Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

A Graph Approach to the Academic Publishing Network: A Heterogeneous Model and Structural Screening over OpenAlex Open Data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A heterogeneous graph model of scholarly publishing finds that after control matching, broad disciplinary scope is the only surviving structural signal, and graph-based prestige resists citation cartels about ten times better than…

desk verdict A careful, openly honest screening pipeline whose real contributions are the prominence confound and the death of insularity; the field-entropy signal still needs field-matched controls, and the abstract overstates it — but it deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10774 v1 pith:Q2TKRNHE submitted 2026-08-11 cs.SI cs.DLstat.AP

Robert Šamárek , Radek Martinek This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.DLstat.AP
keywords heterogeneousgraphmodelscholarlycommunicationnetworkspublishingintegrityscreeningfieldentropyPageRankprestigecitationcartelscommunitydetectioncase-controlvalidation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a heterogeneous graph model over open bibliometric data, analysed through homogeneous projections, can turn screening for questionable publishing practices from black-box classification into ranked, evidence-backed signals for human review. Its controlled validation claims that after removing a prominence confound with size-matched controls, the only robust structural feature distinguishing delisted venues is broad disciplinary scope (field entropy, AUC 0.70). It further claims that a graph-based prestige measure over the journal citation network tracks a standard count-based impact proxy while resisting a simulated citation-cartel attack about ten times better. A reader would care because this offers an open, reproducible, structurally interpretable alternative to proprietary impact metrics and a defensible screening signal for integrity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the projection principle: instead of running algorithms directly on a mixed typed graph, the model derives homogeneous graphs—a directed Work-to-Work citation projection, an undirected weighted Author-to-Author co-authorship projection, and a Work-to-Field transitive mapping—and computes structural metrics there. The robust screening signal is field entropy, the Shannon entropy of a venue's field distribution, which operationalises 'disciplinary scope.' The prestige machinery is PageRank on the venue citation network with self-citations excluded, a network-prestige score that discounts citations from low-prestige sources and thereby resists bulk cartel citations. The matched case-control design, comparing delisted venues to size-matched still-indexed venues, is what separates the true signal from the prominence confound, and it is this combination of projection-based structural metrics and matched-control validation that carries the paper's argument.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to repeat the venue discrimination with controls matched additionally by disciplinary field and by age: if field entropy's AUC falls to about 0.5, the paper's main validation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that in a controlled, size-matched comparison of venues delisted by major indexing services against still-indexed venues, most intuitive structural signals—citation counts, self-citation share, output volume—are confounded by prominence and lose their discrimination, leaving the Shannon entropy of the venue's disciplinary field distribution as the one robust structural marker (AUC 0.70). A second discovery is that a PageRank-style prestige score computed on the venue citation graph tracks the standard count-based impact proxy (Spearman 0.49) and is roughly ten times more resistant to an injected citation cartel (an 84-fold inflation of the count metric versus 8.5-fold for graph prestige). These results support the paper's larger claim that graph-based, projection-centred analysis of open bibliometric data can be a practical screening layer for publishing integrity.

