Penachioni, Júlia Battistuzzi; Pires, Antonio; Bin, Adriana; de Oliveira, Amâncio J; Murat, Biegzat; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
This paper examines how scientific knowledge is mobilized within diplomatic discourse in the United Nations General Assembly's Fourth Committee. By combining computational text analysis with qualitative interpretation of 364 meeting transcripts between 2010 and 2023, the research seeks to answer the following question: what functions does scientific knowledge perform in UN diplomatic speech? From our analysis, the answer to this question is that science performs multiple diplomatic functions simultaneously. The findings indicate that science plays a role that is way more complex than simply providing technical information for policymaking. Scientific knowledge is often mobilized to legitimize political positions, reinforce international norms, organize multilateral coordination, support risk governance and preparedness, facilitate access to technologies, and project scientific credibility and international status.
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.
Canto, Fabio; Barata, Germana; Lemos, Wadson; Segundo, Washington
Material suplementar da pesquisa “A Década do Oceano promove acesso aberto à produção científica no Brasil?”, artigo aceito para apresentação na Conferência Lusófona de Ciência Aberta (ConfOA 2026). Este conjunto reúne os dados e materiais suplementares utilizados na pesquisa sobre a produção científica brasileira relacionada ao oceano e sua disponibilidade em Acesso Aberto no contexto da Década das Nações Unidas da Ciência Oceânica para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Os dados bibliográficos foram recuperados por meio da API do OpenAlex, considerando publicações entre 2018 e 2025, com pelo menos um autor afiliado a uma instituição brasileira e restritas aos tipos documentais artigo e revisão. O conjunto final analisado é composto por 24.958 publicações. A recuperação foi realizada a partir de duas estratégias complementares: uma baseada na estrutura de classificação temática do OpenAlex, contemplando as subáreas de Oceanografia e Engenharia do Oceano e 46 tópicos relacionados; e outra baseada em busca textual por termos em português e inglês associados ao ambiente marinho, biodiversidade, mudanças climáticas, comunidades costeiras, economia azul e temas correlatos, aplicados aos campos de título e resumo. Os registros foram deduplicados pelo identificador único de trabalho do OpenAlex (work_id). O material suplementar contém os dados utilizados nas análises apresentadas no artigo e a documentação das estratégias de busca empregadas na constituição do corpus. As análises incluem a condição de Acesso Aberto das publicações, modalidades de acesso, publicação em fontes de Acesso Aberto, registros e valores de Article Processing Charges (APC), indicadores de citação e classificações por subáreas do conhecimento. O conjunto é disponibilizado com o objetivo de favorecer a transparência, a reprodutibilidade e a reutilização dos dados da pesquisa.
Research assessment and scholarly publishing play interconnected roles in shaping research culture, incentives, and norms that ultimately determine what knowledge is produced, communicated, trusted, and rewarded. These two interdependent components of the research system are undergoing change, fueled by initiatives that share core principles, goals, and challenges, but act largely in parallel. Coordinated action in assessment and publishing reform holds the opportunity for more effective, fairer, and more durable change. The problems in research assessment and scholarly publishing are well documented, from overreliance on journal prestige and the dominance of selective bibliographic databases to the underrecognition of peer review and the limited visibility of research outputs beyond journal articles. Various reform initiatives have emerged to deal with these problems, both in the research assessment domain and in the scholarly publishing domain. However, these problems cannot be effectively addressed by a reform in either of these domains alone. Reform needs to be coordinated across domains. Fragmented reform efforts may not only duplicate work, but may also send inconsistent signals to researchers and institutions, which may undermine the adoption of more responsible practices. Stronger coordination creates tangible benefits across the research system. For reform initiatives, it increases collective reach, legitimacy, and influence while reducing duplication of effort and strengthening shared messages. For research performing and funding organizations, and policymakers, it provides a more coherent foundation for policy development and implementation, enabling organizations to draw on shared experience while adapting approaches to their own missions and contexts. For researchers, coordination helps ensure that emerging practices in scholarly publishing are recognized and rewarded consistently, reducing uncertainty and creating more pathways for diverse contributions to be valued. In this paper, we give an overview of how we are considering these issues and propose ways forward for coordinating the reform movements in research assessment and scholarly publishing. Importantly, this coordination is not intended to replace existing initiatives or create new layers of governance. Rather, it is a light-touch and inclusive effort to coordinate agendas, amplify existing work, and promote shared learning.
