14T23:07:28Z Project at https://github.com/DeepXiv/deepxiv_sdk Hongjin Qian Ziyi Xia Ze Liu Jianlyu Chen Kun Luo Minghao Qin Chaofan Li Lei Xiong Junwei Lan Sen Wang Zhengyang Liang Yingxia Shao Defu Lian Zheng Liu http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01718v1 2026-03-02T10:42:23Z

Large language models (LLMs) have diffused rapidly into academic writing since late 2022. Using the complete population of 109,393 research articles published in \textit{PLOS ONE} between 2019 and 2025, we examine population-level structural publication indicators, including full-text manuscript length, authorship team size, reference volume, and cross-linguistic collaboration, before and after 2022. \textit{PLOS ONE}'s multidisciplinary scope and consistent editorial framework allow cross-field comparison under uniform conditions over an extended period. Manuscript length increased substantially, with gains ranging from 14.8\% among African-affiliated authors and 11.7\% among Asian-affiliated authors to 5.3\% among native English-speaking (NES) authors, cutting the word-count gap by 39\%. More strikingly, non-native English-speaking (NNES) authors reduced both authorship team size, from 6.54 to 6.06 authors, or 7.3\%, and collaboration with NES co-authors, from 17.8\% to 12.2\%, or 36\%, while NES authors remained stable in both team size and collaboration rates. Reference counts increased modestly and uniformly across groups. These findings suggest that post-2022 tools may be reshaping not only how science is written, but who writes it together.

2026-03-02T10:42:23Z Yossi Ben-Zion Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Eden Cohen Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Nitza Davidovitch Ariel University, Ariel, Israel http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01117v1 2026-03-01T14:01:50Z

How nations shape the scientific frontier matters for technological competition, but standard metrics, including publication counts, citations, and disruption indices, look backward and fail to distinguish between fundamentally different leadership strategies. We develop and validate two forward-looking model-based measures and apply them to tens of millions of articles since 1990. The first embeds research pathways within an evolving hypergraph of concepts and scientists to identify leadership in emerging areas--work that anticipates where the scientific crowd is heading. The second embeds evolving samples of ideas and disciplines drawn upon in past research to identify leadership in surprising new directions as unexpected combinations become routine and science reorganizes around them. China became the global leader in emerging areas roughly a decade ago, well before it led in volume, reflecting a capacity to detect and amplify nascent consensus at scale. The United States and Europe show the opposite profile: declining emergence shares but persistent leadership in prescient work, especially research bridging disciplinary boundaries. These patterns replicate across databases, attribution methods, and strategic domains, including AI, biotechnology, energy, and semiconductors. Nations lead science by reading the landscape or by reshaping it, and the institutional requirements for each strategy lie in tension. The distribution of these strategies promises to shape the global structure of technological leadership for decades.

2026-03-01T14:01:50Z 16 pages, 4 figures Jeffrey W. Lockhart Jamshid Sourati Feng Shi James Evans http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00807v1 2026-02-28T21:03:44Z

Academic publishing requires solving a collective coordination problem: among thousands of possible publication venues, which deserve a community's attention? A clear consensus helps scholars allocate attention, match submissions to appropriate outlets, and evaluate scholars for hiring and promotion. Yet preferences are not centrally coordinated--they emerge within each field over time. Here we ask whether all fields have arrived at similar solutions to this coordination problem, and whether preferences vary systematically with individual characteristics. Using an adaptive survey of 3,510 US tenure-track faculty yielding 163,002 pairwise comparisons across 8,044 venues, we show that fields occupy a wide spectrum of coordination. Economics, Chemistry, and Physics exhibit strong consensus, with respondents agreeing on elite venues and accurately predicting one another's choices. Computer Science and Engineering show fragmented preferences distributed across hundreds of outlets with minimal overlap. Within fields, preferences correlate with institutional prestige--faculty at elite institutions prefer higher-ranked venues--and with gender, as men prefer higher-ranked venues than women even after accounting for prestige and career stage. Scholars realize their personal preferences more successfully than their respective fields' consensus preferences, indicating that heterogeneity, not just selective hierarchy, shapes publishing outcomes. Journal Impact Factors explain only 64% of preference choices, systematically undervaluing what fields actually prefer. These results quantify how publication preferences vary across the structural diversity of academic fields.

