BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Robin Haunschild

Robin Haunschild appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Librariesphysics.chem-phSocial and Information Networkscond-mat.mtrl-sciInformation RetrievalMethodologyphysics.soc-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

18works
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

18 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Scilit with the Integrated Impact Indicator Assessment

In this study, we systematically elucidate the background and functionality of the Scilit database and evaluate the feasibility and advantages of the comprehensive impact metrics I3 and I3/N, introduced within the Scilit framework. Using a matched dataset of 17,816 journals, we conduct a comparative analysis of Scilit I3/N, Journal Impact Factor, and CiteScore for 2023 and 2024, covering descriptive statistics and distributional characteristics from both disciplinary and publisher perspectives. The comparison reveals that the Scilit I3 and I3/N framework significantly outperforms traditional mean-based metrics in terms of coverage, methodological robustness, and disciplinary fairness. It provides a more accurate, diagnosable, and responsible solution for interdisciplinary journal impact assessment. Our research serves as a "getting started guide" for Scilit, offering scholars, librarians, and academic publishers in the fields of bibliometrics or scientometrics a valuable perspective for exploring I3 and I3/N within an inclusive database. This enables a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of disciplinary development and scientific progress. We advocate for piloting and validating this method in broader evaluation contexts to foster a more precise and diverse representation of scientific progress.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Empirical analysis of recent temporal dynamics of research fields: Annual publications in chemistry and related areas as an example

Changes in the number of publications in a certain field might reflect the dynamic of scientific progress in this field, since an increase in the number of publications can be interpreted as an increase in the field-specific knowledge. In this paper, we present a methodological approach to analyse the dynamics of science on lower aggregation levels, i.e., the level of research fields. Our trend analysis approach is able to uncover very recent trends, and the methods used to study the trends are simple to understand for the possible recipients of the results. In order to demonstrate the trend analysis approach, we focused in this study on the annual number of publications (and patents) in chemistry (and related areas) between 2014 and 2020 identifying those fields in chemistry with the highest dynamics (largest rates of change in publication counts). The study is based on the mono-disciplinary literature database CAplus. Our results reveal that the number of publications in the CAplus database is increasing since many years. Research regarding optical phenomena and electrochemical technologies was found to be among the emerging topics in recent years.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) in practice: A software tutorial

In course of the organization of Workshop III entitled "Cited References Analysis Using CRExplorer" at the International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2021), we have prepared three reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) analyses: (i) papers published in Journal of Informetrics; (ii) papers regarding the topic altmetrics; and (iii) papers published by Ludo Waltman (we selected this researcher since he received the Derek de Solla Price Memorial Medal during the ISSI2021 conference). The first RPYS analysis has been presented live at the workshop and the second and third RPYS analyses have been left to the participants for undertaking after the workshop. Here, we present the results for all three RPYS analyses. The three analyses have shown quite different seminal papers with a few overlaps. Many of the foundational papers in the field of scientometrics (e.g., distributions of publications and citations, citation network and co-citation analyses, and citation analysis with the aim of impact measurement and research evaluation) were retrieved as seminal papers of the papers published in Journal of Informetrics. Mainly papers with discussions of the deficiencies of citation-based impact measurements and comparisons between altmetrics and citations were retrieved as seminal papers of the topic altmetrics. The RPYS analysis of the paper set published by Ludo Waltman mainly retrieved papers about network analyses, citation relations, and citation impact measurement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Are papers addressing certain diseases perceived where these diseases are prevalent? The proposal to use Twitter data as social-spatial sensors

We propose to use Twitter data as social-spatial sensors. This study deals with the question whether research papers on certain diseases are perceived by people in regions (worldwide) that are especially concerned by the diseases. Since (some) Twitter data contain location information, it is possible to spatially map the activity of Twitter users referring to certain papers (e.g., dealing with tuberculosis). The resulting maps reveal whether heavy activity on Twitter is correlated with large numbers of people having certain diseases. In this study, we focus on tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and malaria, since the World Health Organization ranks these diseases as the top three causes of death worldwide by a single infectious agent. The results of the social-spatial Twitter maps (and additionally performed regression models) reveal the usefulness of the proposed sensor approach. One receives an impression of how research papers on the diseases have been perceived by people in regions that are especially concerned by the diseases. Our study demonstrates a promising approach for using Twitter data for research evaluation purposes beyond simple counting of tweets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Discovering seminal works with marker papers

Bibliometric information retrieval in databases can employ different strategies. Com-monly, queries are performed by searching in title, abstract and/or author keywords (author vocabulary). More advanced queries employ database keywords to search in a controlled vo-cabulary. Queries based on search terms can be augmented with their citing papers if a re-search field cannot be curtailed by the search query alone. Here, we present another strategy to discover the most important papers of a research field. A marker paper is used to reveal the most important works for the relevant community. All papers co-cited with the marker paper are analyzed using reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). For demonstration of the marker paper approach, density functional theory (DFT) is used as a research field. Compari-sons between a prior RPYS on a publication set compiled using a keyword-based search in a controlled vocabulary and three different co-citation RPYS (RPYS-CO) analyses show very similar results. Similarities and differences are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Paper-Patent Citation Linkages as Early Signs for Predicting Delayed Recognized Knowledge: Macro and Micro Evidence