Load-bearing premise

The size-matched, still-indexed control venues are an adequate comparison, so the surviving field-entropy signal (AUC 0.70) reflects the problematic nature of delisted venues rather than their different field mix or age.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Institutions can obtain research-intelligence outputs—research groups, cross-disciplinary bridges, and anomaly candidates—from open data on commodity hardware, complementing expert review rather than replacing it.
  • The three screening detectors should be used to rank candidates with accompanying structural evidence, not to make binary integrity judgments.
  • In publishing-integrity research, matched control designs are mandatory; naive case-control comparisons can mistake 'was prominent' for 'is problematic.'
  • Venues with broadened disciplinary scope (scope creep) are the most defensible structural target for manual integrity review.
  • Open graph-based prestige can serve as a drop-in replacement for count-based impact metrics with substantially greater resistance to simple citation-cartel attacks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension, not tested in the paper, is to monitor a venue's field entropy over time; if scope creep precedes delisting, an entropy-trajectory early-warning tool could be built.
  • The demonstrated gaming resistance applies to one attack model (bulk fake citations from low-prestige sources); a determined attacker could first build prestige for fake venues, so practical use should pair the metric with cartel detection, as the paper itself notes.
  • The prominence confound identified here likely affects several published 'predatory journal detector' results, and reanalysis with size-matched controls could be a low-cost test of that literature.
  • Because matching was only by size and indexing status, the field-entropy result needs field- and age-matched replication before it is used operationally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a heterogeneous graph model of the academic publishing network over OpenAlex, with node/edge types, projections (citation and co-authorship), structural metrics, community detection, and three screening detectors. It demonstrates the methodology on an institutional corpus (VSB-TUO 2020–2025) and a worldwide LLM corpus, then reports a controlled venue-centric study (Study C) using journals delisted by Scopus/DOAJ as ground truth. The central empirical claims are: after size-matching controls, the only robust surviving discriminator of delisted venues is the breadth of disciplinary scope (field entropy, AUC 0.70, 95% CI [0.64;0.75]); and an open graph-based prestige measure (PageRank over the journal citation network) tracks a JIF proxy (Spearman 0.49) while being roughly an order of magnitude more resistant to a synthetic citation-cartel injection than count-based indicators. The paper releases the method as the open-source apnet library and emphasizes screening-with-evidence rather than binary classification.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes two useful contributions: it provides a sober, falsifiable validation showing that a naïve case-control design produces a spurious 'prominence' signal, and it indicates that field-entropy breadth is the one structural feature that survives size matching in the full delisted set. It also demonstrates reproducible, commodity-hardware analysis of an open dataset, which is a concrete strength; the code release and explicit limitations statements support reproducibility. The PageRank gaming experiment is a testable, transparent robustness check. However, the significance of the empirical conclusions is conditional: the field-entropy result is threatened by the lack of field/age matching, and the gaming-resistance claim is based on a single arbitrarily parameterized attack model.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.3, §7.5] The claim that 'the only robust surviving signal is the breadth of disciplinary scope (AUC 0.70)' is not yet established, because the controls are matched only by size and indexing status, not by field or age, as the manuscript itself acknowledges in §7.5. Field entropy is computed over OpenAlex fields, so if delisted venues are drawn disproportionately from broad multidisciplinary venues while size-matched still-indexed controls are field-specialized, the median entropy difference (2.33 vs. 1.82) could reflect legitimate differences in disciplinary breadth rather than an integrity-linked 'scope creep.' This is a direct threat to the load-bearing empirical claim. The authors should provide a field-stratified or field/age-matched comparison, or a regression that controls for OpenAlex field composition, and report the AUC within relevant field categories; without such an analysis, the surviving-signal conclusion remains ambiguous.
  2. [§7.4] The statement that PageRank is 'an order of magnitude more resistant to citation gaming than count-based indicators' is based on a single synthetic injection scenario (1,250 fictitious citations into one mid-prestige venue), giving inflation factors 84x vs. 8.5x. No confidence intervals or sensitivity analysis are reported, and the immediately subsequent Sybil attack (moving the venue from rank 172 to 12) shows that the resistance is highly conditional on the attack model. The claim should be qualified to the specific injection scenario, and the comparison should be repeated over a range of cartel sizes, numbers of fictitious citing venues, and target venue ranks, with identical attack budgets for both metrics.
  3. [§7.1] The size-matching protocol for the controls is underspecified. The text states that controls are 'size-comparable' and that up to 200 works per venue are sampled, but it does not state the matching variable(s), the matching algorithm (nearest-neighbor, caliper, exact), the matching ratio (one control per positive or several), or whether matching was performed with replacement. Without this information, the AUC values in Table 7 cannot be fully assessed or reproduced. The exact matching procedure and its code should be provided in the repository, along with diagnostics showing that the matching balances work count and other intended variables.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.5] The caption of Figure 7 says candidates for closed citation loops 'lie near the diagonal,' but the detector score is the product of the within-corpus citation share and within-corpus citation count; the relationship between the plotted axes and the score component should be stated more explicitly.
  2. [§7.3] The phrase 'the only robust signal' in the abstract and in the main text is used for the full positive set, but the following paragraph reports additional surviving features (FWCI, median citations, cites out) in the integrity subset; the wording should clarify that 'only' applies to the full delisted set, not to the integrity subset.
  3. [Appendix] The labeling of the case studies is inconsistent: the LLM corpus is called 'case study B' in an appendix while Study C is described as 'the third study'; the numbering is confusing and should be harmonized.
  4. [Table 3] Several author names in Table 3 contain broken or escaped diacritics (e.g., 'R\'obert'), and the table cells would benefit from rendering the names with proper Unicode characters.
  5. [§7.5] The statement that the evaluation is 'in-sample' is unclear because the study appears to compute descriptive AUCs without fitting any model; if no parameters are estimated, the term should be removed or replaced by a precise description of what is assessed on the same venues.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical claims are validated against external ground truth; the companion-review self-citation is motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims (field-entropy AUC 0.70 and PageRank gaming resistance) are empirical measurements against external data—delisted journals from Scopus/DOAJ and an injected citation-cartel simulation—not parameters fitted to reproduce the claims. Study C explicitly refutes its own initial insularity hypothesis (self-citation share AUC 0.38), which is the opposite of a result forced by construction. The companion review [Šamárek & Martinek, under review] is cited as motivation, but none of the reported numbers depend on accepting that review's content; the method is implemented in apnet and checked against independent bibliometric validation studies (OpenAlex coverage, retraction literature, community-topology correspondence). The known weakness—matching "only by size and indexing status (not by field or age)" (Section 7.5)—is a potential confound in the external validation, not a circular reduction: the field-entropy signal could reflect field composition, but the prediction (AUC 0.70) is not definitionally tied to the control-selection rule. Similarly, PageRank's lower sensitivity to low-prestige citations is a designed property, but the 84x vs 8.5x comparison is a simulated outcome, not a tautology. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or loaded self-citation is used to force a conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central validation claims rest on a small number of unverified assumptions: delisting as ground truth, OpenAlex completeness, the one-hop neighbourhood threshold, and the representativeness of the citation-cartel simulation. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The matched-control design is an effort to reduce one confound, but field and age remain unmatched.

