Digital Libraries
See recent articles
Showing new listings for Friday, 6 February 2026
- [1] arXiv:2602.05836 [pdf, html, other]
-
Title: An FWCI decomposition of Science Foundation Ireland fundingComments: 7 pages, 5 figures, comments welcomeSubjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)
In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), now Research Ireland, pivoted to research with potential socioeconomic impact. Given that the latter can encompass higher technology readiness levels, which typically correlates with lower academic impact, it is interesting to understand how academic impact holds up in SFI funded research. Here we decompose SFI \textit{Investigator Awards} - arguably the most academic funding call - into $3,243$ constituent publications and field weighted citation impact (FWCI) values searchable in the SCOPUS database. Given that citation counts are skewed, we highlight the limitation of FWCI as a paper metric, which naively restricts one to comparisons of average FWCI ($\overline{\mathrm{FWCI}}$) in large samples. Neglecting publications with $\textrm{FWCI} < 0.1$ ($8.8\%$), SFI funded publications are well approximated by a lognormal distribution with $\mu = -0.0761^{+0.017}_{-0.0039}$ and $ \sigma = 0.933^{+0.011}_{-0.012}$ at $95 \%$ confidence level. This equates to an $\overline{\mathrm{FWCI}} = 1.433^{+0.029}_{-0.015}$ well above $\overline{\mathrm{FWCI}}=1$ internationally. Broken down by award, we correct $\overline{\mathrm{FWCI}}$ for small samples using simulations and find $\sim 67\%$ exceed \textit{median} international academic interest, thus exhibiting a positive correlation between the potential for socioeconomic impact and academic interest.
- [2] arXiv:2602.05867 [pdf, html, other]
-
Title: The Case of the Mysterious CitationsSubjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL)
Mysterious citations are routinely appearing in peer-reviewed publications throughout the scientific community. In this paper, we developed an automated pipeline and examine the proceedings of four major high-performance computing conferences, comparing the accuracy of citations between the 2021 and 2025 proceedings. While none of the 2021 papers contained mysterious citations, every 2025 proceeding did, impacting 2-6\% of published papers. In addition, we observe a sharp rise in paper title and authorship errors, motivating the need for stronger citation-verification practice. No author within our dataset acknowledged using AI to generate citations even though all four conference policies required it, indicating current policies are insufficient.
- [3] arXiv:2602.05930 [pdf, html, other]
-
Title: Compound Deception in Elite Peer Review: A Failure Mode Taxonomy of 100 Fabricated Citations at NeurIPS 2025Subjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic writing workflows, yet they frequently hallucinate by generating citations to sources that do not exist. This study analyzes 100 AI-generated hallucinated citations that appeared in papers accepted by the 2025 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), one of the world's most prestigious AI conferences. Despite review by 3-5 expert researchers per paper, these fabricated citations evaded detection, appearing in 53 published papers (approx. 1% of all accepted papers). We develop a five-category taxonomy that classifies hallucinations by their failure mode: Total Fabrication (66%), Partial Attribute Corruption (27%), Identifier Hijacking (4%), Placeholder Hallucination (2%), and Semantic Hallucination (1%). Our analysis reveals a critical finding: every hallucination (100%) exhibited compound failure modes. The distribution of secondary characteristics was dominated by Semantic Hallucination (63%) and Identifier Hijacking (29%), which often appeared alongside Total Fabrication to create a veneer of plausibility and false verifiability. These compound structures exploit multiple verification heuristics simultaneously, explaining why peer review fails to detect them. The distribution exhibits a bimodal pattern: 92% of contaminated papers contain 1-2 hallucinations (minimal AI use) while 8% contain 4-13 hallucinations (heavy reliance). These findings demonstrate that current peer review processes do not include effective citation verification and that the problem extends beyond NeurIPS to other major conferences, government reports, and professional consulting. We propose mandatory automated citation verification at submission as an implementable solution to prevent fabricated citations from becoming normalized in scientific literature.
New submissions (showing 3 of 3 entries)
- [4] arXiv:2602.05211 (cross-list from cs.CL) [pdf, other]
-
Title: Quantifying the Knowledge Proximity Between Academic and Industry Research: An Entity and Semantic PerspectiveJournal-ref: Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2026Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Digital Libraries (cs.DL)
The academia and industry are characterized by a reciprocal shaping and dynamic feedback mechanism. Despite distinct institutional logics, they have adapted closely in collaborative publishing and talent mobility, demonstrating tension between institutional divergence and intensive collaboration. Existing studies on their knowledge proximity mainly rely on macro indicators such as the number of collaborative papers or patents, lacking an analysis of knowledge units in the literature. This has led to an insufficient grasp of fine-grained knowledge proximity between industry and academia, potentially undermining collaboration frameworks and resource allocation efficiency. To remedy the limitation, this study quantifies the trajectory of academia-industry co-evolution through fine-grained entities and semantic space. In the entity measurement part, we extract fine-grained knowledge entities via pre-trained models, measure sequence overlaps using cosine similarity, and analyze topological features through complex network analysis. At the semantic level, we employ unsupervised contrastive learning to quantify convergence in semantic spaces by measuring cross-institutional textual similarities. Finally, we use citation distribution patterns to examine correlations between bidirectional knowledge flows and similarity. Analysis reveals that knowledge proximity between academia and industry rises, particularly following technological change. This provides textual evidence of bidirectional adaptation in co-evolution. Additionally, academia's knowledge dominance weakens during technological paradigm shifts. The dataset and code for this paper can be accessed at this https URL.