In this study, we investigate the extent to which patent citations to papers can serve as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge in science using a comparative study with a control group, i.e., instant recognition papers. We identify the two opposite groups of papers by the Bcp measure, a parameter-free index for identifying papers which were recognized with delay. We provide a macro (Science/Nature papers dataset) and micro (a case chosen from the dataset) evidence on paper-patent citation linkages as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge in science. It appears that papers with delayed recognition show a stronger and longer technical impact than instant recognition papers. We provide indication that in the more recent years papers with delayed recognition are awakened more often and earlier by a patent rather than by a scientific paper (also called "prince"). We also found that patent citations seem to play an important role to avoid instant recognition papers to level off or to become a so called "flash in the pan", i.e., instant recognition. It also appears that the sleeping beauties may firstly encounter negative citations and then patent citations and finally get widely recognized. In contrast to the two focused fields (biology and chemistry) for instant recognition papers, delayed recognition papers are rather evenly distributed in biology, chemistry, psychology, geology, materials science, and physics. We discovered several pairs of "science sleeping"-"technology [...]. We propose in further research to discover the potential ahead of time and transformative research by using citation delay analysis, patent & NPL analysis, and citation context analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Should citations be field-normalized in evaluative bibliometrics? An empirical analysis based on propensity score matching

Field-normalization of citations is bibliometric standard. Despite the observed differences in citation counts between fields, the question remains how strong fields influence citation rates beyond the effect of attributes or factors possibly influencing citations (FICs). We considered several FICs such as number of pages and number of co-authors in this study. We wondered whether there is a separate field-effect besides other effects (e.g., from numbers of pages and co-authors). To find an answer on the question in this study, we applied inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPW). Using Web of Science data (a sample of 308,231 articles), we investigated whether mean differences among subject categories in citation rates still remain, even if the subject categories are made comparable in the field-related attributes (e.g., comparable of co-authors, comparable number of pages) by IPW. In a diagnostic step of our statistical analyses, we considered propensity scores as covariates in regression analyses to examine whether the differences between the fields in FICs vanish. The results revealed that the differences did not completely vanish but were strongly reduced. We received similar results when we calculated mean value differences of the fields after IPW representing the causal or unconfounded field effects on citations. However, field differences in citation rates remain. The results point out that field-normalization seems to be a prerequisite for citation analysis and cannot be replaced by the consideration of any set of FICs in citation analyses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Which papers cited which tweets? An empirical analysis based on Scopus data

Many altmetric studies analyze which papers were mentioned how often in specific altmetrics sources. In order to study the potential policy relevance of tweets from another perspective, we investigate which tweets were cited in papers. If many tweets were cited in publications, this might demonstrate that tweets have substantial and useful content. Overall, a rather low number of tweets (n=5506) were cited by less than 3000 papers. Most tweets do not seem to be cited because of any cognitive influence they might have had on studies; they rather were study objects. Most of the papers citing tweets are from the subject areas Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Computer Sciences. Most of the papers cited only one tweet. Up to 55 tweets cited in a single paper were found. This research-in-progress does not support a high policy-relevance of tweets. However, a content analysis of the tweets and/or papers might lead to a more detailed conclusion.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Citation concept analysis (CCA) - A new form of citation analysis revealing the usefulness of concepts for other researchers illustrated by two exemplary case studies including classic books by Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl R. Popper

In recent years, the full text of papers are increasingly available electronically which opens up the possibility of quantitatively investigating citation contexts in more detail. In this study, we introduce a new form of citation analysis, which we call citation concept analysis (CCA). CCA is intended to reveal the cognitive impact certain concepts -- published in a document -- have on the citing authors. It counts the number of times the concepts are mentioned (cited) in the citation context of citing publications. We demonstrate the method using three classical examples: (1) The structure of scientific revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, (2) The logic of scientific discovery - Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft in German -, and (3) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge by Karl R. Popper. It is not surprising -- as our results show -- that Kuhn's "paradigm" concept has had a significant impact. What is surprising is that it has had such a disproportionately larger impact than Kuhn's other concepts, e.g., "scientific revolution". The paradigm concept accounts for over 80% of the concept-related citations to Kuhn's work, and its impact is resilient across all disciplines and over time. With respect to Popper, "falsification" is the most used concept derived from his books. Falsification, after all, is the cornerstone of Popper's critical rationalism.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter

Based on the definition of the well-known h index we propose a t factor for measuring the impact of publications (and other entities) on Twitter. The new index combines tweet and retweet data in a balanced way whereby retweets are seen as data reflecting the impact of initial tweets. The t factor is defined as follows: A unit (single publication, journal, researcher, research group etc.) has factor t if t of its Nt tweets have at least t retweets each and the other (Nt-t) tweets have <=t retweets each.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics

This bibliometric study of a large publication set dealing with research on climate change aims at mapping the relevant literature from a bibliometric perspective and presents a multitude of quantitative data: (1) The growth of the overall publication output as well as (2) of some major subfields, (3) the contributing journals and countries as well as their citation impact, and (4) a title word analysis aiming to illustrate the time evolution and relative importance of specific research topics. The study is based on 222,060 papers published between 1980 and 2014. The total number of papers shows a strong increase with a doubling every 5-6 years. Continental biomass related research is the major subfield, closely followed by climate modeling. Research dealing with adaptation, mitigation, risks, and vulnerability of global warming is comparatively small, but their share of papers increased exponentially since 2005. Research on vulnerability and on adaptation published the largest proportion of very important papers. Research on climate change is quantitatively dominated by the USA, followed by the UK, Germany, and Canada. The citation-based indicators exhibit consistently that the UK has produced the largest proportion of high impact papers compared to the other countries (having published more than 10,000 papers). The title word analysis shows that the term climate change comes forward with time. Furthermore, the term impact arises and points to research dealing with the various effects of climate change. Finally, the term model and related terms prominently appear independent of time, indicating the high relevance of climate modeling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Expected values in percentile indicators

PP(top x%) is the proportion of papers of a unit (e.g. an institution or a group of researchers), which belongs to the x% most frequently cited papers in the corresponding fields and publication years. It has been proposed that x% of papers can be expected which belongs to the x% most frequently cited papers. In this Letter to the Editor we will present the results of an empirical test whether we can really have this expectation and how strong the deviations from the expected values are when many random samples are drawn from the database.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: How often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?

In the current UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) societal impact measurements are inherent parts of the national evaluation systems. In this study, we deal with a relatively new form of societal impact measurements. Recently, Altmetric - a start-up providing publication level metrics - started to make data for publications available which have been mentioned in policy documents. We regard this data source as an interesting possibility to specifically measure the (societal) impact of research. Using a comprehensive dataset with publications on climate change as an example, we study the usefulness of the new data source for impact measurement. Only 1.2% (n=2,341) out of 191,276 publications on climate change in the dataset have at least one policy mention. We further reveal that papers published in Nature and Science as well as from the areas "Earth and related environmental sciences" and "Social and economic geography" are especially relevant in the policy context. Given the low coverage of the climate change literature in policy documents, this study can be only a first attempt to study this new source of altmetric data. Further empirical studies are necessary in upcoming years, because mentions in policy documents are of special interest in the use of altmetric data for measuring target-oriented the broader impact of research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): An empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator

Hutchins, Yuan, M., and Santangelo (2015) proposed the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) as a new field-normalized impact indicator. This study investigates the RCR by correlating it on the level of single publications with established field-normalized indicators and assessments of the publications by peers. We find that the RCR correlates highly with established field-normalized indicators, but the correlation between RCR and peer assessments is only low to medium.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics

The number of papers published in journals indexed by the Web of Science core collection is steadily increasing. In recent years, nearly two million new papers were published each year; somewhat more than one million papers when primary research papers are considered only (articles and reviews are the document types where primary research is usually reported or reviewed). However, who reads these papers? More precisely, which groups of researchers from which (self-assigned) scientific disciplines and countries are reading these papers? Is it possible to visualize readership patterns for certain countries, scientific disciplines, or academic status groups? One popular method to answer these questions is a network analysis. In this study, we analyze Mendeley readership data of a set of 1,133,224 articles and 64,960 reviews with publication year 2012 to generate three different kinds of networks: (1) The network based on disciplinary affiliations of Mendeley readers contains four groups: (i) biology, (ii) social science and humanities (including relevant computer science), (iii) bio-medical sciences, and (iv) natural science and engineering. In all four groups, the category with the addition "miscellaneous" prevails. (2) The network of co-readers in terms of professional status shows that a common interest in papers is mainly shared among PhD students, Master's students, and postdocs. (3) The country network focusses on global readership patterns: a group of 53 nations is identified as core to the scientific enterprise, including Russia and China as well as two thirds of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Density Functionals that Recognize Covalent, Metallic, and Weak Bonds

Computationally-efficient semilocal approximations of density functional theory at the level of the local spin density approximation (LSDA) or generalized gradient approximation (GGA) poorly describe weak interactions. We show improved descriptions for weak bonds (without loss of accuracy for strong ones) from a newly-developed semilocal meta-GGA (MGGA), by applying it to molecules, surfaces, and solids. We argue that this improvement comes from using the right MGGA dimensionless ingredient to recognize all types of orbital overlap.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Semilocal and Hybrid Meta-Generalized Gradient Approximations Based on the Understanding of the Kinetic-Energy-Density Dependence

We present a global hybrid meta-generalized gradient approximation (meta-GGA) with three empirical parameters, as well as its underlying semilocal meta-GGA and a meta-GGA with only one empirical parameter. All of them are based on the new meta-GGA resulting from the understanding of kinetic-energy-density dependence [J. Chem. Phys. 137, 051101 (2012)]. The obtained functionals show robust performances on the considered molecular systems for the properties of heats of formation, barrier heights, and noncovalent interactions. The pair-wise additive dispersion corrections to the functionals are also presented.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access