Covers all aspects of the digital library design and document and text creation.
The accelerating pace of scientific publishing makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to stay current. We present Paper Espresso, an open-source platform that automatically discovers, summarizes, and analyzes trending arXiv papers. The system uses large language models (LLMs) to generate structured summaries with topical labels and keywords, and provides multi-granularity trend analysis at daily, weekly, and monthly scales through LLM-driven topic consolidation. Over 35 months of continuous deployment, Paper Espresso has processed over 13,300 papers and publicly released all structured metadata, revealing rich dynamics in the AI research landscape: a mid-2025 surge in reinforcement learning for LLM reasoning, non-saturating topic emergence (6,673 unique topics), and a positive correlation between topic novelty and community engagement (2.0x median upvotes for the most novel papers). A live demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/Elfsong/Paper_Espresso.
Large language models with web search are increasingly used in scientific publishing agents, yet they still produce BibTeX entries with pervasive field-level errors. Prior evaluations tested base models without search, which does not reflect current practice. We construct a benchmark of 931 papers across four scientific domains and three citation tiers -- popular, low-citation, and recent post-cutoff -- designed to disentangle parametric memory from search dependence, with version-aware ground truth accounting for multiple citable versions of the same paper. Three search-enabled frontier models (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet-4.6, Gemini-3 Flash) generate BibTeX entries scored on nine fields and a six-way error taxonomy, producing ~23,000 field-level observations. Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct; accuracy drops 27.7pp from popular to recent papers, revealing heavy reliance on parametric memory even when search is available. Field-error co-occurrence analysis identifies two failure modes: wholesale entry substitution (identity fields fail together) and isolated field error. We evaluate clibib, an open-source tool for deterministic BibTeX retrieval from the Zotero Translation Server with CrossRef fallback, as a mitigation mechanism. In a two-stage integration where baseline entries are revised against authoritative records, accuracy rises +8.0pp to 91.5%, fully correct entries rise from 50.9% to 78.3%, and regression rate is only 0.8%. An ablation comparing single-stage and two-stage integration shows that separating search from revision yields larger gains and lower regression (0.8% vs. 4.8%), demonstrating that integration architecture matters independently of model capability. We release the benchmark, error taxonomy, and clibib tool to support evaluation and mitigation of citation hallucinations in LLM-based scientific writing.
Purpose: This study compares the hierarchical structure of scientific teams across countries and investigates factors associated with the observed cross-national differences. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on 150,817 publications with author contribution statements, we focus on the 15 countries with the largest volume of scientific publications, examine cross-country variations in the proportion of tall teams, and analyze how this proportion correlates with other factors. Findings: Scientific output from East Asia is dominated by tall teams, which persist after controlling for team size, indicating that this pattern cannot be fully accounted for by the prevalence of larger teams in these countries. Cultural factors, measured by Power Distance, as well as the observed funding patterns of major basic science agencies, are associated with the dominance of tall teams in East Asia. Research limitations: This study is limited by its reliance on publications with author contribution statements, which may introduce selection bias; its focus on cultural and funding factors, while leaving other institutional contexts unexamined; and its use of a leadership concentration measure that does not capture other dimensions of hierarchy. Practical implications: Understanding cross-national differences in research team structures and their associated cultural and institutional factors can inform science policy and team management. Originality/value: This study provides a systematic cross-national comparison of team hierarchy and offers a mechanistic understanding of the dominance of tall teams in East Asia, highlighting associations with cultural and funding factors.
The digitisation of historical documents has traditionally been conceived as a process limited to character-level transcription, producing flat text that lacks the structural and semantic information necessary for substantive computational analysis. We present VERITAS (Vision-Enhanced Reading, Interpretation, and Transcription of Archival Sources), a modular, model-agnostic framework that reconceptualises digitisation as an integrated workflow encompassing transcription, layout analysis, and semantic enrichment. The pipeline is organised into four stages - Preprocessing, Extraction, Refinement, and Enrichment - and employs a schema-driven architecture that allows researchers to declaratively specify their extraction objectives. We evaluate VERITAS on the critical edition of Bernardino Corio's Storia di Milano, a Renaissance chronicle of over 1,600 pages. Results demonstrate that the pipeline achieves a 67.6% relative reduction in word error rate compared to a commercial OCR baseline, with a threefold reduction in end-to-end processing time when accounting for manual correction. We further illustrate the downstream utility of the pipeline's output by querying the transcribed corpus through a retrieval-augmented generation system, demonstrating its capacity to support historical inquiry.