Pereira, Cesar A. Guimarães; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Salles Filho, Sérgio; Bin, Adriana
This paper presents results from ongoing research on the contributions of Metascience Observatories (MOs) to policy documents (PDs). The study examines the scientific production of 14 MOs across 13 countries, highlighting their contents and their contributions to policy documents. The methodology integrates scholarly output extracted from OpenAlex with data from the Overton database. The study yields two primary contributions: a) a methodology developed to characterize MO outputs and outcomes as reflected in policies, and b) the characterization of the 14 MOs. From a total of 6,140 articles retrieved from OpenAlex, 1,337 (22%) were cited in 6,404 policy documents produced by 679 distinct institutions, associated with 70 countries. Using an AI assistant we matched article content with PD content to identify the specific nature of MOs' contributions. This methodology is in progress and we expect it can be applied to other types of institutions.
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
Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao; Ràfols, Ismael; A. Diaz-Faes, Adrian
This dataset contains the data underlying the study Bringing public attention to disease into global health priority-setting. The study maps diseases from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2023 classification across three dimensions, namely epidemiological burden, public attention and research effort, for the period 2016 to 2023. Burden is measured through disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) retrieved from the GBD 2023 release. Public attention is measured through monthly Wikipedia pageviews, restricted to human traffic, across all language editions. Research effort is measured through publications indexed in OpenAlex under the corresponding MeSH descriptors as a major topic. The deposit includes the manual mapping that links each GBD cause to MeSH descriptors and Wikipedia articles, the raw indicator files retrieved from each source, and the aggregated datasets used in the analysis. All processing scripts are available at https://github.com/Wences91/gbd_misalignment. Contents matching_2023.xlsx The core mapping of the study, produced manually and validated against external sources. The sheet Classification holds the four-level GBD 2023 hierarchy of 333 causes, after excluding injury-related causes. The sheet Mapping links each cause to its MeSH descriptors, with qualifiers where applicable, and to its primary Wikipedia article. In total, 236 specific diseases are matched, of which 129 belong to level 3 and 107 to level 4. Raw_data.zip Source data retrieved from each of the three dimensions, together with the lookup tables derived from the mapping. gbd_all_dalys_1423.csv - Global DALYs by cause and year. gbd_all_dalys_countries_1623_1.csv and gbd_all_dalys_countries_1623_2.csv - DALYs by cause, country and year, for the 25 countries where the selected Wikipedia languages hold official or national status. mesh_papers.csv and mesh_papers_with_q.csv - Publications indexed under each MeSH descriptor as a major topic, without and with qualifiers, extracted from OpenAlex. openalex_countries.csv - Country of the first author affiliation for each publication. wiki_pageviews_user.tsv - Monthly pageviews by Wikipedia article and language edition. level_3_MESH.tsv and level_3_Wikipedia.tsv - Lookup tables linking each specific disease to its MeSH descriptors and to its Wikipedia article. Aggregated_data.zip Analytical datasets built from the files above. Each record reports publication counts, pageviews and DALYs for the period 2016 to 2023. results_final_lv2.tsv - The 19 GBD level-2 disease groups. results_final_lv3.tsv - The 158 GBD level-3 diseases, of which 138 have complete data across the three dimensions. results_final_lv2_year.tsv - Level-2 disease groups broken down by publication year. results_final_lv2_country.tsv and results_final_lv3_country.tsv - Levels 2 and 3 disaggregated by language edition. Fourteen editions are included, of which German, Persian, Swahili and Vietnamese are analysed in the article.
