Academic discussions on Twitter have increased over the past decade. This study analyzes ca. 1.3 million scholarly conversations on Twitter, examining their temporal evolution, topical distribution, and associated publications. The results show a steady growth in the number of scholarly conversations, accompanied by rising proportions of longer and multi‐topic conversations. The visibility of different disciplines and topics varies significantly, with popular themes often closely related to societal events. By comparing topic co‐occurrence networks in Twitter conversations with co‐citation networks in scholarly literature, the study reveals both commonalities and differences in topic structures across academic and non‐academic communication contexts. Moreover, publications that appear in multiple conversations are associated with higher citation counts, suggesting a potential link between conversational engagement and scholarly impact. These findings highlight that the feature of conversations on social media has value not only for refining indicators of scholarly attention and influence beyond simple mention counts, but also to capture more broadly how research is disseminated online.
Vanz, Samile Andréa de Souza; Grácio, Maria Cláudia Cabrini; Docampo, Domingo; Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Zaida; dos Santos, Silvio Telles; OLIVEIRA, SANDRA C.
Funded by CNPq, CAPES, FAPERGS, Xunta de Galicia
This study investigates the perceptions of Brazilian researchers in agronomy regarding the order of authorship and the role of the corresponding author in scientific publications utilizing a survey of 380 responses. Key findings reveal that most researchers see the first author as the primary executor of the research, and the last author as the leader. The study also highlights a significant association between authorship order, research credibility, and citation impact, with differing views based on the type of institutional affiliation. In addition, the survey shows a preference for the corresponding author to be either the first or the last author, emphasizing their role in communication with journals. The results suggest that while the authorship order is crucial for recognizing contributions, the corresponding author’s role is primarily seen as a formality. The study calls for more precise guidelines on authorship practices and further research into authorship dynamics in different scientific fields.
Rodrigues, Wellington Barbosa; dos Santos, Thamyres Vieira; Mugnaini, Rogério
Funded by CNPq, CAPES
Objetivo. Este estudo buscou analisar a recuperação da produção científica brasileira em ambientes informacionais internacionais e de acesso aberto, a partir da produção científica registrada nos Currículos Lattes de bolsistas de Produtividade em Pesquisa (PQ) do CNPq. Por meio dos identificadores persistentes DOI e ORCID, efetivou-se a busca nas fontes OpenAlex e ORCID. Método. Estudo exploratório da produção científica de 16.203 currículos de bolsistas PQ com ORCID registrado, e cerca de 1,1 milhão de registros de produção com DOI atribuído, do período de 2015-2024. Comparou o percentual de DOIs nas sobreposições entre as fontes Lattes, OpenAlex e ORCID, e também o grau de complementaridade entre as fontes. Considerou as seguintes variáveis secundárias: grande área, área específica da bolsa PQ e localização geográfica (Estado e Região) da afiliação institucional do pesquisador. Resultados. A totalidade da produção mostrou que cerca de 79% dos DOIs recuperados das três fontes estão representados na Plataforma Lattes, enquanto a OpenAlex complementa com 18,8% e a ORCID com 5,5%. Por outro lado, o maior percentual de DOIs encontra-se na intersecção entre o Currículo Lattes e a OpenAlex (37,9%), com destaque para as Ciências Agrárias, Ciências Biológicas e Ciências Exatas e da Terra, e na intersecção entre as três fontes (29,3%). As Ciências Humanas, Ciências Sociais Aplicadas e Linguística, Letras e Artes destacam-se com os maiores percentuais advindos da OpenAlex, enquanto as Ciências de Saúde se destacam pelo percentual de DOIs exclusivos no Lattes (9,5%) e ORCID (2,8%). Entre as regiões, o Sudeste apresenta o maior percentual de DOIs provenientes da ORCID (2,1%) e na sobreposição Lattes e OpenAlex (40,1%). Por outro lado, o Centro-Oeste destaca-se com os maiores percentuais entre as fontes, sendo a região cujos DOIs presentes nos currículos foram mais complementados pela OpenAlex, o que pode significar que o identificador não tem sido registrado nos currículos. Ao comparar as áreas específicas e os estados, observou-se que, em ambos os casos, existe maior heterogeneidade no percentual de DOIs: na OpenAlex exclusivamente; na intersecção entre o Lattes e a OpenAlex; e na intersecção das três fontes. Dessa forma, observou-se que as áreas de Linguística, Letras e Artes, bem como de Ciências Agrárias, são as que apresentam maior homogeneidade entre as suas subáreas, ao passo que nas Ciências Sociais Aplicadas se observa maior heterogeneidade. Entre os Estados, a maior heterogeneidade foi observada na região Norte, enquanto a região Sul é a mais homogênea, seguida da região Sudeste. Considerações. As diferenças em relação à cobertura das fontes, sugerem que as particularidades da comunicação científica, considerando o ecossistema editorial/informacional, divergem mais entre áreas do que entre regiões, o que concerne às características de publicação dos resultados de pesquisa. A sobreposição das produções entre as fontes evidencia o potencial de univocidade dos PIDs, possibilitando que pesquisas como esta sejam realizadas de maneira objetiva, sem que as variações de metadados textuais interfiram na qualidade dos resultados.