Parliamentary proceedings represent a rich yet challenging resource for computational analysis, particularly when preserved only as scanned historical documents. Existing efforts to transcribe Italian parliamentary speeches have relied on traditional Optical Character Recognition pipelines, resulting in transcription errors and limited semantic annotation. In this paper, we propose a pipeline based on Vision-Language Models for the automatic transcription, semantic segmentation, and entity linking of Italian parliamentary speeches. The pipeline employs a specialised OCR model to extract text while preserving reading order, followed by a large-scale Vision-Language Model that performs transcription refinement, element classification, and speaker identification by jointly reasoning over visual layout and textual content. Extracted speakers are then linked to the Chamber of Deputies knowledge base through SPARQL queries and a multi-strategy fuzzy matching procedure. Evaluation against an established benchmark demonstrates substantial improvements both in transcription quality and speaker tagging.
The global landscape of art-technology institutions, including festivals, biennials, research labs, conferences, and hybrid organizations, has grown increasingly diverse, yet systematic frameworks for analyzing their multidimensional characteristics remain scarce. This paper proposes ARTLAS, a computational methodology combining an eight-axis conceptual framework (Curatorial Philosophy, Territorial Relation, Knowledge Production Mode, Institutional Genealogy, Temporal Orientation, Ecosystem Function, Audience Relation, and Disciplinary Positioning) with a text-embedding and clustering pipeline to map 78 cultural-technology institutions into a unified analytical space. Each institution is characterized through qualitative descriptions along the eight axes, encoded via E5-large-v2 sentence embeddings and quantized through a word-level codebook into TF-IDF feature vectors. Dimensionality reduction using UMAP, followed by agglomerative clustering (Average linkage, k=10), yields a composite score of 0.825, a silhouette coefficient of 0.803, and a Calinski-Harabasz index of 11,196. Non-negative matrix factorization extracts ten latent topics, and a neighbor-cluster entropy measure identifies boundary institutions bridging multiple thematic communities. An interactive web-based visualization tool built with React enables stakeholders to explore institutional similarities, thematic profiles, and cross-disciplinary connections. The results reveal coherent groupings such as an art-science hub cluster anchored by ZKM and ArtScience Museum, an innovation and industry cluster including Ars Electronica, transmediale, and Sonar, an ACM academic community cluster comprising TEI, DIS, and NIME, and an electronic music and media cluster including CTM Festival, MUTEK, and Sonic Acts. This work contributes a replicable, data-driven approach to institutional ecology in the cultural-technology sector.
Most existing approaches to AI in pharmacy collapse three epistemologically distinct operations into a single technical layer: document preservation, semantic interpretation, and contextual presentation. This conflation is a root cause of recurring fragilities including loss of provenance, interpretive opacity, alert fatigue, and erosion of accountability. This paper proposes the PATOS--Lector--PRISMA (PLP) infrastructure as a normative information architecture for responsible pharmaceutical knowledge management. PATOS preserves regulatory documents with explicit versioning and provenance; Lector implements machine-assisted reading with human curation, producing typed assertions anchored to primary sources; PRISMA delivers contextual presentation through the RPDA framework (Regulatory, Prescription, Dispensing, Administration), refracting the same informational core into distinct professional views. The architecture introduces the Evidence Pack as a formal unit of accountable assertion (versioned, traceable, epistemically bounded, and curatorially validated), with assertions typified by illocutionary force. A worked example traces dipyrone monohydrate across all three layers using real system data. Developed and validated in Brazil's regulatory context, the architecture is grounded in an operational implementation comprising over 16,000 official documents and 38 curated Evidence Packs spanning five reference medications. The proposal is demonstrated as complementary to operational decision support systems, providing infrastructural conditions that current systems lack: documentary anchoring, interpretive transparency, and institutional accountability.