Comment on Araújo-Júnior et al. 2026 “Taphonomy in Brazil: over 36 years of history and new insights” Carolina Zabini 1, Elvio P. Bosetti 2, , Fernando Erthal 3, Alysson F. Mazoni 1,4, Daniel Sedorko 5
Brasil, André; van Himbergen, Thomas; Nooren, Irene M.A.; Constantin, Maria Ermioni
At the SURF research day 2026, we asked the attendees of our workshop if they agree or not with four statements. This report summarizes the views of the participants. Slides are available at Presentation: Unspoken truth: Everyone wants to publish in high impact factor journals. But how to adopt the alternatives | Zenodo
Ferreira, Márcia R.; Costas, Rodrigo; Servedio, Vito D. P.; Thurner, Stefan
Research institutions are crucial in driving intellectual, social, and technological progress. Their ability to innovate depends mainly on their ability to attract, retain, and nurture scientific talent, ultimately making it available to other organizations, industries, or the economy. As researchers change institutions during their careers, their research topics also shift. The extent and mechanisms by which research institutions manage their internal portfolio of scientific topics through the attraction and deployment of researchers are far from well understood. We examine 25 million publication histories of 9.2 million scientists extracted from a large-scale bibliographic database covering thousands of research institutions worldwide to understand how the topics of mobile scientists align with those present in-house. We find a correlation between top-ranked institutions and greater topic alignment, i.e., the degree to which topics of incoming academics match those of their colleagues at the institution. We uncover a similarly high level of alignment among scientists leaving top-ranked institutions. The alignment of research topics in research institutions is more pronounced in engineering, life, health, earth, and physical sciences than in mathematics, computer science, social sciences, and the humanities. We show that institutions have generally become more closely aligned in their overall topic profile over the past two decades. We interpret these results in terms of the levels of proactive management of the composition of the scientific workforce and internal collaboration strategies at the institutional level.
Neylon, Cameron; Kramer, Bianca; Mazoni, Alysson; Costas, Rodrigo; Jahn, Najko; van Eck, Nees Jan
The potential benefits of open research information (ORI) for STI are only just beginning to be realised. For responsible STI indicators, we want to use and recombine ORI resources on a large scale, including among others OpenAlex, OpenAIRE, rankings and national research databases. This special session showcases the Open Research Information Online Databases (ORION-DBs) collective, which makes ORI resources publicly available in the cloud, initially focusing on Google BigQuery. The combined collections comprise 14TB of size. The special session begins with short presentations from the participating MultiObs, Sesame Open Science, SUB Göttingen and CWTS groups, each introducing their open data offerings with an emphasis on reusability for the STI community. A brief hands-on demonstration will illustrate how the different datasets can be combined, showcasing the potential of this approach. Participants will then be invited to pitch research ideas using the presented resources and to discuss the potential of ORION-DBs.
Di Césare, Victoria; Robinson-García, Nicolás; Costas, Rodrigo
This preliminary study operationalises the knowledge bridging and gap-filling communication functions of scientific journals, originally proposed by Chavarro et al. (2017). Considering their theoretical definitions, we link these functions to our local research framework (Di Césare & Robinson-Garcia, 2026) through the producers and recipients dimensions, and measure them using local or global references and citations drawn from OpenAlex articles. We aim to empirically identify knowledge bridging and gap-filling journals, both within and outside the mainstream. The results suggest that the vast majority of these journals are non-mainstream. The thematic profiles of their references and citations validate our geographical operationalisations. Gap-filling journals belong predominantly to the non-mainstream local Social Sciences, whereas in the non-mainstream knowledge bridging journals, the Health Sciences emerge. These domain-level findings support the journals' theoretical functions of serving, respectively, as venues for the publication of knowledge overlooked by the mainstream, and as bridges between mainstream knowledge and local communities.
Choji, Thamyres Tetsue; Mazoni, Alysson; Moral-Muñoz, José A.; Costas, Rodrigo; Cobo, Manuel J.