Cross submissions (showing 1 of 1 entries)
- [5] arXiv:2502.19360 (replaced) [pdf, other]
-
Title: Sustaining Knowledge Infrastructures: Asking the Right Questions and Listening for AnswersKathleen Gregory, Jonathan Zurbach, Kalpana Shankar, Matthew Mayernik, Malcolm Campbell Verduyn, Louise Bezuidenhout, Andrew TreloarSubjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL)
Sustaining knowledge infrastructures remains a persistent issue that requires continued engagement from diverse stakeholders as new questions and values arise in relation to KI maintenance. We draw on existing academic literature, practical experience with KI projects, and our discussions at a 2024 workshop for researchers and practitioners exploring KI evaluation to pose five questions for KI project managers to consider when thinking about how to make their KIs evolve sustainably over time. These questions include reflecting on sustainability throughout the life cycle of KIs, communicating evolving visions and values, engaging communities, right sizing a KI, and developing an iterative process for decision-making. Reflecting on these themes, we suggest, can support KI stakeholders to evolve, not necessarily grow, to meet the needs and values of their communities. How these themes are discussed will necessarily vary by funding sources, disciplines, governance, communities, and other contextual factors. However, adopting a deliberate and strategic approach to KI sustainability and aligning the invisible infrastructural work of KI maintenance with the outward-facing institutional work is, we argue, relevant to all KIs.
- [6] arXiv:2508.12735 (replaced) [pdf, other]
-
Title: Citation accuracy, citation noise, and citation bias: A foundation of citation analysisSubjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Applications (stat.AP)
Citation analysis is widely used in research evaluation to assess the impact of scientific papers. These analyses rest on the assumption that citation decisions by authors are accurate, representing the flow of knowledge from cited to citing papers. However, in practice, researchers often cite for reasons that are not related to the fact that there has been (intellectual) input from previous papers. Citations made for rhetorical reasons or without reading the cited work compromise the value of citations as instrument for research evaluation. Past research on threats to the accuracy of citations has mainly focused on citation bias as the primary concern. In this paper, we argue that citation noise - the undesirable variance in citation decisions - represents an equally critical but underexplored challenge in citation analysis. We define and differentiate two types of citation noise: citation level noise and citation pattern noise. Each type of noise is described in terms of how it arises and the specific ways it can undermine the validity of citation-based research assessments. By conceptually differing citation noise from citation accuracy and citation bias, we propose a framework for the foundation of citation analysis. We discuss strategies and interventions to minimize citation noise, aiming to improve the reliability and validity of citation analysis in research evaluation. We recommend that the current professional reform movement in research evaluation such as the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) pick up these strategies and interventions as an additional building block for careful, responsible use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation.
- [7] arXiv:2510.21825 (replaced) [pdf, other]
-
Title: 10 Simple Rules for Improving Your Standardized Fields and TermsRhiannon Cameron (1), Emma Griffiths (1), Damion Dooley (1), William Hsiao (1) ((1) Centre for Infectious Disease Genomics and One Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada)Comments: 17 pages, 1 figure Author Contributions: Conceptualization by EG and RC. Manuscript writing by RC. Revisions and Editing by RC, EG, DD, and WH. Acknowledgements: Charlotte Barclay Version 2: Added missing word on page 10Subjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
Contextual metadata is the unsung hero of research data. When done right, standardized and structured vocabularies make your data findable, shareable, and reusable. When done wrong, they turn a well intended effort into data cleanup and curation nightmares. In this paper we tackle the surprisingly tricky process of vocabulary standardization with a mix of practical advice and grounded examples. Drawing from real-world experience in contextual data harmonization, we highlight common challenges (e.g., semantic noise and concept bombs) and provide actionable strategies to address them. Our rules emphasize alignment with Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) principles while remaining adaptable to evolving user and research needs. Whether you are curating datasets, designing a schema, or contributing to a standards body, these rules aim to help you create metadata that is not only technically sound but also meaningful to users.
- [8] arXiv:2602.03866 (replaced) [pdf, html, other]
-
Title: PaperX: A Unified Framework for Multimodal Academic Presentation Generation with Scholar DAGTao Yu, Minghui Zhang, Zhiqing Cui, Hao Wang, Zhongtian Luo, Shenghua Chai, Junhao Gong, Yuzhao Peng, Yuxuan Zhou, Yujia Yang, Zhenghao Zhang, Haopeng Jin, Xinming Wang, Yufei Xiong, Jiabing Yang, Jiahao Yuan, Hanqing Wang, Hongzhu Yi, Yan Huang, Liang WangComments: 29 pages, 9 figuresSubjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Transforming scientific papers into multimodal presentation content is essential for research dissemination but remains labor intensive. Existing automated solutions typically treat each format as an isolated downstream task, leading to redundant processing and semantic inconsistency. We introduce PaperX, a unified framework that models academic presentation generation as a structural transformation and rendering process. Central to our approach is the Scholar DAG, an intermediate representation that decouples the paper's logical structure from its final presentation syntax. By applying adaptive graph traversal strategies, PaperX generates diverse, high quality outputs from a single source. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that our framework achieves the state of the art performance in content fidelity and aesthetic quality while significantly improving cost efficiency compared to specialized single task agents.