2026-02-28T21:03:44Z 14 pages, 5 figures, followed by extensive supporting information appendices Ian Van Buskirk Marilena Hohmann Ekaterina Landgren Johan Ugander Aaron Clauset Daniel B. Larremore http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.24229v1 2026-02-27T17:56:25Z

Identifying which Wikipedia articles are related to science fiction, fantasy, or their hybrids is challenging because genre boundaries are porous and frequently overlap. Wikipedia nonetheless offers machine-readable structure beyond text, including categories, internal links (wikilinks), and statements if corresponding Wikidata items. However, each of these signals reflects community conventions and can be biased or incomplete. This study examines structural and semantic features of Wikipedia articles that can be used to identify content related to science fiction and fantasy (SF/F).

2026-02-27T17:56:25Z Supplementary materials: https://data.lewoniewski.info/fantasy/ Włodzimierz Lewoniewski Milena Stróżyna Izabela Czumałowska Elżbieta Lewańska http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23941v1 2026-02-27T11:43:17Z

This paper introduces a dataset of enriched geographic coordinates retrieved from Diderot and d'Alembert's eighteenth-century Encyclopedie. Automatically recovering geographic coordinates from historical texts is a complex task, as they are expressed in a variety of ways and with varying levels of precision. To improve retrieval of coordinates from similar digitized early modern texts, we have created a gold standard dataset, trained models, published the resulting inferred and normalized coordinate data, and experimented applying these models to new texts. From 74,000 total articles in each of the digitized versions of the Encyclopedie from ARTFL and ENCCRE, we examined 15,278 geographical entries, manually identifying 4,798 containing coordinates, and 10,480 with descriptive but non-numerical references. Leveraging our gold standard annotations, we trained transformer-based models to retrieve and normalize coordinates. The pipeline presented here combines a classifier to identify coordinate-bearing entries and a second model for retrieval, tested across encoder-decoder and decoder architectures. Cross-validation yielded an 86% EM score. On an out-of-domain eighteenth-century Trevoux dictionary (also in French), our fine-tuned model had a 61% EM score, while for the nineteenth-century, 7th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in English, the EM was 77%. These findings highlight the gold standard dataset's usefulness as training data, and our two-step method's cross-lingual, cross-domain generalizability.

2026-02-27T11:43:17Z Accepted at LREC 2026 Ludovic Moncla Pierre Nugues Thierry Joliveau Katherine McDonough http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23921v1 2026-02-27T11:10:09Z

This article reports the outcomes of the FAIRNESS COST Action (CA20108), a coordinated European initiative aimed at advancing micrometeorological data toward compliance with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles. The article presents three core achievements: (i) a structured inventory of urban and rural micrometeorological networks across Europe; (ii) the design and deployment of the FAIR Micrometeorological Portal, providing a digital infrastructure for data discovery, access, and standardized metadata description; and (iii) methodological guidance for quality control, gap detection, and gap filling tailored to the specific characteristics of micrometeorological time series. By providing both technical infrastructure and community-driven standards, the FAIRNESS outputs advance micrometeorological data from isolated datasets into coherent, reusable resources. Beyond technical developments, the FAIRNESS systematically addressed gaps in knowledge and skills within the micrometeorological community. A key outcome is the beginner-oriented book Micrometeorological Measurements - An Introduction for Beginners, which provides structured guidance on measurement design, instrumentation, data management, and quality assurance. In parallel, FAIRNESS implemented a comprehensive capacity-building programme, including summer schools, workshops, and short-term scientific missions, targeting both domain-specific competencies and transferable skills such as FAIR data stewardship, interdisciplinary collaboration, and practical problem solving. Together, these efforts contribute to strengthening the long-term usability of micrometeorological data and fostering a more integrated, FAIR-oriented research culture within the European meteorological community.

