arXiv subjects

Rodrigo Costas

Publications and source records attributed to Rodrigo Costas.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Evidence for studying interactions between science and policy: An exploration of scholarly and policy references in Overton-indexed policy documents

Overton, a global policy index, provides new opportunities to study the interactions between science and policy. This study aims to characterize the presence of scholarly and policy references in Overton-indexed policy documents and examine their distribution across key bibliographic dimensions, thereby assessing Overton's potential as a data source for policy metrics. We analyze a dataset of approximately 17.5 million policy documents from Overton, incorporating metadata such as publication year, policy source, country, language, subject area, and policy topic. Descriptive statistics are employed to assess the presence and distribution of reference data across these dimensions. Overton indexes a substantial volume of policy documents and identifies considerable reference data within them: 7.7% of documents contain scholarly references and 10.6% contain policy references. However, the presence of references varies significantly across publications years, source types, countries, languages, subject areas, and policy topics, indicating coverage biases that may affect interpretations of policy impact. The analysis is based on the Overton database as of June 2025. As Overton is regularly updated, the distribution patterns of indexed documents and references may evolve over time. The findings offer insights into the opportunities and constraints of using Overton for investigating evidence-based policymaking and for assessing the policy uptake of research outputs in the context of research evaluation. This is the first large-scale study to systematically examine the distribution of reference data in Overton. It contributes a foundational understanding of this emerging source for policy metrics, highlighting both its potential applications and limitations, and underlining the importance of addressing current coverage imbalances.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Contested Citations: The Role of Open Access Publications in Wikipedia's Scientific Disputes

Wikipedia is one of the largest online encyclopedias, which relies on scientific publications as authoritative sources. The increasing prevalence of open access (OA) publishing has expanded the public availability of scientific knowledge; however, its impact on the dynamics of knowledge contestation within collaborative environments such as Wikipedia remains underexplored. To address this gap, we analyze a large-scale dataset that combines Wikipedia edit histories with metadata from scientific publications cited in disputed Wikipedia articles. Our study investigates the characteristics of scientific publications involved in disputes and examines whether OA articles are more likely to be contested than paywalled ones. We find that scientific disputes on Wikipedia are more frequent in the social sciences and humanities, where topics often involve social values and interpretative variability. Publications with higher citation counts and publications in high-impact journals are more likely to be involved in disputes. OA publications are significantly more likely to be involved in disputes and tend to be contested sooner after publication than paywalled articles. This pattern suggests that increased accessibility accelerates both engagement and scrutiny. The relationship between OA status and dispute involvement also varies across disciplines, reflecting differences in Wikipedia editorial practices and norms. These findings highlight the dual role of OA in both expanding access to scientific knowledge and increasing its visibility in contexts of public negotiation and debate. This study contributes to a broader understanding of how scientific knowledge is collaboratively constructed and contested on open platforms, offering insights for research on open science, scholarly communication, and digital knowledge governance.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Funding, authorship patterns and citation impact of articles funded by Ukrainian agencies before and during Russia's full-scale war (2020-2023)

This study explores funding, authorship patterns, and citation impact of articles funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (MESU), the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU), and the National Research Foundation of Ukraine (NRFU). The analysis focuses on articles published in Scopus-indexed journals between 2020 and 2023. The findings show that the share of articles funded by these agencies increased from 8.6% in 2020-2021 to 11.9% in 2022-2023. Foreign co-funding as well as international co-authorship and co-affiliations are consistently associated with higher citation impact. In particular, foreign co-affiliations are associated with higher field-normalised citation impact (FNCI) for MESU-funded articles in 2022-2023, exceeding that of articles jointly funded by MESU and foreign agencies. NASU funding is associated with only modest differences in citation impact relative to unfunded articles. These effects are small and not consistently significant across authorship patterns and become less pronounced in 2022-2023, as the citation impact of unfunded articles partially converges with that of funded articles. While the results should be interpreted as average group-level tendencies rather than deterministic effects, they raise important questions about the effectiveness of current funding allocation mechanisms and evaluation criteria, highlighting the need for evidence-based reform of Ukraine's research funding system.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Social media uptake of scientific journals: A comparison between X and WeChat

This study examines the social media uptake of scientific journals on two different platforms - X and WeChat - by comparing the adoption of X among journals indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) with the adoption of WeChat among journals indexed in the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). The findings reveal substantial differences in platform adoption and user engagement, shaped by local contexts. While only 22.7% of SCIE journals maintain an X account, 84.4% of CSCD journals have a WeChat official account. Journals in Life Sciences & Biomedicine lead in uptake on both platforms, whereas those in Technology and Physical Sciences show high WeChat uptake but comparatively lower presence on X. User engagement on both platforms is dominated by low-effort interactions rather than more conversational behaviors. Correlation analyses indicate weak-to-moderate relationships between bibliometric indicators and social media metrics, confirming that online engagement reflects a distinct dimension of journal impact, whether on an international or a local platform. These findings underscore the need for broader social media metric frameworks that incorporate locally dominant platforms, thereby offering a more comprehensive understanding of science communication practices across diverse social media and contexts.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Changing topic bias in biomedical science maps by linking documents through alternative data sources: policy documents, patents, authors, Facebook, and Twitter