free parameters (5)
  • one-hop citation neighbourhood threshold = 2 (minimum citations from corpus)
    Chosen in the fetch command to reduce noise; changes the composition of the one-hop neighbourhood and therefore all downstream structural metrics (section 6.1).
  • per-venue work sample cap = 200 works per venue
    Limits the Study C corpus to 67,260 works; affects within-venue citation and entropy estimates (section 7.1).
  • injected citation cartel size = 1,250 fictitious citations
    Simulation input for the gaming-resistance comparison; the 84x versus 8.5x result depends on this arbitrary attack size (section 7.4).
  • PageRank damping factor and normalization
    The gaming-resistance result depends on the PageRank configuration, which is not reported in section 7.4.
  • betweenness pivot sampling size
    The paper uses Brandes' pivot approximation for betweenness, but the number of sampled source nodes is not specified in section 4.1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Delisting from Scopus or DOAJ is a valid indicator that a journal is problematic.
    Used as ground truth in Study C (section 7.1); the authors cite Richtig et al., but delisting can also reflect discontinuation or other non-integrity reasons.
  • domain assumption OpenAlex metadata are sufficiently complete and valid for the structural analysis.
    The analysis depends on OpenAlex coverage and field completeness; the authors cite external validation studies (section 2.2) and mitigate with per-corpus profiling (section 6.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The one-hop citation neighbourhood with threshold >=2 captures the relevant citation context.
    This threshold is a methodological choice in the fetch command (section 6.1); the authors note that citation loops beyond the corpus boundary may escape.
  • ad hoc to paper The synthetic citation-cartel injection model is representative of real citation gaming.
    Underlies the 'order of magnitude more resistant' claim (section 7.4); the paper itself shows a Sybil attack defeats the robustness, so the model is a specific attack scenario.
  • domain assumption Standard network algorithms applied to homogeneous projections produce meaningful structural signals.
    The projection principle (section 3.1) is a modelling choice; Louvain, Leiden, PageRank, and betweenness are standard methods, but their interpretability as research-group and integrity signals is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Graph Approach to the Academic Publishing Network: A Heterogeneous Model and Structural Screening over OpenAlex Open Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2TKRNHE

@misc{pith2026260810774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Graph Approach to the Academic Publishing Network: A Heterogeneous Model and Structural Screening over OpenAlex Open Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2TKRNHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10774}
}
read the original abstract