2026-02-27T11:10:09Z 25 pages Branislava Lalic Josef Eitzinger Stevan Savić Ana Firanj Sremac Michael Scriney Mark Roantree http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13271v1 2026-02-27T04:06:19Z

This work traces the evolution of word-embedding techniques within the natural language processing (NLP) literature. We collect and analyze 149 research articles spanning the period from 1954 to 2025, providing both a comprehensive methodological review and a data-driven bibliometric analysis of how representation learning has developed over seven decades. Our study covers four major embedding paradigms, statistical representation-based methods (one-hot encoding, bag-of-words, TF-IDF), static word embeddings (Word2Vec, GloVe, FastText), contextual word embeddings (ELMo, BERT, GPT), and sentence/document embeddings, critically discussing the strengths, limitations, and intellectual lineage connecting each category. Beyond the methodological survey, we conduct a formal era comparison using GPT-3's release as a dividing line, applying seven hypothesis tests to quantify shifts in research focus, collaboration patterns, and institutional involvement. Our analysis reveals a dramatic post-GPT-3 paradigm shift: contextual and sentence-level methods now dominate at 6.4X the odds of the pre-GPT-3 era, mean team sizes have grown significantly (p = 0.018), and 30 entirely new techniques have emerged while 54 pre-GPT-3 methods received no further attention. These findings, combined with evidence of rising industry involvement, provide a quantitative account of how the field's epistemic priorities have been reshaped by the advent of large language models.

2026-02-27T04:06:19Z Minh Anh Nguyen Kuheli Sai Minh Nguyen http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23452v1 2026-02-26T19:17:39Z

Scientific research relies on accurate citation for attribution and integrity, yet large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications. Such hallucinated citations have already been observed in submissions and accepted papers at major machine learning venues, exposing vulnerabilities in peer review. Meanwhile, rapidly growing reference lists make manual verification impractical, and existing automated tools remain fragile to noisy and heterogeneous citation formats and lack standardized evaluation. We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing. Our multi-agent verification pipeline decomposes citation checking into claim extraction, evidence retrieval, passage matching, reasoning, and calibrated judgment to assess whether a cited source truly supports its claim. We construct a large-scale human-validated dataset across domains and define unified metrics for citation faithfulness and evidence alignment. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial citation errors and show that our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability. This work provides the first scalable infrastructure for auditing citations in the LLM era and practical tools to improve the trustworthiness of scientific references.

2026-02-26T19:17:39Z Zhengqing Yuan Kaiwen Shi Zheyuan Zhang Lichao Sun Nitesh V. Chawla Yanfang Ye http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11542v2 2026-02-26T07:50:51Z

How has the credibility revolution shaped political science? We address this question by classifying 91,632 articles published between 2003 and 2023 across 156 political science journals using large language models, focusing on research design, credibility-enhancing practices, and citation patterns. We find that design-based studies -- those leveraging plausibly exogenous variation to justify causal claims -- have become increasingly common and receive a citation premium. In contrast, model-based approaches that rely on strong modeling assumptions have declined. Yet the rise of design-based work is uneven: it is concentrated in top journals and among authors at highly ranked institutions, and it is driven primarily by the growth of survey experiments. Other credibility-enhancing practices that help reduce false positives and false negatives, such as placebo tests and power calculations, remain rare. Taken together, our findings point to substantial but selective change, more consistent with a partial reform than a revolution.

2025-12-02T00:37:31Z Carolina Torreblanca William Dinneen Guy Grossman Yiqing Xu http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22426v2 2026-02-26T07:32:31Z

Purpose: It has become increasingly likely that Large Language Models (LLMs) will be used to score the quality of academic publications to support research assessment goals in the future. This may cause problems for fields with competing paradigms since there is a risk that one may be favoured, causing long term harm to the reputation of the other. Design/methodology/approach: To test whether this is plausible, this article uses 17 ChatGPTs to evaluate up to 100 journal articles from each of eight pairs of competing sociology paradigms (1490 altogether). Each article was assessed by prompting ChatGPT to take one of five roles: paradigm follower, opponent, antagonistic follower, antagonistic opponent, or neutral. Findings: Articles were scored highest by ChatGPT when it followed the aligning paradigm, and lowest when it was told to devalue it and to follow the opposing paradigm. Broadly similar patterns occurred for most of the paradigm pairs. Follower ChatGPTs displayed only a small amount of favouritism compared to neutral ChatGPTs, but articles evaluated by an opposing paradigm ChatGPT had a substantial disadvantage. Research limitations: The data covers a single field and LLM. Practical implications: The results confirm that LLM instructions for research evaluation should be carefully designed to ensure that they are paradigm-neutral to avoid accidentally resolving conflicts between paradigms on a technicality by devaluing one side's contributions. Originality/value: This is the first demonstration that LLMs can be prompted to show a partiality for academic paradigms.

2025-10-25T20:06:18Z Mike Thelwall Ralph Schroeder Meena Dhanda