Traditional science maps visualize topics by clustering documents within a network, but they are inherently biased toward clustering certain topics over others. If these topics could be chosen, then the science maps could be tailored for different needs. In this paper, we explore the extent to which the topic bias of a science map can be changed by choosing different data sources to build the document network. We analyze this by evaluating the clustering effectiveness of several topic categories over two sources that are traditionally used for the creation of science maps (citations and text similarity) and six non-traditional data sources, which we found favor different kinds of topics: Health issues for Facebook users, biotechnology topics for patent families, government and social issues for policy documents, food topics for Twitter conversations, nursing topics for Twitter users, and geographical entities for document authors (the favoring in this latter source was particularly strong). Our results show that diverse data sources can be used to control topic bias, which opens up the possibility of creating science maps tailored for different needs.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Science cited in policy documents: Evidence from the Overton database

To reflect the extent to which science is cited in policy documents, this paper explores the presence of policy document citations for over 18 million Web of Science-indexed publications published between 2010 and 2019. Enabled by the policy document citation data provided by Overton, a searchable index of policy documents worldwide, the results show that there are 3.9% of publications in the dataset cited at least once by policy documents. Policy document citations present a citation delay towards newly published publications and show a stronger predominance to the document types of review and article. Based on the Overton database, publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities have the highest relative presence in policy document citations, followed by Life and Earth Sciences and Biomedical and Health Sciences. Our findings shed light not only on the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, but also on the particular focus of policy documents indexed by Overton on specific research areas.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

A multi-dimensional analysis of usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations for journal and conference papers

This study analyzed 16,799 journal papers and 98,773 conference papers published by IEEE Xplore in 2016 to investigate the relationships among usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations through descriptive, regression, and mediation analyses. Differences in the relationship among these metrics between journal and conference papers are also studied. Results showed that there is no significant difference between journal and conference papers in the distribution patterns and accumulation rates of the three metrics. However, the correlation coefficients of the interrelationships between the three metrics were lower in conference papers compared to journal papers. Secondly, funding, international collaboration, and open access are positively associated with all three metrics, except for the case of funding on the usage metrics of conference papers. Furthermore, early Mendeley readership is a better predictor of citations than early usage counts and performs better for journal papers. Finally, we reveal that early Mendeley readership partially mediates between early usage counts and citation counts in the journal and conference papers. The main difference is that conference papers rely more on the direct effect of early usage counts on citations. This study contributes to expanding the existing knowledge on the relationships among usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations in journal and conference papers, providing new insights into the relationship between the three metrics through mediation analysis.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

A scientometric-inspired framework to analyze EurekAlert! press releases

Press releases about scholarly news are brief statements provided in advance to the press, including a description of the most relevant findings of one or more accepted scientific publications, usually under the condition that journalists will adhere to an embargo until the publication date. The existence of centralized platforms such as EurekAlert! allows press releases to be disseminated online as independent news articles. Press releases can include additional material (e.g., interviews, commentaries, explanatory tables, figures, media, recommended readings), which turn them into online objects with analytical value of their own. The objective of this work is to illustrate how press releases can be quantitatively analyzed applying similar tools and approaches as those applied in scientometric research (SCI). To achieve this goal, a scientometric inspired analytical framework is proposed based on the formulation of spaces of interaction of objects, actors, and impacts. As such, the framework proposed considers press releases as science communication (SCO) objects, produced by different SCO actors (e.g., journalists), and the subject of receiving impact (e.g., tweets, links). To carry out this analysis, all press releases published by EurekAlert! from 1996 until 2021 (455,703 press releases), all tweets including at least one URL referring to a EurekAlert! press release (1,364,563 tweets), and all webpages with at least one URL referring to a EurekAlert! press release (54,089,233 webpages) have been studied. We argue that the large volume of press releases published and their online dissemination make these objects relevant in the measurement of SCO-SCI interactions.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Scientific mobility, prestige and skill alignment in academic institutions

