Computer Science

There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are under-represented in most scientific disciplines, publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender discrepancies in performance through a bibliometric analysis of academic careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equivalent career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in dropout rates and career length explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women's careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.

University or college rankings have almost become an industry of their own, published by US News \& World Report (USNWR) and similar organizations. Most of the rankings use a similar scheme: Rank universities in decreasing score order, where each score is computed using a set of attributes and their weights; the attributes can be objective or subjective while the weights are always subjective. This scheme is general enough to be applied to ranking objects other than universities. As shown in the related work, these rankings have important implications and also many issues. In this paper, we take a fresh look at this ranking scheme using the public College dataset; we both formally and experimentally show in multiple ways that this ranking scheme is not reliable and cannot be trusted as authoritative because it is too sensitive to weight changes and can easily be gamed. For example, we show how to derive reasonable weights programmatically to move multiple universities in our dataset to the top rank; moreover, this task takes a few seconds for over 600 universities on a personal laptop. Our mathematical formulation, methods, and results are applicable to ranking objects other than universities too. We conclude by making the case that all the data and methods used for rankings should be made open for validation and repeatability.

Because the Impact Factor (IF) is an average quantity and most journals are small, IFs are volatile. We study how a single paper affects the IF using data from 11639 journals in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports. We define as volatility the IF gain (or loss) caused by a single paper, and this is inversely proportional to journal size. We find high volatilities for hundreds of journals annually due to their top-cited paper: whether it is a highly-cited paper in a small journal, or a moderately (or even low) cited paper in a small and low-cited journal. For example, 1218 journals had their most cited paper boost their IF by more than 20%, while for 231 journals the boost exceeded 50%. We find that small journals are rewarded much more than large journals for publishing a highly-cited paper, and are also penalized more for publishing a low-cited paper, especially if they have a high IF. This produces a strong incentive for prestigious, high-IF journals to stay small, to remain competitive in IF rankings. We discuss the implications for breakthrough papers to appear in prestigious journals. We also question the practice of ranking journals by IF given this uneven reward mechanism.

Evaluation of journals for quality is one of the dominant themes of bibliometrics since journals are the primary venue of vetting and distribution of scholarship. There are many criticisms of quantifying journal impact with bibliometrics including disciplinary differences among journals, what source materials are used, time windows for the inclusion of works to measure, and skewness of citation distributions (Lariviere & Sugimoto, 2019). However, despite various attempts to remediate these in newly proposed indicators such as SJR, SNIP, and Eigenfactor (Walters, 2017) indicators still remain based on citation counts and fail to acknowledge the critical differences that the type of citation made, whether it's supporting or disputing a work when quantifying journal impact. While various programs have been suggested to apply and encompass citation content analysis within bibliometrics projects, citation content analysis has not been done at the scale needed in order to supplement quantitate journal citation analysis until the scite citation index was produced. Using this citation index containing citation types based on citation function (supporting, disputing, or mentioning) we present initial results on the statistical characterization of citations to journals based on citation function. We also present initial results of characterizing the ratio of supports and disputes received by a journal as a potential indicator of quality and show two interesting results: the ratio of supports and disputes do not correlate with total citations and that the distribution of this ratio is not skewed showing a normal distribution. We conclude with a proposal for future research using citation analysis qualified by citation function as well as the implications of performing bibliometrics tasks such as research evaluation and information retrieval using citation function.

Taking the research area of Big Data as a case study, we propose an approach for exploring how academic topics shift through the interactions among audiences across different altmetric sources. Data used is obtained from Web of Science (WoS) and this http URL, with a focus on Blog, News, Policy, Wikipedia, and Twitter. Author keywords from publications and terms from online events are extracted as the main topics of the publications and the online discussion of their audiences at Altmetric. Different measures are applied to determine the (dis)similarities between the topics put forward by the publication authors and those by the online audiences. Results show that overall there are substantial differences between the two sets of topics around Big Data scientific research. The main exception is Twitter, where high-frequency hashtags in tweets have a stronger concordance with the author keywords in publications. Among the online communities, Blogs and News show a strong similarity in the terms commonly used, while Policy documents and Wikipedia articles exhibit the strongest dissimilarity in considering and interpreting Big Data related research. Specifically, the audiences not only focus on more easy-to-understand academic topics related to social or general issues, but also extend them to a broader range of topics in their online discussions. This study lays the foundations for further investigations about the role of online audiences in the transformation of academic topics across altmetric sources, and the degree of concern and reception of scholarly contents by online communities.

