This study indicates that the JIF is a bad predictor for the quality of peer review of an individual manuscript.

Preprints make scholarly communication more efficient by disseminating scientific discoveries more rapidly. The measurements presented in this study can help researchers and policymakers make informed decisions about how to effectively use and responsibly embrace a preprint culture.

This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing.

We present a large-scale comparison of five multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. The comparison considers scientific documents from the period 2008-2017 covered by these data sources. Scopus is compared in a pairwise manner with each of the other data sources. We first analyze differences between the data sources in the coverage of documents, focusing for instance on differences over time, differences per document type, and differences per discipline. We then study differences in the completeness and accuracy of citation links. Based on our analysis, we discuss strengths and weaknesses of the different data sources. We emphasize the importance of combining a comprehensive coverage of the scientific literature with a flexible set of filters for making selections of the literature.

This article examines how the number of downloads from Sci-hub as well as various characteristics of publications and their authors predicts future citations.

New sources of citation data have recently become available. Although these have been compared to the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates citations found by these data sources to English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study.

Data makes science possible. Sharing data improves visibility, and makes the research process transparent. This increases trust in the work, and allows for independent reproduction of results. However, a large proportion of data from published research is often only available to the original authors. Despite the obvious benefits of sharing data, and scientists' advocating for the importance of sharing data, most advice on sharing data discusses its broader benefits, rather than the practical considerations of sharing. This paper provides practical, actionable advice on how to actually share data alongside research. The key message is sharing data falls on a continuum, and entering it should come with minimal barriers.

Study find that Impact Factors (IF) are highly volatile. For example, one in ten journals had their IF boosted by more than 50% by their top three cited papers.

Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong recent uptake of data availability statements, but it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, and if there is an added value in providing them.

Study finds high Journal Impact Factor (JIF) volatilities for hundreds of journals annually due to their top-cited paper.

The h-index has gained wide acceptance as a bibliometric indicator of individual scientific achievement. In this paper, J. E. Hirsch proposes an alternative to replacing the h-index with a better index, the h-alpha-index, to address at least some of its deficiencies.

Using comprehensive new data on prizes and prizewinners worldwide and across disciplines, this study examines the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network.

Preprint showing evidence of a steady increase in reciprocity over the years despite a negative correlation between obtaining citations through reciprocity and long-term career success.

Preprint suggests that in all areas Google Scholar citation data is essentially a superset of Web of Science and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.

CiteSpace cascading citation expansion has the potential to improve our understanding of the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge.

The role of faculty hiring networks in shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the importance of where in the network an idea originates: research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions.

When citation-based indicators are applied at the institutional or departmental level, rather than at the level of individual papers, surprisingly large correlations with peer review judgments can be observed.

Preprint showing that ethnic diversity consistently leads to higher scientific impact.

For the USA, the entire history of science Noble prizes is described on a per capita basis to an astonishing accuracy by a single large productivity boost decaying at a continuously accelerating rate since its peak in 1972.

Study aims to provide a detailed description of the free version of Dimensions (the new bibliographic database produced by Digital Science). An analysis of its coverage is carried out (comparing it Scopus and Google Scholar) in order to determine whether the bibliometric indicators offered by Dimensions have an order of magnitude significant enough to be used. 

The effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the additional funding, especially when only a small percentage of proposals are funded.

Article underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others. Policy hypotheses are addressed to show the most efficient strategies for public funding of research in order to improve meritocracy, diversity and innovation.

This article explores the value of the scholarly database Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions.

The Journal Impact Factor is, by far, the most discussed bibliometric indicator. Since its introduction over 40 years ago, it has had enormous effects on the scientific ecosystem. This paper by Cassidy R. Sugimoto provides a brief history of the indicator and highlights well-known limitations.

Automatic identification of topics from the classification of research publications.

International collaboration improves the impact of average research papers, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.