Scientific institutions play a crucial role in driving intellectual, social, and technological progress. Their capacity to innovate depends mainly on their ability to attract, retain, and nurture scientific talent and ultimately make it available to other organizations, industries, or the economy. As researchers change institutions during their careers, their skills are also transferred. The extent and mechanisms by which academic institutions manage their internal portfolio of scientific skills by attracting and sending researchers are far from being 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 skills of mobile scientists align with those present in-house. We find a clear association between top-ranked institutions and greater skill alignment, i.e., the degree to which skills of incoming academics match those of their colleagues at the institution. We uncover similar high-alignment for scientists leaving top-ranked institutions. This type of academic alignment is more pronounced in engineering and life, health, earth, and physical sciences than in mathematics, computer science, social sciences, and the humanities. We show that over the past two decades, institutions generally have become more closely aligned in their overall skill profiles. We interpret these results in terms of levels of proactive management of the composition of the scientific workforce, diversity, and internal collaboration strategies at the institutional level.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

From academic to media capital: To what extent does the scientific reputation of universities translate into Wikipedia attention?

Universities face increasing demands to improve their visibility, public outreach, and online presence. There is a broad consensus that scientific reputation significantly increases the attention universities receive. However, in most cases estimates of scientific reputation are based on composite or weighted indicators and absolute positions in university rankings. In this study, we adopt a more granular approach to assessment of universities' scientific performance using a multidimensional set of indicators from the Leiden Ranking and testing their individual effects on university Wikipedia page views. We distinguish between international and local attention and find a positive association between research performance and Wikipedia attention which holds for regions and linguistic areas. Additional analysis shows that productivity, scientific impact, and international collaboration have a curvilinear effect on universities' Wikipedia attention. This finding suggests that there may be other factors than scientific reputation driving the general public's interest in universities. Our study adds to a growing stream of work which views altmetrics as tools to deepen science-society interactions rather than direct measures of impact and recognition of scientific outputs.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Do you cite what you tweet? Investigating the relationship between tweeting and citing research articles

The last decade of altmetrics research has demonstrated that altmetrics have a low to moderate correlation with citations, depending on the platform and the discipline, among other factors. Most past studies used academic works as their unit of analysis to determine whether the attention they received on Twitter was a good predictor of academic engagement. Our work revisits the relationship between tweets and citations where the tweet itself is the unit of analysis, and the question is to determine if, at the individual level, the act of tweeting an academic work can shed light on the likelihood of the act of citing that same work. We model this relationship by considering the research activity of the tweeter and its relationship to the tweeted work. Results show that tweeters are more likely to cite works affiliated with their same institution, works published in journals in which they also have published, and works in which they hold authorship. It finds that the older the academic age of a tweeter the less likely they are to cite what they tweet, though there is a positive relationship between citations and the number of works they have published and references they have accumulated over time.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2022

Wikinformetrics: Construction and description of an open Wikipedia knowledge graph dataset for informetric purposes

Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and is also a frequent subject of scientific research. However, the analytical possibilities of Wikipedia information have not yet been analyzed considering at the same time both a large volume of pages and attributes. The main objective of this work is to offer a methodological framework and an open knowledge graph for the informetric large-scale study of Wikipedia. Features of Wikipedia pages are compared with those of scientific publications to highlight the (di)similarities between the two types of documents. Based on this comparison, different analytical possibilities that Wikipedia and its various data sources offer are explored, ultimately offering a set of metrics meant to study Wikipedia from different analytical dimensions. In parallel, a complete dedicated dataset of the English Wikipedia was built (and shared) following a relational model. Finally, a descriptive case study is carried out on the English Wikipedia dataset to illustrate the analytical potential of the knowledge graph and its metrics.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

An open dataset of scholars on Twitter

The role played by research scholars in the dissemination of scientific knowledge on social media has always been a central topic in social media metrics (altmetrics) research. Different approaches have been implemented to identify and characterize active scholars on social media platforms like Twitter. Some limitations of past approaches were their complexity and, most importantly, their reliance on licensed scientometric and altmetric data. The emergence of new open data sources like OpenAlex or Crossref Event Data provides opportunities to identify scholars on social media using only open data. This paper presents a novel and simple approach to match authors from OpenAlex with Twitter users identified in Crossref Event Data. The matching procedure is described and validated with ORCID data. The new approach matches nearly 500,000 matched scholars with their Twitter accounts with a level of high precision and moderate recall. The dataset of matched scholars is described and made openly available to the scientific community to empower more advanced studies of the interactions of research scholars on Twitter.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

WeChat uptake of Chinese scholarly journals: an analysis of CSSCI-indexed journals

