In this paper, we chart an emerging academic terrain: cultural evolution of the arts, which is a theory-driven exploration of artistic dynamics, often done with large datasets of music, literature, movies, paintings, or games. This field has grown at the intersection of cultural evolution theory and several academic fields: computational humanities, anthropology, network science, and others, and poses interesting challenges for each of them. What constitutes artistic transmission in the first place? Is it possible to find recurring patterns in artistic history – and how much data is needed for that? What makes the evolution of the arts different from the evolution of other forms of knowledge? We discuss all these problems in this paper. Additionally, we perform a bibliometric analysis of this field and explore a co-citation network of the works on artistic evolution. Finally, we highlight major challenges for this field in the future, as the arts are rapidly evolving in the digital age.

The British system of quality assessment of research in universities, known as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), has recently been the subject of major public policy review and debate. The system of research quality or performance assessment has been running for over twenty years, although many of its facets have changed as has the increasingly marketised political economy. Nevertheless, the UK RAE has been the prototype for the growth and development of such systems internationally, although how different countries have conceived of such forms of review has varied greatly. The question of the relationship between research quality in higher education and the public funding of research lies at the heart of what has become a contentious and acrimonious debate in the UK. While these issues can be seen as fundamentally about social and economic matters, in fact the social sciences as an organised group of subjects or interests have not played a key role in the public arena. This article outlines the contours of the recent debates in the UK, by comparison and contrast with the ways in which such systems of performance and quality assessment have been debated inter alia in Australia, New Zealand, France and the Netherlands. In essence, the issues have centred upon questions of measurement of performance known as metrication, and bibliometrics versus social judgments about research quality.

European Political Science (EPS) has been a leading political science journal since its launch in 2001. This article examines the contribution of European Political Science over its 20-year history. The bibliometric analysis draws on Web of Science data and VOSviewer software. These tools help detect collaboration networks, bibliographic coupling and co-citations to identify the most relevant topics and knowledge appearing in European Political Science. The evaluation of EPS reveals four areas of interest: migration, education, comparative politics and democracy. Recent interests include the current debate on populisms, social media and political parties, with antecedents and implications that transcend national boundaries.

What contributes toward academic productivity and impact in political science research publications? To consider this issue, Part I of this article describes the core concepts and their operationalization, using the h-index. The study theorizes that variations in this measure may plausibly be influenced by personal characteristics (like gender, career longevity, and formal qualifications), working conditions (academic rank, type of department, and job security), as well as subjective role perceptions (exemplified by the perceived importance of scholarly research or teaching). Part II sets out new evidence used for exploring these issues, drawing upon the ECPR-IPSA World of Political Science survey. This study gathered information from 2446 political scientists in 102 countries around the globe. Part III presents the distribution and analysis of the results, as well as several robustness tests. Part IV summarizes the key findings and considers their broader implications. In general, several personal characteristics and structural working conditions prove significant predictors of h-index scores, whereas motivational goals and role perceptions add little, if anything, to the models. Thus, who you are and where you work seems to predict productivity and impact more than career ambitions and social psychological orientations toward academic work.

In this article, I investigate the extent to which ISI Web of Science indexing contributes to the impact of an academic paper. I do this by analysing the results of a natural experiment consisting in the accidental exclusion from the index of an entire issue of a Political Science journal. The statistical tests indicate a significant effect of ISI indexing on the number of citations received by individual papers. The conclusion is that ISI indexing does not simply provide an objective measure of academic impact, but it also affects academic impact itself. This fact provides evidence that, in spite of the increasing competition from other providers such as Scopus or Google Scholar, ISI indexing still has a considerable amount of market power.