Accurate parsing of citations is necessary for machine-readable scholarly infrastructure. But, despite sustained interest in this problem, existing evaluation techniques are often not generalizable, based on synthetic data, or not publicly available. We introduce RenoBench, a public domain benchmark for citation parsing, sourced from PDFs released on four publishing ecosystems: SciELO, Redalyc, the Public Knowledge Project, and Open Research Europe. Starting from 161,000 annotated citations, we apply automated validation and feature-based sampling to produce a dataset of 10,000 citations spanning multiple languages, publication types, and platforms. We then evaluate a variety of citation parsing systems and report field-level precision and recall. Our results show strong performance from language models, particularly when fine-tuned. RenoBench enables reproducible, standardized evaluation of citation parsing systems, and provides a foundation for advancing automated citation parsing and metascientific research.
2603.26791Assessing a cited paper's impact is typically done by analyzing its citation context in isolation within the citing paper. While this focuses on the most directly relevant text, it prevents relative comparisons across all the works a paper cites. We propose CRISP, which instead jointly ranks all cited papers within a citing paper using large language models (LLMs). To mitigate LLMs' positional bias, we rank each list three times in a randomized order and aggregate the impact labels through majority voting. This joint approach leverages the full citation context, rather than evaluating citations independently, to more reliably distinguish impactful references. CRISP outperforms a prior state-of-the-art impact classifier by +9.5% accuracy and +8.3% F1 on a dataset of human-annotated citations. CRISP further gains efficiency through fewer LLM calls and performs competitively with an open-source model, enabling scalable, cost-effective citation impact analysis. We release our rankings, impact labels, and codebase to support future research.
Standard citation metrics treat all citations as equal, obscuring the social and structural pathways through which scholarly influence propagates. I introduce Citation-Constellation, a freely available no-code tool for citation network analysis with two complementary bibliometric scores that decompose a researcher's citation profile by network proximity between citing and cited authors. BARON (Boundary-Anchored Research Outreach Network score) is a strict binary metric counting only citations from outside the detected collaborative network. HEROCON (Holistic Equilibrated Research Outreach CONstellation score) applies graduated weights assigning partial credit to in-group citations based on relationship proximity. The gap between scores serves as a diagnostic of inner-circle dependence. An extended abstract with full details appears in the paper. The tool implements this through a phased architecture: (1) self-citation analysis, (2) co-authorship graph traversal, (3) temporal institutional affiliation matching via ROR, and (4) AI-agent-driven venue governance extraction using a local LLM. Phases 1-3 are fully operational; Phase 4 is under development. Key design choices include ORCID-validated author identity resolution, an UNKNOWN classification for citations with insufficient metadata, and comprehensive audit trails documenting every classification decision. A no-code web interface enables researchers to compute scores without programming, installation, or registration. I present these scores as structural diagnostics, not quality indicators. BARON and HEROCON describe where in the social graph citations originate. They should not be used for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. HEROCON weights are experimental and require empirical calibration.
Funding acknowledgments in scholarly publications provide large-scale trace data on organizations that support scientific research. We present a dataset for linking global science funding organizations to research publications by systematically disambiguating unique funding acknowledgment strings extracted from publication metadata. Funder names are matched to standardized organizational identifiers using a multi-stage pipeline that combines lexical normalization, similarity-based clustering, rule-based matching, named entity recognition assistance, and manual validation. The resulting dataset links 1.9 million unique funder strings to canonical organization identifiers and records match types and unresolved cases to support transparency. Technical validation includes paper-level comparisons across bibliometric sources and manual verification against full-text acknowledgment sections, with reported recall and precision metrics. This dataset supports analyses of funding flows, institutional funding portfolios, regional representation, and concentration patterns in the global research system.
Gender imbalance persists across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, including computer science, where it appears in researcher demographics, productivity, recognition, hiring, and career progression. Given computer science's rapid expansion and global influence, addressing this imbalance is essential for broadening participation and fueling innovation. Although journal-oriented disciplines exhibit consistent gender imbalances in citation practices, it remains unclear whether similar patterns arise in the conference-centric culture of computer science. Here, we systematically investigate gender imbalance in citations of conference and journal papers in computer science. We find that papers for which a woman is listed as either first or last author receive fewer citations than expected, partly because of homophilic citation tendencies (i.e., authors tend to cite papers that share specific attributes). This imbalance is especially pronounced for conference papers--particularly those published at top-tier venues--relative to journals. Moreover, we find that the prominence of the first or last author and the structure of their local co-authorship networks are potential drivers of these imbalances. By exploring how conference-centric publishing practices can amplify systemic imbalances in computer science, our study offers insights that may inform efforts to foster more equitable representation in academia.