The academic publishing ecosystem is a vast, heterogeneous network of works, authors, institutions, journals, and topics. Traditional scientometrics reduces it to isolated tabular indicators (h-index, Impact Factor) that ignore topological context and are not designed to capture coordinated illegitimate practices. Building on our companion review, which proposed graph analysis of publishing integrity, this paper implements that approach. We define a heterogeneous multivariate graph model over OpenAlex open data (seven node types, seven edge types) and a methodology based on projections (citation and co-authorship networks), interpretable structural metrics, community detection, and three screening detectors of anomalous publishing patterns. We deliberately avoid binary classification: detectors return ranked candidates with explicit structural evidence for human assessment. On the institutional corpus of VSB - Technical University of Ostrava (2020-2025) with its one-hop citation neighbourhood, community detection recovers real research groups, centralities identify cross-disciplinary bridges, and the screenings flag dense co-authorship cliques, locally closed citation loops, and thematically isolated venues. On a second, venue-centric corpus with external ground truth (journals delisted by Scopus and DOAJ) and size-matched controls, a naive case-control design yields seemingly strong but spurious detectors (a prominence confound), whereas after matching the only robust signal is the breadth of disciplinary scope (AUC 0.70); an open graph-based prestige measure (PageRank over the journal citation network) tracks a JIF proxy while being an order of magnitude more resistant to citation gaming than count-based indicators. We release the method as the open-source library apnet with a reproducible CLI workflow and a web interface; the analysis runs on commodity hardware in minutes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schema of the heterogeneous graph model. Seven node types (Work, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The apnet explorer interactive interface (FastAPI + Sigma.js, We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A sample of the case-study heterogeneous graph (the 400 highest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Completeness of key fields in the seed corpus vs. the one-hop neigh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The largest connected component of the co-authorship projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Screening of dense co-authorship cliques: weighted clustering coeffi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Citations within the corpus vs. global citations (both axes sym [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The most frequent primary topics (OpenAlex Topic) in the worldwide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The largest connected component of the co-authorship network of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. P. Alperin, J. Portenoy, K. Demes, V. Larivi \` e re, and S. Haustein. An analysis of the suitability of OpenAlex for bibliometric analyses, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [5]

    Candal-Pedreira, J

    C. Candal-Pedreira, J. S. Ross, A. Ruano-Ravina, D. S. Egilman, E. Fern \' a ndez, and M. P \' e rez-R \' i os. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ, 379: 0 e071517, 2022. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-071517

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-071517 2022

  3. [8]

    Delgado-Quir \' o s and J

    L. Delgado-Quir \' o s and J. L. Ortega. Completeness degree of publication metadata in eight free-access scholarly databases. Quantitative Science Studies, 5 0 (1): 0 31--49, 2024. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00286

    doi:10.1162/qss_a_00286 2024

  4. [10]

    Directory of Open Access Journals , 2003

    Directory of Open Access Journals . Directory of Open Access Journals , 2003. URL https://doaj.org/. Accessed: 2024-03-02

    work page 2003

  5. [13]

    Fister Jr., I

    I. Fister Jr., I. Fister, and M. Perc. Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks . Frontiers in Physics, 4: 0 49, 2016. doi:10.3389/fphy.2016.00049

    arXiv 2016

  6. [15]

    Fortunato, C

    S. Fortunato, C. T. Bergstrom, K. B \" o rner, J. A. Evans, D. Helbing, S. Milojevi \' c , A. M. Petersen, F. Radicchi, R. Sinatra, B. Uzzi, A. Vespignani, L. Waltman, D. Wang, and A.-L. Barab \' a si. Science of science. Science, 359 0 (6379): 0 eaao0185, 2018. doi:10.1126/science.aao0185

    doi:10.1126/science.aao0185 2018

  7. [18]

    A. J. Gates and A.-L. Barab \' a si. Reproducible science of science at scale: pyscisci. Quantitative Science Studies, 4 0 (3): 0 700--710, 2023. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00260

    work page doi:10.1162/qss_a_00260 2023

  8. [19]

    Grudniewicz, D

    A. Grudniewicz, D. Moher, K. D. Cobey, G. L. Bryson, S. Cukier, K. Allen, C. Ardern, L. Balcom, T. Barros, M. Berger, J. B. Ciro, L. Cugusi, M. R. Donaldson, M. Egger, I. D. Graham, M. Hodgkinson, K. M. Khan, M. Mabizela, A. Manca, K. Milzow, J. Mouton, M. Muchenje, T. Olijhoek, A. Ommaya, B. Patwardhan, D. Poff, L. Proulx, M. Rodger, A. Severin, M. Strin...