While 10 years is too short a time to draw broad conclusions, the ERC does seem to have succeeded in promoting excellent and basic research in Europe, both through its own projects and by affecting standards and aspirations more broadly. It has affected widely shared conceptions of scholarly excellence and introduced new measures of academic esteem, with more attention to rigorous peer review—in the social sciences and the humanities as well as in the natural sciences. One concern is that the portability of grants may have fuelled the clustering of research talent and reputation towards some institutions and some states, away from others. The benefits of the ERC in promoting research quality across Europe in the longer term may be at risk unless some parties take steps to correct this imbalance.

Altmetrics are an emerging form of bibliometric measurement that capture the online dimension of scholarly exchange. Against the backdrop of both a higher education landscape increasingly focused on quantifying research productivity and impact, as well as literature emphasising the need to address gender bias in the discipline, we consider whether and how altmetrics (re)produce gendered dynamics in political science. Using a novel dataset on the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) of political science research, we investigate two questions: Do AAS vary by gender? And how do AAS relate to gendered social media dynamics? We find that AAS reproduce gendered dynamics found in disciplinary publication and citation practices. For example, journal articles authored exclusively by female scholars score 27% lower on average than exclusively male-authored outputs. However, men are also more likely to write articles with an AAS of zero. These patterns are shaped by the presence of high-scoring male “superstars” whose research attracts much online attention. Complementing existing scholarship, we show that the AAS closely overlaps with virality dynamics on Twitter. We suggest that these gendered dynamics may be hidden behind the seemingly neutral, technical character of altmetrics, which is worrisome where they are used to evaluate scholarship.

Based on data on 67,000 articles published in 100 high-impact journals in the twenty years between 2000 and 2019, I analyse the scientific contribution of European political science scholarly communities in the global context. The scholars contributing to the global scientific production are largely concentrated in a few countries, with the US and UK alone accounting for more than half of the articles published in high-impact journals. However, the tendency is towards increasing diversity in the geographic basis of the international scientific production; and European countries are central to this change. Contributing to international collaborative publications has been a key engine of the increased scientific production of scholars based in Europe. This was a generalised global tendency, and a spectacular one for certain national scholarly communities. The network analysis of international collaborations points to the consolidation of three clusters within a growing and increasingly dense network. The US, followed by the UK, are central to a global cluster of collaborations. European countries are primarily clustered in two groups: a larger and growing cluster; and a smaller but even more integrated, highly productive and connected cluster of scholars based in seven northern European countries. All bibliometric indicators consistently point to a generalised growth in the output and internationalisation of the scientific contribution provided by the European political science community.

This study provides the large-scale bibliometric assessment of the Journal of Management & Organization (JMO), offering insights into its intellectual trajectory and positioning within the management field. Covering 1,083 documents published between 1995 and 2024, indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, the analysis applies performance metrics, citation structures, and science mapping using VOSviewer and Bibliometrix. The study is further grounded in institutional and field-theoretic perspectives, interpreting JMO’s evolution as a process of legitimacy-building and scientific capital accumulation within a global knowledge field. The results show that JMO’s growth has been marked by cyclical expansion, with a sharp increase in productivity since the mid-2000s but uneven citation impact, heavily reliant on a small set of landmark articles. Co-citation and bibliographic coupling analyses reveal intellectual roots in organizational behavior, psychology, and strategy, while keyword and thematic mapping highlight enduring strengths in leadership, human resource management, and job satisfaction. At the same time, new research frontiers have emerged in governance, innovation, sustainability, and work-life balance, reflecting JMO’s responsiveness to global challenges such as COVID-19 and digital transformation. Collaboration networks confirm the journal’s Australasian anchoring, yet also demonstrate growing integration into international research systems, particularly through linkages with the United States, China, and Europe. This study contributes to understanding JMO’s evolving role within management and organizational scholarship, identifying both its achievements and challenges. The findings offer insights for scholars, institutions, and editors on how JMO can consolidate high-impact niches, diversify its author base, and strengthen its influence in shaping global management debates.

