Our Recent Productions

Showing 1–5 of 5

1. Working Paper2026Open Access

   Collective action for Open Research Information: Introducing ORION-DBs and a new FORCE11 Working Group(opens in a new tab)

   

   Mazoni, Alysson; Kramer, Bianca; Neylon, Cameron; Costas, Rodrigo; van Eck, Nees Jan

   With ORION-DBs, a growing set of actors are hosting large research information datasets in shared spaces, notably in Google BigQuery. To coordinate amongst current and future contributors and work towards community standards for discovery, processing, preservation and documentation, we are starting a FORCE11 working group. The working group will also seek to build a community around future alternatives to proprietary cloud systems for data sharing at scale and identify future paths to community-led training and development resources. Our goal is to build a community with a focus on supporting the users of Open Research Information resources to make more sophisticated and complex use of these data sources. We will do this by consolidating and expanding the resources themselves through supporting providers, gathering user stories and developing training materials. Finally we will scope pathways to technological independence from proprietary systems consistent with the needs of users. This webinar will introduce the ORION-DB initiative, present a number of use cases and introduce the FORCE11 Working Group. If you are a data provider, metadata user or infrastructure developer and want to learn more about ORION-DB and the planned activities of the working group, you are invited to attend the webinar. The version of this slide deck on Google was originally: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ua88tr2gP2HTurQPkM4-A7eWjFiDLUI_ht3MJdHxOxc/edit?usp=sharing

   DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22304573open research informationopen datadatabasesscientometricsMetadata
2. Working Paper2026Open Access

   English dominance in scholarly communication: Historical roots and bibliometric evidence(opens in a new tab)

   

   Brasil, André

   English functions as the principal shared language of international scholarly communication, but its dominance also creates inequalities in the production, dissemination, visibility, and assessment of research. Developed as a complementary output of the CoARA Working Group on Multilingualism and Language Biases in Research Assessment, this report examines the historical development of English dominance and the contemporary mechanisms through which it is reproduced. It combines evidence from the literature with descriptive bibliometric analyses based on Web of Science, Scopus, OpenAlex, and CWTS Journal Indicators. The findings show that English is especially dominant in journals with high field normalised citation impact and in the selective segments of scholarly communication most frequently used in research evaluation. However, the extent of this dominance varies considerably across disciplines and countries, and publication in national languages remains important in the social sciences, humanities, and fields directed toward local professional and societal audiences. The report also demonstrates how database selection, metadata quality, and analytical choices affect the visibility of multilingual scholarship. Web of Science and Scopus predominantly represent English language journal literature, whereas OpenAlex reveals a much broader body of multilingual research, although incomplete language, authorship, and institutional metadata remain important limitations. The report further examines the financial, linguistic, and time burdens associated with English language publication and considers how publishing infrastructures, bibliometric indicators, rankings, and assessment practices influence which research becomes visible and valued. This report contributes to the landscape analysis conducted by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) Working Group (WG) on Multilingualism and language biases in research assessment and it complements the Implementation proposal for language-aware assessments (Annex II.3).

   DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17913690Research assessmentScholarly communicationOpenAlexMultilingualismMetadata
3. Working Paper2026Open Access

   Different operationalizations of local research and their associated citation patterns: A study of African publications(opens in a new tab)

   

   Alonso-Álvarez, Patricia; Boshoff, Nelius

   Local research has gained increasing attention in recent years, with a growing body of literature emphasizing its significance—especially for peripheral communities underrepresented in mainstream scientific discourse. However, despite this growing interest, there remains no clear consensus on how to define local research. Conceptual clarity is essential for conducting consistent and replicable analyses that capture the specific characteristics, contexts, and societal relevance of local research. This need is particularly acute in the Global South, where structural inequalities in visibility and recognition often marginalize regionally focused scholarship. In Africa, for instance, a substantial share of research is published in local or regional journals that are poorly represented in global indexing databases. As bibliometric analyses typically rely on these databases, this exclusion diminishes their perceived relevance. To address this gap, the present study incorporates data from regional and open-access sources to examine citation patterns associated with African local research. It uses multiple conceptualizations of local research to classify publications as either local or non-local depending on the definition used. These classifications are correlated with three citation-based indicators: average citations per publication, time to first citation, and the proportion of uncited publications. Additionally, the study explores the characteristics of citing publications, distinguishing between local and non-local sources as well as domestic and international citations. The findings reveal that citation patterns differ significantly across locality definitions, underscoring the importance of adopting nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to assess and support local research.

   DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17865910local researchafrican researchcitation patternsajolopenalex
4. Working Paper2026Open Access

   Operationalizing FAIR in National Research Information Systems: The BrCris Example and Its Role in Open Repositories(opens in a new tab)

   

   Segundo, Washington; Dias, Thiago Magela; Souza, Marcel Garcia; do Canto, Fábio Lorensi; Sena, Priscila Machado

   The adoption of the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) has become a cornerstone of Open Science, guiding practices aimed at improving the quality, transparency, and reuse of scientific data. In the context of CRIS (Current Research Information Systems), these principles play a strategic role in supporting the integration, standardization, and governance of scientific information on a national scale. This article analyzes the application of the FAIR principles within the Brazilian Scientific Research Information Ecosystem (BrCris), developed by the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (Ibict), with the aim of discussing how its technical and organizational practices contribute to building a more reliable, interoperable, and reusable scientific data infrastructure. The methodology adopted is based on a literature review of the FAIR principles and a document analysis of technical reports, scientific articles, and institutional materials related to BrCris. The results indicate that BrCris shows significant progress in adopting the FAIR principles, especially in the use of persistent identifiers, semantic data integration, interoperability with international infrastructures, and the availability of data in open and reusable formats. It is concluded that BrCris constitutes a strategic infrastructure for the implementation of the FAIR principles in Brazil.

   DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20789089OR2026FAIR PrinciplesOpen ScienceBrCris PlatformInteroperability
5. Working Paper2026Open Access

   Opening the Black Box of Grant Peer Review: Exploratory Analysis of Linguistic and Sentiment Signals in Funding Outcomes(opens in a new tab)

   

   Bin, Adriana; Pinto, Daniela Maciel; Pereira, Cesar A. Guimarães; Cristofoletti, Evandro Coggo; Mena-Chalco, Jesus Paschoal; Salles Filho, Sérgio; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.

   Peer review plays a central role in research funding decisions, yet the evaluative language used in review reports remains insufficiently explored, particularly in funding agencies. This study examines how linguistic and sentiment characteristics of peer-review reports relate to funding outcomes at the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), Brazil, focusing on the Regular Research Grant (RRG) and Young Investigator Grant (YIG) schemes between 2000 and 2017. Drawing on 19,333 proposals and their corresponding review reports, we analyze three aggregated corpora — overall reports, proposal-related reports, and applicant track-record reports — using natural language processing and sentiment analysis. We compare approved and rejected proposals across fields of knowledge, reviewer gender, applicant gender, and peer-review report sections. Results show that reviewers use distinct textual and sentiment patterns when justifying approval or rejection. These patterns vary according to the section evaluated — applicant track record or technical proposal — and also differ by field of knowledge and, more locally, by reviewer–applicant gender configurations. The pattern is more regular and stable in RRG than in YIG. Overall, the findings show how evaluative language illuminates fairness, consistency, and transparency in grant peer review.

   DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/ykca7_v1Exploratory analysisSentiment analysisPeer reviewExploratory researchLinguistic analysis