    2019

Show all 65 references
  1. [20]

    A. A. Hagberg, D. A. Schult, and P. J. Swart. Exploring Network Structure , Dynamics , and Function using NetworkX . In Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference ( SciPy 2008) , pages 11--15, 2008. URL https://proceedings.scipy.org/articles/TCWV9851

    2008

  2. [21]

    G. Jin, X. Feng, Z. Chen, C. Liu, and S. Salihoglu. K \` u zu Graph Database Management System . In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research ( CIDR 2023) , Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023. URL https://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2023/papers/p48-jin.pdf

    2023

  3. [22]

    Kitsak, L

    M. Kitsak, L. K. Gallos, S. Havlin, F. Liljeros, L. Muchnik, H. E. Stanley, and H. A. Makse. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nature Physics, 6: 0 888--893, 2010. doi:10.1038/nphys1746

    2010 doi

  4. [25]

    Maddi, M

    A. Maddi, M. Maisonobe, and C. Boukacem-Zeghmouri. Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: Openalex, Scopus , and WoS . PLOS ONE, 20 0 (4): 0 e0320347, 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320347

    2025 doi

  5. [29]

    Priem, H

    J. Priem, H. Piwowar, and R. Orr. Openalex: A Fully - Open Index of Scholarly Works , Authors , Venues , Institutions , and Concepts . arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.01833

    2022 arXiv

  6. [31]

    R. A. K. Richardson, S. S. Hong, J. A. Byrne, T. Stoeger, and L. A. N. Amaral. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122 0 (32): 0 e2420092122, 2025. doi:10.1073/pnas.2420092122

    2025 doi

  7. [32]

    Richtig, M

    G. Richtig, M. Berger, M. Koeller, M. Richtig, E. Richtig, J. Scheffel, M. Maurer, and F. Siebenhaar. Predatory Journals : Perception, Impact and Use of Beall 's List by the Scientific Community -- A Bibliometric Big Data Study . PLOS ONE, 18 0 (7): 0 e0287547, 7 2023. ISSN 19...

    2023 doi

  8. [47]

    J. D. West, T. C. Bergstrom, and C. T. Bergstrom. The Eigenfactor Metrics : A Network Approach to Assessing Scholarly Journals . College & Research Libraries, 71 0 (3): 0 236--244, 2010. URL https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16080

    2010

  9. [50]

    Fortunato, Santo and Bergstrom, Carl T. and B. Science of science , volume =. Science , doi =. 2018 , pages =

    2018

  10. [51]

    Wang, Dashun and Barab. The. doi:10.1017/9781108610834 , year =

    doi

  11. [52]

    Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database , volume =

    Van Noorden, Richard and Singh Chawla, Dalmeet , journal =. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database , volume =. 2019 , pages =. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 , number =

    2019 doi

  12. [53]

    Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions , volume =

    Seeber, Marco and Cattaneo, Mattia and Meoli, Michele and Malighetti, Paolo , journal =. Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions , volume =. 2019 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.004 , number =

    2019 doi

  13. [54]

    Toward the

    Fister Jr., Iztok and Fister, Iztok and Perc, Matja. Toward the. Frontiers in Physics , doi =. 2016 , pages =

    2016

  14. [55]

    Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks , volume =

    Kojaku, Sadamori and Livan, Giacomo and Masuda, Naoki , journal =. Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks , volume =. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3 , year =

    doi

  15. [56]

    Richardson, Reese A. K. and Hong, Spencer S. and Byrne, Jennifer A. and Stoeger, Thomas and Amaral, Lu. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly , volume =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , doi =. 2025 , pages =

    2025

  16. [57]

    The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science , volume =

    Else, Holly and Van Noorden, Richard , journal =. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science , volume =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5 , number =

    2021 doi

  17. [58]

    and Bryson, Gregory L

    Grudniewicz, Agnes and Moher, David and Cobey, Kelly D. and Bryson, Gregory L. and Cukier, Samantha and Allen, Kristiann and Ardern, Clare and Balcom, Lesley and Barros, Tiago and Berger, Monica and Ciro, Jairo Buitrago and Cugusi, Lucia and Donaldson, Michael R. and Egger, Ma...