We conducted an investigation to find when a mistake was introduced in a widely accessed Internet document, namely the RFC index. With great surprise, we discovered that a it may go unnoticed for a very long period, namely more that twenty-six years. This raises some questions to what does it mean to have open access and the meaning of Linus' laws that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"

Interlibrary loan (ILL) services are used to fill the gap between academic libraries' collections and the information needs of their users. Today's trend toward the cancellation of serials "Big Deals" has increased the importance of clear information around ILL to support decision-making. In order to plan the cancellation of a journal package, academic libraries need to be able to forecast their total spendings on ILL, which requires to have an appropriate estimate of what it costs to fulfill an individual ILL request. This paper aims to help librarians answer this question by reviewing the most recent academic literature related to these costs. There are several factors that may affect the cost of an ILL service, including the cost of labour, the geographic location of the library, the use of a ILL software, and membership to a library consortium. We find that there is a wide range of estimates for ILL cost, from 3.75(USD)to 100.00 (USD). However, Jackson's (2004) figure of $17.50 (USD) per transaction remains the guideline for most researchers and librarians.

Scholarly articles are now increasingly being mentioned and discussed in social media platforms, sometimes even as pre- or post-print version uploads. Measures of social media mentions and coverage are now emerging as an alternative indicator of impact of scholarly articles. This article aims to explore how much scholarly research output from India is covered in different social media platforms, and how similar or different it is from the world average. It also analyses the discipline-wise variations in coverage and altmetric attention for Indian research output, including a comparison with the world average. Results obtained show interesting patterns. Only 28.5% of the total research output from India is covered in social media platforms, which is about 18% less than the world average. ResearchGate and Mendeley are the most popular social media platforms in India for scholarly article coverage. In terms of discipline-wise variation, medical sciences and biological sciences have relatively higher coverage across different platforms compared to disciplines like information science and engineering.

In scholarly publishing, blacklists aim to register fraudulent or deceptive journals and publishers, also known as "predatory", to minimise the spread of unreliable research and the growing of fake publishing outlets. However, blacklisting remains a very controversial activity for several reasons: there is no consensus regarding the criteria used to determine fraudulent journals, the criteria used may not always be transparent or relevant, and blacklists are rarely updated regularly. Cabell's paywalled blacklist service attempts to overcome some of these issues in reviewing fraudulent journals on the basis of transparent criteria and in providing allegedly up-to-date information at the journal entry level. We tested Cabell's blacklist to analyse whether or not it could be adopted as a reliable tool by stakeholders in scholarly communication, including our own academic library. To do so, we used a copy of Walt Crawford's Gray Open Access dataset (2012-2016) to assess the coverage of Cabell's blacklist and get insights on their methodology. Out of the 10,123 journals that we tested, 4,681 are included in Cabell's blacklist. Out of this number of journals included in the blacklist, 3,229 are empty journals, i.e. journals in which no single article has ever been published. Other collected data points to questionable weighing and reviewing methods and shows a lack of rigour in how Cabell applies its own procedures: some journals are blacklisted on the basis of 1 to 3 criteria, identical criteria are recorded multiple times in individual journal entries, discrepancies exist between reviewing dates and the criteria version used and recorded by Cabell, reviewing dates are missing, and we observed two journals blacklisted twice with a different number of violations. Based on these observations, we conclude with recommendations and suggestions that could help improve Cabell's blacklist service.

This paper aimed to provide an approach to investigate the historical roots and evolution of research fields in China by extending the reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). RootCite, an open source software accepts raw data from both the Web of Science and the China Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI), was developed using python. We took iMetrics in China as the research case. 5,141 Chinese iMetrics related publications with 73,376 non-distinct cited references (CR) collected from the CSSCI were analyzed using RootCite. The results showed that the first CR in the field can be dated back to 1882 and written in English; but the majority (64.2%) of the CR in the field were Chinese publications. 17 peaks referring to 18 seminal works (13 in English and 5 in Chinese) were located during the period from 1900 to 2017. The field shared the same roots with that in the English world but has its own characteristics, and it was then shaped by contributions from both the English world and China. The five Chinese works have played irreplaceable and positive roles in the historical evolutionary path of the field, which should not be ignored, especially for the evolution of the field. This research demonstrated how RootCite aided the task of identifying the origin and evolution of research fields in China, which could be valuable for extending RPYS for countries with other languages.