Bascur, Juan Pablo; Costas, Rodrigo; Verberne, Suzan
Purpose Traditional science maps cluster documents into topics but are inherently biased toward clustering certain topics over others. This study investigates the extent to which topic bias can be influenced through the selection of data sources used to construct document networks. Design/methodology/approach We evaluate the clustering effectiveness of several topic categories using document networks constructed from two traditional science mapping sources (citations and text similarity) and six non-traditional data sources (policy documents, patent families, document authors, Facebook users, Twitter users, and Twitter conversations). Each source is evaluated both independently and in combination with a text similarity network. Findings Different data sources favor different kinds of topics. Facebook users favor health issues, patent families favor biotechnology topics, policy documents favor government and social issues, Twitter conversations favor food topics, Twitter users favor nursing topics, and document authors favor geographical entities. These findings demonstrate that topic bias can be systematically influenced through data source selection. Research limitations The study focuses on biomedical publications and is limited to the topic categories and data sources examined. Additional domains, data sources, and source combination methods may exhibit different patterns of topic bias. Practical implications The ability to influence topic bias through data source selection opens up the possibility of creating science maps tailored to different information needs. The reported source-specific biases can support the design of science maps optimized for particular users, tasks, or domains. Originality/value This study provides one of the first large-scale investigations of how alternative data sources affect topic emergence in science maps. It introduces an expanded methodology for evaluating topic-level clustering effectiveness and systematically characterizes the topical biases associated with different data sources, providing a foundation for future science map customization.
Pradier, Carolina; Céspedes, Lucía; van Bellen, Simon; Alperín, Juan Pablo; Larivière, Vincent
The dominance of English-language journals marginalizes national and local scholarly publications. Focusing on Canada’s bilingual (English and French), community‑oriented and Open Access‑rich journal ecosystem, this study uses comprehensive data to ask who relies on Canadian journals, how language and research focus affect reach, and what that reveals about balancing local relevance with global visibility. Drawing on two major bibliometric databases (OpenAlex and Dimensions), we show that Canadian journals play a key role as venues for the dissemination of locally relevant research while also contributing to the global infrastructure for scholarly communication. Most articles published in Canadian journals are authored by researchers affiliated with foreign institutions, and most research authored by Canadians is published in journals based outside Canada. We find that Canadian authors are most likely to publish their work in national journals when they are in decision-making roles, when the language of publication is French, or when the topics are locally relevant. Our findings also challenge the notion that only the Social Sciences and Humanities are locally bound: for the Canadian case, Life and earth sciences and Biomedical and health sciences were also found to be linguistically and geographically grounded. Finally, while researchers affiliated with government institutions are the most likely to publish in Canadian journals and to engage in research that has a Canadian object of study, researchers affiliated with French-speaking Québec-based universities stand out as the largest contributors to the Canadian journal ecosystem and account for the highest volume of French-language publications.
Kulczycki, Emanuel; Gamboa, José Octavio Alonso; Beigel, Fernanda; Digiampietri, Luciano A.; Laakso, Mikael; Pölönen, Janne; Taşkın, Zehra; Cuartas, Gabriel Vélez
Purpose This study investigates the diversity of national scholarly journal publishing ecosystems in seven countries across Europe and Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Finland, Mexico, Poland, and Türkiye. It challenges the common perception that global scholarly publishing is dominated by international commercial publishers by examining national publishing structures beyond English speaking contexts. Design/methodology/approach Using ISSN Centre data and national sources, we analyse journal-level publishing structures rather than article- or citation-level outputs. Publishers were categorized according to their institutional and organizational characteristics. The analysis focuses on active journals, defined as those with a recorded start year and no identified termination date. Journal coverage in Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenAlex was examined to assess how national publishing landscapes are represented in major bibliometric databases. Findings Educational institutions emerge as the primary publishers in most countries, representing more than 75 % of journals in Colombia and Brazil and more than 50 % in Mexico, Argentina, and Poland. Finland stands out, with scientific and professional associations leading journal publication at 62 %. Commercial publishers hold comparatively small shares, reaching their highest levels in Türkiye at 12.1 % and Poland at 8.2 %. In terms of database representation, OpenAlex indexes over half of the journals in most countries, whereas Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus cover only a small portion. Research limitations The study relies on ISSN and national datasets, which differ in completeness and standardization. Variations in national reporting practices and database indexing policies may influence coverage comparisons. As the analysis is based on currently active journals, historical trends reflect surviving journals only. Practical implications The results provide evidence for policymakers, database providers, and research evaluators to recognize the diversity of national publishing systems. They highlight the importance of improving data sources and analytical approaches to ensure more accurate assessment of scholarly communication outside heavily commercialized environments. Originality/value The study offers a comparative analysis of national journal publishing ecosystems across seven countries, revealing structural differences that challenge the assumption of a globally uniform publishing model. It underscores the need for bibliometric research frameworks that include and accurately represent national and regional publishing structures.