    2019

  18. [59]

    and Tsigaris, Panagiotis and Mousa, Salim , journal =

    Teixeira Da Silva, Jaime A. and Tsigaris, Panagiotis and Mousa, Salim , journal =. 2023 , title =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4391108 , issn =

    2023 doi

  19. [60]

    2022 , title =

    Priem, Jason and Piwowar, Heather and Orr, Richard , journal =. 2022 , title =

    2022

  20. [61]

    and Hobert, Anne and Jahn, Najko and Haupka, Nick and Schmidt, Marion and Donner, Paul and Mayr, Philipp , journal =

    Culbert, Jack H. and Hobert, Anne and Jahn, Najko and Haupka, Nick and Schmidt, Marion and Donner, Paul and Mayr, Philipp , journal =. Reference coverage analysis of. doi:10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3 , year =

    doi

  21. [62]

    An analysis of the suitability of

    Alperin, Juan Pablo and Portenoy, Jason and Demes, Kyle and Larivi. An analysis of the suitability of. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.17663 , year =

    doi arXiv

  22. [63]

    Thelwall, Mike , journal =. Is. doi:10.1002/asi.70020 , year =

    doi

  23. [64]

    Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: OpenAlex,

    Maddi, Abdelghani and Maisonobe, Marion and Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Ch. Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: OpenAlex,. PLOS ONE , doi =. 2025 , pages =

    2025

  24. [65]

    , journal =

    Peng, Roger D. , journal =. Reproducible. 2011 , pages =. doi:10.1126/science.1213847 , number =

    2011 doi

  25. [66]

    and Barab

    Gates, Alexander J. and Barab. Reproducible science of science at scale: pySciSci , volume =. Quantitative Science Studies , doi =. 2023 , pages =

    2023

  26. [67]

    and Dunleavy, Daniel J

    Teixeira Da Silva, Jaime A. and Dunleavy, Daniel J. and Moradzadeh, Mina and Eykens, Joshua , journal =. A. 2021 , month =. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04118-3 , issn =

    2021 doi

  27. [68]

    Newman, M. E. J. , journal =. The structure of scientific collaboration networks , volume =. 2001 , pages =. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.404 , number =

    2001 doi

  28. [69]

    Eugene , journal =

    Zeng, An and Shen, Zhesi and Zhou, Jianlin and Wu, Jinshan and Fan, Ying and Wang, Yougui and Stanley, H. Eugene , journal =. The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems , volume =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.001 , year =

    doi

  29. [70]

    , journal =

    Shi, Chuan and Li, Yitong and Zhang, Jiawei and Sun, Yizhou and Yu, Philip S. , journal =. A. 2017 , pages =. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2016.2598561 , number =

    2017

  30. [71]

    and Wu, Tianyi , journal =

    Sun, Yizhou and Han, Jiawei and Yan, Xifeng and Yu, Philip S. and Wu, Tianyi , journal =. PathSim: Meta. 2011 , pages =. doi:10.14778/3402707.3402736 , number =

    2011

  31. [72]

    Microsoft

    Wang, Kuansan and Shen, Zhihong and Huang, Chiyuan and Wu, Chieh-Han and Dong, Yuxiao and Kanakia, Anshul , journal =. Microsoft. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00021 , number =

    2020 doi

  32. [73]

    F. The. The. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_8 , year =

    doi

  33. [74]

    Missing institutions in

    Zhang, Lin and Cao, Zhe and Shang, Yuanyuan and Sivertsen, Gunnar and Huang, Ying , journal =. Missing institutions in. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04923-y , number =

    2024 doi

  34. [75]

    Completeness degree of publication metadata in eight free-access scholarly databases , volume =

    Delgado-Quir. Completeness degree of publication metadata in eight free-access scholarly databases , volume =. Quantitative Science Studies , doi =. 2024 , pages =

    2024

  35. [76]

    and Guillaume, Jean-Loup and Lambiotte, Renaud and Lefebvre, Etienne , journal =

    Blondel, Vincent D. and Guillaume, Jean-Loup and Lambiotte, Renaud and Lefebvre, Etienne , journal =. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , volume =. 2008 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 , number =

    2008 doi

  36. [77]

    and Waltman, Ludo and van Eck, Nees Jan , journal =

    Traag, Vincent A. and Waltman, Ludo and van Eck, Nees Jan , journal =. From. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41695-z , year =

    doi

  37. [78]

    Community detection in graphs , volume =

    Fortunato, Santo , journal =. Community detection in graphs , volume =. 2010 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 , number =