Evaluation teams have been critical to the success of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). Given the limited resources often available to evaluation teams and the growing emphasis on impact evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI), CTSA programs may need to develop innovative strategies to build capacity for effectively implementing CQI and impact evaluation, while still tracking commonly reported metrics. To address this challenge, the Boston University (BU) Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) partnered with the BU Hariri’s Software and Application Innovation Lab (SAIL) to develop a web-based digital tool, known as TrackImpact, that streamlines data collection, saving significant time and resources, and increasing evaluation team capacity for other activities. Time and cost saving analyses are used to demonstrate how we increased evaluation team capacity by using this innovative digital tool.

The Journal of Management and Organization (JMO) is celebrating its 30th birthday, which is a significant event given how the journal has shaped and influenced global management research and practice. As part of the commemorative activities this perspective article aims to highlight how the journal has contributed to the development of several sub-management themes. Each theme is analysed in terms of articles published in the journal in terms of establishing existing knowledge then explaining future research ideas. This helps to solidify the journal’s reputation and standing in the field in order to foster more management research that contributes to both theory and practice. Novel social and business approaches to future organizational and manager’s needs are addressed. This will inspire more meaningful management engagement in order to further support the evolution of management research.

This study proposed a framework to visualize research trends and create methods to forecast future directions in the design research methodology field from 2018 to 2022. A case study is conducted using a dataset of abstracts from conference proceedings included in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International Design Theory and Methodology Conference track from 2018 to 2022. The proposed method involves extracting keywords from research articles, transforming them into vectors, determining the similarity between keyword pairs to form a keyword network, and constructing a Sankey diagram to show the topic evolution pathways. The resulting Sankey diagrams provide insight into relationships between research topics.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) significantly impact physical, mental and social well-being, making them a critical area of research. This study analyzed the emerging trends and intellectual structure of ACE research and identified key contributors, including the most productive nations, journals and authors. Using bibliometric tools and VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), 1,957 articles from the Scopus database (2004 to March 2024) were systematically analyzed. A notable finding was the surge in ACE-related publications during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially reflecting increased global attention on childhood adversity amid heightened social and economic challenges. The analysis also revealed a striking dearth of studies from the Global South, with the field predominantly shaped by Western nations, like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Leading journals, such as the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and prolific authors, like Kevin T. Wolff, played a central role in advancing the field. Co-citation analysis uncovered four thematic clusters: (1) conceptualization and assessment of ACE, (2) health implications, (3) mental health impacts and (4) juvenile delinquency. These clusters, though distinct, showed significant thematic overlaps, reflecting the interconnected nature of ACE research and its intellectual structure. These findings underscore the need for more regionally diverse and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding global childhood adversity.

We report data on the experimental articles published from 2000 to 2021 in seven leading general-interest economics journals. We also look at time trends in the characteristics of the published experimental articles, including citations and the nationality of the authors. We find an overall increasing trend in the publication of non-lab experiments in all journals. By contrast, the share of lab experiments has more than halved in the AER and remained low in other Top five journals. The diverging trends for non-lab and lab experiments are not universal as the shares of both have increased in two other high-ranking economics journals (JEEA and EJ). We also observe some heterogeneities in publication, citations, rankings, and locations of authors' affiliations across journals and types of experiments.

This study investigated factors influencing the citations of highly cited applied linguistics research over two decades. With a pool of 302 of the top 1% most cited articles in the field, we identified 11 extrinsic factors that were independent of scientific merit but could significantly predict citation counts, including journal-related, author-related, and article-related features. Specifically, the results of multiple linear regression models showed that the time-normalized article citations were significantly predicted by the number of authors, subfield, methodology, title length, CiteScore, accessibility, and scholar h-index. The remaining factors did not exhibit any statistical significance, including the number of references, funding, internationality, and geographical origin. The combined predictive power of all these factors (R²=.208, p<.05) verifies the role of nonscientific factors contributing to high citations for applied linguistics research. These results encourage applied linguistics researchers and practitioners to recognize the underlying forces affecting research impact and highlight the need for a reward system that exclusively favors sound academic practices.