Guangyuan Hu’s research while affiliated with Shanghai University of Finance and Economics and other places

The proliferation of online self‐archiving platforms has greatly facilitated the dissemination of new research findings. However, the extent to which these platforms have increased the impact of research remains uncertain, especially considering the potential bias of researchers favoring the deposition of higher‐quality preprints. To determine the causal relationship between self‐archiving platforms and research impact, we conducted an investigation using a sample of 5423 published articles from 2018 that had preprints deposited on bioRxiv. These articles were compared to a control group of 7862 similar articles without preprints, identified through text‐mining algorithms. By modeling the differences in forward citations over time between the two groups, we established a positive causal effect of self‐archiving platforms on research impact. However, the effect observed in this study was smaller than that reported in previous studies (18.7% vs. 36%), indicating a more accurate and unbiased result. Additionally, the study explored the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the enhancement of research impact, including early dissemination and increased exposure through social networks facilitated by self‐archiving platforms. Overall, this study expands our understanding of how research is disseminated in the era of Internet platforms.

The expansion of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) over the recent years has partially accounted for the “norm” of growth of research output in many bibliometric analysis studies. However, the expansion patterns of different citation indexes may be different, which may benefit some disciplines but hinder others. Utilizing Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), this study attempts to elaborate on WoSCC’s coverage expansion patterns among these three databases from 2001 to 2020. Results show that different from SCIE/SSCI, both the annual publication volumes in the A&HCI database and all A&HCI journals have remained relatively stagnant in all document types considered scenario or have gained relatively slight increases in only citable items considered scenario. Although the number of A&HCI journals also has increased remarkably, the average journal publication volume of A&HCI journals has decreased gradually if all document types are considered or kept relatively stagnant when citable items only are considered. Besides, the A&HCI database has ceased the systematic index of individually selected items from SCIE/SSCI journals since 2018. The study finally discusses the possible causes and consequences of the unbalanced expansion of WoSCC’s different citation indexes.

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China’s largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the “police patrol” and “fire alarm” approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

The governance of emerging technologies has become a topic of global concern, not only for national competitiveness, but also for national security. Among other technologies, synthetic biology (SynBio) has been prioritized in the policy agenda of many countries; China is no exception. Unfortunately, despite the interconnectedness of governance practices and research development, few studies have investigated the current situation and development trajectory of this emerging dual use technology. To fill in this gap, this study focuses on China and investigates the pattern and evolution of its SynBio and related biosafety and biosecurity research published in both domestic and international databases. We find that despite its late entrance to the field, national government funding plays a critical role in China’s SynBio research. However, the funding ratio of SynBio as well as SynBio safety research is lower than China’s average when considering all fields. The structural topic model analysis reveals that the biological sciences dominate China’s SynBio research and slowly diffuse to other disciplines such as materials science, physics, and medicine, while perspectives from Chinese social scientists are barely recorded on the international academic stage. We also find little overlap of topics between China’s domestic and international output on SynBio and its safety research. Speculations and policy implications are discussed in the end.

The tacit nature of knowledge suggests that face-to-face interactions in international academic collaborations are irreplaceable. Yet, such anecdotal evidence has not been adequately examined in the extant literature. Using the difference-in-differences estimation strategy, this paper investigates the causal effect of international nonstop flights on the quantity of high-impact Sino-US joint publications over the period between January 2009 and December 2018. We find that, on average, US-China international nonstop flights boost the production of influential articles aggregated at Chinese cities, with cities with less human capital earning more benefits. We do not find evidence in support of the crowding-out effect indicating this positive effect comes at the expense of domestic and international collaboration opportunities with other countries. These findings remain robust with various specifications. Policy implications for promoting global collaboration through face-to-face communication are discussed in the end.

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.

The h-index has attracted wide attention from both scientometricians and science policy makers since it was proposed in 2005. Advocates champion h-index for its simplicity embracing both quantity and quality, while also express concern about its abuse in research evaluation practices and database-dependence attribute. We argue that it is increasingly important to calculate and interpret the h-index precisely along with the rapid evolution of bibliographic databases. In memory of Dr. Judit Bar-Ilan, we join the h-index discussion in Scientometrics by further probing a similar “which h-index” question via comparing different versions of h-index within the Web of Science. In this article we put forward the reasons of different WoS h-indices from two perspectives, which are often neglected by bibliometric studies. We suggest that users should specify the details of data sources of h-index calculation for research promotion and evaluation practices.

Despite the limitations of funding acknowledgment (FA) data in Web of Science (WoS), studies using FA information have increased rapidly over the last several years. Considering this WoS'recent practice of updating funding data, this paper further investigates the characteristics and distribution of FA data in four WoS journal citation indexes. The research reveals that FA information coverage variances persist cross all four citation indexes by time coverage, language and document type. Our evidence suggests an improvement in FA information collection in humanity and social science research. Departing from previous studies, we argue that FA text (FT) alone no longer seems an appropriate field to retrieve and analyze funding information, since a substantial number of documents only report funding agency or grant number information in respective fields. Articles written in Chinese have a higher FA presence rate than other non-English WoS publications. This updated study concludes with a discussion of new findings and practical guidance for the future retrieval and analysis of funded research.