Equal-contribution authorship, in which two or more authors are designated as having contributed equally, is increasingly common in scientific publishing. Using approximately 480,000 tagged records from PubMed and PMC (2010-2024), we examine temporal trends, journal-level patterns, geographic distributions, and byline positions of equal-contributing authors. Results show a sharp rise after 2017, with both high-output mega-journals and smaller, discipline-specific journals contributing to the growth. Journal-level analysis indicates a median increase in the share of tagged articles from about 19% in 2015 to over 30% in 2024, with some journals exceeding 50%. Geographically, China accounts for the largest share (40.8% of fractionalized contributions), followed by the United States (15.2%) and Germany (5.2%). Normalizing to 2015 baselines, China shows a 13.1x; increase by 2024, while even the slowest-growing countries more than tripled their levels. Analysis of normalized byline positions shows that equal-contribution designations are concentrated near the first-author position, with fewer cases in middle or last positions. These findings document a broad shift toward shared first-author credit across journal sizes and regions within the biomedical literature and suggest that journals and evaluators may need to rely more on transparent contributorship information and to monitor the use of such labels over time.
Unraveling the hierarchical structure-property relationships is the central challenge of materials science, necessitating the interpretation of data across vast physical scales from micro to macro. Despite the rapid integration of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) into scientific workflows, existing scientific benchmarks primarily focus on general chart interpretation or isolated common-sense reasoning, failing to capture reasoning ability across intricate physical dimensions. To address this, we introduce CSMBench, a dataset comprising 1,041 high-quality figures curated from premier journals up to September 2025. CSMBench categorizes data into four scientifically distinct regimes: atomic, micro, meso, and macro scales, strictly aligning with the focus and definitions in materials study. Through open-ended figure description and multiple-choice caption matching tasks, we evaluate state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source models. Our analysis identifies that performance varies significantly across physical scales due to the distinct visual characteristics, highlighting the limitations of current generalist models and identifying critical directions for achieving hierarchical and accurate understanding in materials research. The CSMBench is publicly released at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lututu/CSMBench.
Scholarly data are largely fragmented across siloed databases with divergent metadata and missing linkages among them. We present the Science Data Lake, a locally-deployable infrastructure built on DuckDB and simple Parquet files that unifies eight open sources - Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, SciSciNet, Papers with Code, Retraction Watch, Reliance on Science, a preprint-to-published mapping, and Crossref - via DOI normalization while preserving source-level schemas. The resource comprises approximately 960GB of Parquet files spanning ~293 million uniquely identifiable papers across ~22 schemas and ~153 SQL views. An embedding-based ontology alignment using BGE-large sentence embeddings maps 4,516 OpenAlex topics to 13 scientific ontologies (~1.3 million terms), yielding 16,150 mappings covering 99.8% of topics ($\geq 0.65$ threshold) with $F1 = 0.77$ at the recommended $\geq 0.85$ operating point, outperforming TF-IDF, BM25, and Jaro-Winkler baselines on a 300-pair gold-standard evaluation. We validate through 10 automated checks, cross-source citation agreement analysis (pairwise Pearson $r = 0.76$ - $0.87$), and stratified manual annotation. Four vignettes demonstrate cross-source analyses infeasible with any single database. The resource is open source, deployable on a single drive or queryable remotely via HuggingFace, and includes structured documentation suitable for large language model (LLM) based research agents.
Academic publishing requires solving a collective coordination problem: among thousands of possible publication venues, which deserve a community's attention? A clear consensus helps scholars allocate attention, match submissions to appropriate outlets, and evaluate scholars for hiring and promotion. Yet preferences are not centrally coordinated--they emerge within each field over time. Here we ask whether all fields have arrived at similar solutions to this coordination problem, and whether preferences vary systematically with individual characteristics. Using an adaptive survey of 3,510 US tenure-track faculty yielding 163,002 pairwise comparisons across 8,044 venues, we show that fields occupy a wide spectrum of coordination. Economics, Chemistry, and Physics exhibit strong consensus, with respondents agreeing on elite venues and accurately predicting one another's choices. Computer Science and Engineering show fragmented preferences distributed across hundreds of outlets with minimal overlap. Within fields, preferences correlate with institutional prestige--faculty at elite institutions prefer higher-ranked venues--and with gender, as men prefer higher-ranked venues than women even after accounting for prestige and career stage. Scholars realize their personal preferences more successfully than their respective fields' consensus preferences, indicating that heterogeneity, not just selective hierarchy, shapes publishing outcomes. Journal Impact Factors explain only 64% of preference choices, systematically undervaluing what fields actually prefer. These results quantify how publication preferences vary across the structural diversity of academic fields.
