CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring scientific contributions through citation context and division of labor

Chen, Liyue, Ding, Jielan, Song, Donghuan, Qu, Zihao·2025·Scientometrics
DOI 10.1007/s11192-025-05318-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-025-05318-x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Aksnes, D. W. (2006). Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 169–185. · DOI
  2. Aksnes, D. W., Piro, F. N., & Fossum, L. W. (2023). Citation metrics covary with researchers’ assessments of the quality of their works. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 105–126. · DOI
  3. Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., & Altman, M. (2014). Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508(7496), 312–313. · DOI
  4. Auer, S., Kovtun, V., Prinz, M., Kasprzik, A., Stocker, M., & Vidal, M. E. (2018). Towards a knowledge graph for science. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on web intelligence, mining and semantics (pp. 1–6). · DOI
  5. Byrd, J. B., Greene, A. C., Prasad, D. V., Jiang, X., & Greene, C. S. (2020). Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research. Nature Reviews Genetics, 21(10), 615–629. · DOI
  6. Cai, L., Luo, Z., & Lu, W. (2023). Research on automatic recognition of scientific research contribution types of academic papers. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 46(6), 168–175.
  7. Cai, X., & Han, T. (2020). Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1077–1094. · DOI
  8. Cao, Z., Shang, Y., Zhang, L., & Huang, Y. (2024). Interdisciplinary publishing pattern from organizational and cognitive perspectives. Studies in Science of Science, 42(12), 2485–2496.
  9. Caon, M., Trapp, J., & Baldock, C. (2020). Citations are a good way to determine the quality of research. Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 43, 1145–1148. · DOI
  10. Chao, W., Chen, M., Zhou, X., & Luo, Z. (2023). A joint framework for identifying the type and arguments of scientific contribution. Scientometrics, 128(6), 3347–3376. · DOI
  11. Chen, H., Nguyen, H., & Alghamdi, A. (2022). Constructing a high-quality dataset for automated creation of summaries of fundamental contributions of research articles. Scientometrics, 127(12), 7061–7075. · DOI
  12. Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 345–361. · DOI
  13. de Souza, E. M., Storopoli, J. E., & Alves, W. A. L. (2022). Scientific contribution list categories investigation: A comparison between three mainstream medical journals. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2249–2276. · DOI
  14. D'Souza, J., & Auer, S. (2020). NLP contributions: An annotation scheme for machine reading of scholarly contributions in natural language processing literature. arXiv: 2006.12870 · arXiv
  15. Gupta, K., Ghosal, T., & Ekbal, A. (2024). Infusing factual knowledge into pre-trained model for finding the contributions from the research articles. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231211436 · DOI
  16. Haeussler, C., & Sauermann, H. (2020). Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy, 49(6), 103987. · DOI
  17. Herlach, G. (1978). Can retrieval of information from citation indexes be simplified? Multiple mention of a reference as a characteristic of the link between cited and citing article. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(6), 308–310. · DOI
  18. Herz, N., Dan, O., Censor, N., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2020). Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6282–6285. · DOI
  19. Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435. · DOI
  20. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702. · DOI
  21. Lee, Y.-N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44(3), 684–697. · DOI
  22. Lin, Y., Frey, C. B., & Wu, L. (2023). Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas. Nature, 623(7989), 987–991. · DOI
  23. Liu, M.-H., Yen, A.-Z., Huang, H.-H., & Chen, H.-H. (2023). Contributionsum: Generating disentangled contributions for scientific papers. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 5351–5355). · DOI
  24. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
  25. Park, H., You, S., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Informal data citation for data sharing and reuse is more common than formal data citation in biomedical fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(11), 1346–1354. · DOI
  26. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159–159. · DOI
  27. Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73. · DOI
  28. Porter, A. L., Chubin, D. E., & Jin, X. Y. (1988). Citations and scientific progress: Comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments. Scientometrics, 13(3), 103–124. · DOI
  29. Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances, 3(11), e1700404. · DOI
  30. Tang, R., & Safer, M. A. (2008). Author-rated importance of cited references in biology and psychology publications. Journal of Documentation, 64(2), 246–272. · DOI
  31. Vogt, L., D'Souza, J., Stocker, M., & Auer, S. (2020). Toward representing research contributions in scholarly knowledge graphs using knowledge graph cells. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020 (pp. 107–116). · DOI
  32. Walsh, J. P., & Lee, Y.-N. (2015). The bureaucratization of science. Research Policy, 44(8), 1584–1600. · DOI
  33. Wang, W. M., See-To, E. W. K., Lin, H. T., & Li, Z. (2018). Comparison of automatic extraction of research highlights and abstracts of journal articles. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering (pp. 1–5). · DOI
  34. Xu, F., Wu, L., & Evans, J. (2022). Flat teams drive scientific innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(23), e2200927119. · DOI
  35. Zhang, B., & Chen, Y. (2024). Automated recognition of innovative sentences in academic articles: Semi-automatic annotation for cost reduction and SAO reconstruction for enhanced data. Scientometrics, 129, 5403–5432. · DOI
  36. Zhao, M., Yan, E., & Li, K. (2018). Data set mentions and citations: A content analysis of full-text publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 32–46. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Chen, L., Ding, J., Song, D., & Qu, Z.
ORCID
Ding, Jielan
Venue
Scientometrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-05
Volume
130
Issue
5
Pages
2901-2921
ISSN
  • 0138-9130
  • 1588-2861
DOI
10.1007/s11192-025-05318-x
Cited by
6
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • National Social Science Fund of China (23BTQ103)
  • China Association for Science and Technology (2023QNRC001)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review