Nowadays bibliographic data sources are available, and their coverage is shaped by their scope and indexing criteria. Their comparison can reveal what they underrepresent or exclude, particularly in regions such as Latin America, which presents specific characteristics in knowledge production. This study compares four data sources: OpenAlex, Leiden Ranking Core Collection Open Edition, Scopus, and SciELO. We analyze document coverage and author visibility by gender, career length, and language of publication. OpenAlex was used as the baseline, and comparisons were made using DOI and persistent author identifiers. Results show that, after OpenAlex, Scopus presents the largest coverage of documents (47.7%) and authors (52.1%), but with larger gender differences than SciELO. SciELO shows higher representation of women, particularly among exclusive authors, career lengths, and more authors publishing in Spanish (30.4%) and Portuguese (46%). These findings suggest that data sources may shape gender representation and multilingual publication practices in Latin America.
The MEECSE project furthers the NPOS Ambition2030 and rolling agenda 'towards societal engagement and participation' by supporting the implementation of effective actions to establish enabling environments for Citizen Science & Societal Engagement (CS&SE) practices. The core activities in the project are to: identify ways that enabling environments for CS&SE are being implemented, identify barriers to implementation, develop and test indicators for monitoring progress and effectiveness of enabling actions identify related CS&SE impact indicators, and seek integration of both indicator-sets in OS monitoring frameworks, thereby strengthening the evidence base for CS&SE practices within Open Science.
This paper examines the relative importance of cognitive proximity and geographical distance in shaping scientific collaboration, using Brazil as a large-scale empirical case in the Global South. Based on OpenAlex data (2010–2024), we estimate a gravity model showing that, although geographical distance negatively affects collaboration, cognitive proximity is a stronger predictor of scientific interaction. To complement this analysis, we examine the structure of international collaboration among the 23 countries with the highest number of publications. The results reveal persistent hierarchical patterns, with intermediation concentrated in a few dominant hubs. While countries such as Brazil have expanded their scientific output and international collaboration, their brokerage capacity remains limited. These findings suggest a pattern of 'concentrated deconcentration', in which increasing cognitive alignment facilitates collaboration over longer distances and scientific production becomes more geographically distributed, while brokerage capacity and structural influence remain concentrated in a limited set of countries.
Boshoff, Nelius; Gauch, Stephan; Basson, Isabel; Hamarowski, Bartosz; Sachse, Jacqueline; Butcher, Gillian; Sorgatz, Nikita; Wróblewska, Marta Natalia; Williams, Kate
The paper evaluates the possibility of tracking societal impact of research by applying the logic of citations to parliamentary debates. It explores the extent and manner in which science and research are mentioned by parliamentary speakers. We analysed 3,815 relevant segments from 331 parliamentary debate documents across five countries (Australia, Germany, Poland, South Africa, and the UK) for the year 2023. Using grounded theory-inspired content analysis, we classified mentions based on the degree of traceable scientific evidence invoked versus appeals to scientific authority. Results show that scientific evidence is frequently mobilised, with the highest density of relevant segments in the UK and Australia. Fully traceable referencing of specific publications is rare (4–13% of evidence segments). Speakers typically name research producers or invoke collective scientific authority. Parliamentary debates offer potential for societal impact metrics, but the lack of traceable claims challenges traditional bibliometric methods, suggesting the need for reflexive evaluation.
Moutinho, Sônia Oliveira Matos; Grácio, Maria Cláudia Cabrini; Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio
This study proposes Exclusive Bibliographic Coupling (EBC) as a methodological alternative to mitigate the influence of co-authorship in bibliographic coupling networks. The method excludes co-author relationships while preserving organic links between non-collaborators. The comparison between the traditional model and EBC includes analyses of author networks to demonstrate that the exclusive method reduces the appearance of links resulting from collaboration, preserving connections based on the theoretical convergence of authors' citation identities. It has been determined that EBC increases the accuracy of identifying cognitive structures and scientific domains, contributing to more consistent and reliable bibliometric analyses.