Charting the intellectual evolution of a scientific discipline is crucial for identifying its core contributions, challenges, and future directions. The IISE Annual Conference proceedings offer a rich longitudinal archive of the Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE) community's development, but the sheer volume of scholarship produced over two decades makes a holistic analysis difficult. Traditional reviews often fail to capture the full scale of thematic shifts and complex collaboration networks that define the community's growth. This paper presents a computational analysis of IISE proceedings from 2002 to 2025, drawing on an initial dataset of 9,350 titles from ProQuest for thematic analysis and 8,958 titles from Google Scholar for citation analysis, to deliver a cartography of the ISE field's intellectual history. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for domain-aware classification, Natural Language Processing, and Network Science, our study systematically maps thematic evolution to identify dominant, emerging, and receding research topics. We analyze citation data and co-authorship networks to uncover influential papers and authors, providing critical insights into knowledge diffusion and community structure. Through this comprehensive analysis, we establish a baseline for understanding the trajectory of ISE research and offer valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and educators. The findings illuminate the field's intellectual assets and provide a data-informed map to guide the future of ISE. To foster reproducibility and further research, the curated dataset used in this study and the results will be made publicly available.
We present a proof-of-concept system that automates iconographic classification and content-based recommendation of digitized artworks using the Iconclass vocabulary and selected artificial intelligence methods. The prototype implements a four-stage workflow for classification and recommendation, which integrates YOLOv8 object detection with algorithmic mappings to Iconclass codes, rule-based inference for abstract meanings, and three complementary recommenders (hierarchical proximity, IDF-weighted overlap, and Jaccard similarity). Although more engineering is still needed, the evaluation demonstrates the potential of this solution: Iconclass-aware computer vision and recommendation methods can accelerate cataloging and enhance navigation in large heritage repositories. The key insight is to let computer vision propose visible elements and to use symbolic structures (Iconclass hierarchy) to reach meaning.
Retractions are the primary mechanism for correcting the scholarly record, yet publishers differ markedly in how they use them. We present a bibliometric analysis of 46,087 retractions across 10 major publishers using data from the Retraction Watch database (1997-2026), examining retraction rates, reasons, temporal trends, and geographic distributions, among other dimensions. Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude, from Elsevier's 3.97 per 10,000 publications to Hindawi's 320.02. China-affiliated authors account for the largest share of retractions at every publisher. Retraction lags and reason profiles also vary widely across publishers. Among the ten publishers, ACM is an outlier in its retraction profile. ACM's normalized rate is mid-range (5.65), yet 98.3% of its 354 retractions are related to one incident. Seven of the ten most common global retraction reasons (including misconduct, plagiarism, and data concerns) are entirely absent from ACM's record. ACM's first retraction dates to 2020, despite a catalog dating to 1997. ACM self-describes its retraction threshold as "extremely high." We discuss this threshold in relation to the COPE retraction guidelines and the implications of ACM's non-public dark archive of removed works.
As libraries explore large language models (LLMs) as a scalable layer for reference services, a core fairness question follows: can LLM-based services support all patrons fairly, regardless of demographic identity? While LLMs offer great potential for broadening access to information assistance, they may also reproduce societal biases embedded in their training data, potentially undermining libraries' commitments to impartial service. In this chapter, we apply a systematic evaluation approach that combines diagnostic classification to detect systematic differences with linguistic analysis to interpret their sources. Across three widely used open models (Llama-3.1 8B, Gemma-2 9B, and Ministral 8B), we find no compelling evidence of systematic differentiation by race/ethnicity, and only minor evidence of sex-linked differentiation in one model. We discuss implications for responsible AI adoption in libraries and the importance of ongoing monitoring in aligning LLM-based services with core professional values.