Publications

Unfortunately, there is no result available for this search combination

The double-edged sword of open data sources: the prevalence and implications of questionable journals in OpenAlex.

Stephen, D., Faria, R., & Kulczycki, E. (2026).
The double-edged sword of open data sources: the prevalence and implications of questionable journals in OpenAlex. In I. De Parade, E. Vandewalle, & T. Engels (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Science & Technology Indicators Conference (STI-ENID 2026) (Bd. 2026, S. 1307-1318). Antwerp: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22656726

Limited western circulation of Soviet scientometrics: the case of Naukometriya.

Kwiecień, K., Kislenko, I., & Kulczycki, E. (2026).
Limited western circulation of Soviet scientometrics: the case of Naukometriya. Scientometrics, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05786-9
Abstract

Co-authored by Vasily Nalimov and Zinaida Mulchenko, Naukometriya (1969) introduced the term that came to name the field of scientometrics. However, the book itself had limited impact on the development of the field outside the Eastern Bloc. This paper examines how problems of translation shaped the global circulation of one of scientometrics’ foundational texts. We reconstruct the history of the book’s only English version, a 1971 machine translation produced with the Systran system for the U.S. Air Force, and assess its quality using the Multidimensional Quality Metrics framework.

Western influence or local efforts? John Bernal and the Soviet organization of scientific information.

Kislenko, I., & Kulczycki, E. (2026).
Western influence or local efforts? John Bernal and the Soviet organization of scientific information. Journal of Documentation, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2026-0158
Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between John Desmond Bernal (1901–1971) and the Soviet approach to organize scientific information, focussing on the establishment of the All-Union Institute of Scientific and Technological Information (VINITI).

A comparison of Scopus and OpenAlex for measuring international researcher mobility.

Lovakov, A. (2026).
A comparison of Scopus and OpenAlex for measuring international researcher mobility. In I. De Parade, E. Vandewalle, & T.C.E. Engels (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Science & Technology Indicators Conference (STI-ENID 2026) (Bd. 2026, S. 185-195). Antwerp, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22656241

Comparison of OpenAlex and Scopus coverage of German institutions’ publications in top-tier journals.

Lovakov, A., & Sterligov, I. (2026).
Comparison of OpenAlex and Scopus coverage of German institutions’ publications in top-tier journals. In I. De Parade, E. Vandewalle, & T.C.E. Engels (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Science & Technology Indicators Conference (STI-ENID 2026) (Bd. 2026, S. 1264-1274). Antwerp, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22656711

The case for citation count ranges.

Donner, P. (16. Juli 2026).
The case for citation count ranges [Blogbeitrag]. Abgerufen von https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/the-case-of-citation-count-ranges

Scholars under attack — Navigating the dark side of public engagement and science communication in a politicised (online) environment.

Fähnrich, B., Almeida, C., Blümel, C., Edler, D., Fecher, B., Mede, N., & Sokolovska, N. (2026).
Scholars under attack — Navigating the dark side of public engagement and science communication in a politicised (online) environment. Journal of Science Communication 25(4).(Abgerufen am: 09.07.2026) (online first). https://doi.org/10.22323/411520260607074432
Abstract

Hostility towards science has emerged as a significant challenge in contemporary science communication, particularly in increasingly politicised and digitally mediated public environments. Scholars across diverse disciplines are confronted with harassment, delegitimisation, political interference, disinformation, and personal attacks, especially when engaging in public communication. This editorial introduces the JCOM commentary set “Scholars Under Attack” and situates hostility towards science within broader transformations of media ecosystems, political polarisation, and contested epistemic authority.

Patterns of attacks against scholars in Germany: Controversial topics as contexts and accelerators of science hostility.

Blümel, C., & Brandt, E. (2026).
Patterns of attacks against scholars in Germany: Controversial topics as contexts and accelerators of science hostility. Journal of Science Communication 25(4).(Abgerufen am: 09.07.2026) (online first). https://doi.org/10.22323/369120260520202026
Abstract

In this commentary, we examine patterns of attacks against scholars focusing on the case of Germany. Drawing on the responses to open and closed questions in a recent survey of 2,600 German researchers, we identify context- and field-specific patterns of science hostility. While most responding researchers do not experience severe attacks, those engaged in specific fields may be at a higher risk of being threatened. We argue that attacks on researchers may not be perceived as acts of hostility against scientific institutions but rather emerge in the context of controversial topics.

Nacaps 2020. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur Datenpaketversion 1.0.0 der National Academics Panel Study 2020 (1.-2. Befragungswelle).

Berroth, L., Briedis, K., Hoffstätter, U., Jänsch, V. K., Mühleck, K., ... & Wegner, A. (2026).
Nacaps 2020. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur Datenpaketversion 1.0.0 der National Academics Panel Study 2020 (1.-2. Befragungswelle). Hannover: DZHW. https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:nac2020-dmr-de:1.0.0
Abstract

Nacaps, the National Academics Panel Study, is a longitudinal study of doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) until 2024. The project aims at providing nationwide cross-sectional and longitudinal data on doctoral candidates and doctorate holders in Germany regarding their study conditions as well as their career trajectories within and outside of academia. The Nacaps study series apply a panel design to multiple cohorts. [...] Full Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:nac2020:1.0.0

Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers’ comments tell us about reporting completeness?

Stephen, D., Schniedermann, A., Lovakov, A., Schmidt, M., Ottaviani, M., ... & Stahlschmidt, S. (2026).
Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers’ comments tell us about reporting completeness? Quantitative Science Studies, 2026(7), 1223-1244. https://doi.org/10.1162/QSS.a.496

On the structural limitations and resulting opportunities of algorithmic gender and country predictions for diversity assessment in research.

Ottaviani, M., & Stahlschmidt, S. (2026).
On the structural limitations and resulting opportunities of algorithmic gender and country predictions for diversity assessment in research. Berlin: Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20797609

Standardization in science.

Schniedermann, A. (2026).
Standardization in science. Effects and issues of guidelines for biomedical reporting. (Dissertation). Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University. https://doi.org/doi:10.60602/1887-4304878

Reference extraction in the bibliometric hinterlands: Recovering from domain switch with GROBID.

Donner, P., & Wen, Y. (2026).
Reference extraction in the bibliometric hinterlands: Recovering from domain switch with GROBID. In T. Heck, P. Mayr-Schlegel, C. Schindler, & A. M. Shahid (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the citation extraction and parsing workshop (CiteX), Frankfurt, Germany, May 28–29 (S. 40-45). Frankfurt a. M.: DIPF. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20382199

Data from the Researcher Mental Health Observatory STAIRCASE Survey.

Lasser, J., Mol, S. T., Čontala, A., Slavec, A., de Swarte, A. Z., ... & Dhamo, X. (2026).
Data from the Researcher Mental Health Observatory STAIRCASE Survey. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 14(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.136

Studying ‘predatory publishing’ in the context of research evaluation: conceptual and methodological challenges.

Stephen, D., Cramer, M., Kulczycki, E., Reinhart, M., Vasen, F., ... & Drymioti, M. (2026).
Studying ‘predatory publishing’ in the context of research evaluation: conceptual and methodological challenges. Research Evaluation, 2026 (online first). https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag025

Contact

Emanuel Kulczycki
Prof. Dr. Emanuel Kulczycki Head +49 30 2064177-10
Guido Speiser
Dr. Guido Speiser Deputy Head +49 30 2064177-24

Projects

All research department projects

Staff

All research department staff

Publications

All research department publications

Presentations and conferences

All research department presentations and conferences