The study of how science is discussed and how scholarly actors interact on social media has increasingly become popular in the field of scientometrics in recent years. While most prior studies focused on research outputs discussed on global platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, the presence of scholarly journals on local platforms was seldom studied, especially in the Chinese social media context. To fill this gap, this study investigates the uptake of WeChat (a Chinese social network app) by the Chinese scholarly journals indexed by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). The results show that 65.3% of CSSCI-indexed journals have created WeChat public accounts and posted over 193 thousand WeChat posts in total. At the journal level, bibliometric indicators (e.g., citations, downloads, and journal impact factors) and WeChat indicators (e.g., clicks, likes, replies, and recommendations) are weakly correlated with each other, reinforcing the idea of fundamentally differentiated dimensions of indicators between bibliometrics and social media metrics. Results also show that journals with WeChat public accounts slightly outperform those without WeChat public accounts in terms of citation impact, suggesting that the WeChat presence of scientific journals is mostly positively associated with their citation impact.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

Studying the scientific mobility and international collaboration funded by the China Scholarship Council

Every year many scholars are funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC). The CSC is a funding agency established by the Chinese government with the main initiative of training Chinese scholars to conduct research abroad and to promote international collaboration. In this study, we identified these CSC-funded scholars sponsored by the China Scholarship Council based on the acknowledgments text indexed by the Web of Science. Bibliometric data of their publications were collected to track their scientific mobility in different fields, and to evaluate the performance of the CSC scholarship in promoting international collaboration by sponsoring the mobility of scholars. Papers funded by the China Scholarship Council are mainly from the fields of natural sciences and engineering sciences. There are few CSC-funded papers in the field of social sciences and humanities. CSC-funded scholars from mainland China have the United States, Australia, Canada, and some European countries, such as Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands, as their preferential mobility destinations across all fields of science. CSC-funded scholars published most of their papers with international collaboration during the mobility period, with a decrease in the share of international collaboration after the support of the scholarship.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Co-link analysis as a monitoring tool: A webometric use case to map the web relationships of research projects

This study explores the societal embeddedness of the websites of research projects. It combines two aims: characterizing research projects based on their weblink relationships, and discovering external societal actors that relate to the projects via weblinks. The study was based on a set of 121 EU-funded research projects and their websites. Domains referring to the websites of the research projects were collected and used in visualizations of co-link relationships. These analyses revealed clusters of topical similarity among the research projects as well as among referring entities. Furthermore, a first step into unveiling potentially relevant stakeholders around research projects was made. Weblink analysis is discussed as an insightful tool for monitoring the internal and external linkages of research projects, representing a relevant application of webometric methods.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Studying the characteristics of scientific communities using individual-level bibliometrics: the case of Big Data research

Unlike most bibliometric studies focusing on publications, taking Big Data research as a case study, we introduce a novel bibliometric approach to unfold the status of a given scientific community from an individual level perspective. We study the academic age, production, and research focus of the community of authors active in Big Data research. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is selected as a reference area for comparative purposes. Results show that the academic realm of "Big Data" is a growing topic with an expanding community of authors, particularly of new authors every year. Compared to AI, Big Data attracts authors with a longer academic age, who can be regarded to have accumulated some publishing experience before entering the community. Despite the highly skewed distribution of productivity amongst researchers in both communities, Big Data authors have higher values of both research focus and production than those of AI. Considering the community size, overall academic age, and persistence of publishing on the topic, our results support the idea of Big Data as a research topic with attractiveness for researchers. We argue that the community-focused indicators proposed in this study could be generalized to investigate the development and dynamics of other research fields and topics.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Exploring the relevance of ORCID as a source of study of data sharing activities at the individual-level: a methodological discussion

ORCID is a scientific infrastructure created to solve the problem of author name ambiguity. Over the years ORCID has also become a useful source for studying academic activities reported by researchers. Our objective in this research was to use ORCID to analyze one of these research activities: the publication of datasets. We illustrate how the identification of datasets that shared in researchers' ORCID profiles enables the study of the characteristics of the researchers who have produced them. To explore the relevance of ORCID to study data sharing practices we obtained all ORCID profiles reporting at least one dataset in their "works" list, together with information related to the individual researchers producing the datasets. The retrieved data was organized and analyzed in a SQL database hosted at CWTS. Our results indicate that DataCite is by far the most important data source for providing information about datasets recorded in ORCID. There is also a substantial overlap between DataCite records with other repositories (Figshare, Dryad, and Zenodo). The analysis of the distribution of researchers producing datasets shows that the top six countries with more data producers, also have a relatively higher percentage of people who have produced datasets out of total researchers with datasets than researchers in the total ORCID. By disciplines, researchers that belong to the areas of Natural Sciences and Medicine and Life Sciences are those with the largest amount of reported datasets. Finally, we observed that researchers who have started their PhD around 2015 published their first dataset earlier that those researchers that started their PhD before. The work concludes with some reflections of the possibilities of ORCID as a relevant source for research on data sharing practices.

cs.DL↗