    2010 doi

  38. [79]

    A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science , volume =

    Waltman, Ludo and van Eck, Nees Jan , journal =. A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science , volume =. 2012 , pages =. doi:10.1002/asi.22748 , number =

    2012 doi

  39. [80]

    Finding scientific gems with

    Chen, Peng and Xie, Huafeng and Maslov, Sergei and Redner, Sidney , journal =. Finding scientific gems with. 2007 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.06.001 , number =

    2007 doi

  40. [81]

    PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks , volume =

    Ding, Ying and Yan, Erjia and Frazho, Arthur and Caverlee, James , journal =. PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks , volume =. 2009 , pages =. doi:10.1002/asi.21171 , number =

    2009 doi

  41. [82]

    , journal =

    Freeman, Linton C. , journal =. A. 1977 , pages =. doi:10.2307/3033543 , number =

    1977 doi

  42. [83]

    Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals , volume =

    Leydesdorff, Loet , journal =. Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals , volume =. 2007 , pages =. doi:10.1002/asi.20614 , number =

    2007 doi

  43. [84]

    and Havlin, Shlomo and Liljeros, Fredrik and Muchnik, Lev and Stanley, H

    Kitsak, Maksim and Gallos, Lazaros K. and Havlin, Shlomo and Liljeros, Fredrik and Muchnik, Lev and Stanley, H. Eugene and Makse, Hern. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks , volume =. Nature Physics , doi =. 2010 , pages =

    2010

  44. [85]

    A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society , volume =

    Stirling, Andy , journal =. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society , volume =. 2007 , pages =. doi:10.1098/rsif.2007.0213 , number =

    2007

  45. [86]

    Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , volume =

    Rafols, Ismael and Meyer, Martin , journal =. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , volume =. 2010 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y , number =

    2010 doi

  46. [87]

    , journal =

    Burt, Ronald S. , journal =. Structural. 2004 , pages =. doi:10.1086/421787 , number =

    2004 doi

  47. [88]

    and Ruano-Ravina, Alberto and Egilman, David S

    Candal-Pedreira, Cristina and Ross, Joseph S. and Ruano-Ravina, Alberto and Egilman, David S. and Fern. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study , volume =. BMJ , doi =. 2022 , pages =

    2022

  48. [89]

    More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 --- a new record , volume =

    Van Noorden, Richard , journal =. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 --- a new record , volume =. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8 , year =

    2023 doi

  49. [90]

    and McIntosh, Leslie D

    Porter, Simon J. and McIntosh, Leslie D. , journal =. Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises , volume =. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71230-8 , year =

    doi

  50. [91]

    Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , volume =

    van Eck, Nees Jan and Waltman, Ludo , journal =. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , volume =. 2010 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 , number =

    2010 doi

  51. [92]

    and Schult, Daniel A

    Hagberg, Aric A. and Schult, Daniel A. and Swart, Pieter J. , booktitle =. Exploring. 2008 , pages =

    2008

  52. [93]

    Survey of graph database models , volume =

    Angles, Renzo and Gutierrez, Claudio , journal =. Survey of graph database models , volume =. 2008 , pages =. doi:10.1145/1322432.1322433 , number =

    2008

  53. [94]

    Cypher: An

    Francis, Nadime and Green, Alastair and Guagliardo, Paolo and Libkin, Leonid and Lindaaker, Tobias and Marsault, Victor and Plantikow, Stefan and Rydberg, Mats and Selmer, Petra and Taylor, Andr. Cypher: An. Proceedings of the 2018. doi:10.1145/3183713.3190657 , year =

    2018

  54. [95]

    2023 , title =

    Jin, Guodong and Feng, Xiyang and Chen, Ziyi and Liu, Chang and Salihoglu, Semih , booktitle =. 2023 , title =

    2023

  55. [96]

    2003 , note =

    Directory of. 2003 , note =

    2003

  56. [97]

    Predatory

    Richtig, Georg and Berger, Marina and Koeller, Max and Richtig, Markus and Richtig, Erika and Scheffel, J. Predatory. PLOS ONE , doi =. 2023 , month =

    2023

  57. [98]

    and Bergstrom, Theodore C

    West, Jevin D. and Bergstrom, Theodore C. and Bergstrom, Carl T. , journal =. The. 2010 , pages =

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.