ЦИФРОВА НАУКОМЕТРІЯ УНІВЕРСИТЕТУ: ТРИЄДИНА МОДЕЛЬ ЗМІН  (МЕТРИКИ–ЧАС–АЛГОРИТМИ)

О. Vinnyk; Т. Vinnyk; S. Voloshynov

doi:10.14308/ite000814

Authors

О. Vinnyk
Т. Vinnyk
S. Voloshynov

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14308/ite000814

Keywords:

university scientometrics, responsible metrics, research assessment, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, dynamic monitoring, information system

Abstract

The article examines the transformation of university scientometrics in the context of digital transformation and the shift towards responsible research assessment. The authors propose a conceptual framework describing the evolution of research-management tools along three interrelated dimensions: the index dimension (metrics), the temporal dimension (management cycle) and the algorithmic dimension (data-processing complexity); within the framework, the state of the system is classified by the triad Heritage — Presence — Horizon. Drawing on international responsible-assessment frameworks (DORA, Leiden Manifesto, CoARA), the trend towards open scholarly infrastructure (OpenAlex) and the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence, the authors argue that a modern university IT system should combine transparent and reproducible computation of indicators, dynamic monitoring and the regulated use of intelligent algorithms. The study is conceptual-analytical in nature and uses a case-study approach: the institutional system publication.kspu.edu is examined in the Heritage and Presence states rather than a source of quantitative results. A development perspective is outlined toward near-real-time monitoring with cloud resources and controlled ML/NLP tools under a human-in-the-loop principle.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

World Bank. (2022). Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) [Data set]. World Development Indicators (GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS). URL:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. Geneva: WIPO.

Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 107–117.

Dolgin, E. (2021). The tangled history of mRNA vaccines. Nature, 597(7876), 318–324.

The Nobel Prize. (2020). The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020 — Press release. URL: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/press-release/ (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 20(7548), 429–431.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). (2012). URL: https://sfdora.org (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. URL: https://coara.eu (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

OECD. (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21) (pp. 610–623).

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90—93. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90.

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 498–502. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.

European Commission. (2022). Reforming research assessment: The Agreement is now final. URL: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

Science Europe. (2022). The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment is now final. URL: https://scienceeurope.org (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

National Research Foundation of Ukraine. (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment [News]. URL: https://nrfu.org.ua/en/news-en/agreement-on-reforming-research-assessment-2/ (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR). (n.d.). Narrative CV. URL: https://www.fnr.lu/narrative-cv/ (дата звернення: 28.05.2026).

Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., … Johnson, B. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. HEFCE. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.

Rushforth, A., & Hammarfelt, B. (2023). The rise of "responsible metrics" as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 879–905. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00280.

Culbert, J. H., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Haupka, N., Schmidt, M., Donner, P., & Mayr, P. (2025). Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 130(4), 2475–2492. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3.

Aria, M., Le, T., Cuccurullo, C., Belfiore, A., & Choe, J. (2024). openalexR: An R-tool for collecting bibliometric data from OpenAlex. The R Journal, 15(4), 167–180. DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2023-089.

Agrawal, A., et al. (2024). Do language models know when they're hallucinating references? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024.

Algaba, A., et al. (2024). Large language models reflect human citation patterns with a heightened citation bias [Preprint]. arXiv:2405.15739.

Thelwall, M. (2024). Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality? Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(2), 1–21. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2024-0013.

Elsevier. (2023). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.

Clarivate. (2023). Web of Science Core Collection: Overview. Clarivate Analytics.

Kinney, R., Anastasiades, C., Authur, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform [Preprint]. arXiv:2301.10140.

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.

Spivakovsky, O., Vinnyk, M., Poltoratskiy, M., Tarasich, Yu., Bystriantseva, A., Panova, K., & Spivakovska, Ye. (2018). Rating systems for scientometric indices of universities: Key aspects, development, implementation. Information Technologies in Education, 4(37), 24–39. DOI: 10.14308/ite000678.

Spivakovsky, A., Vinnyk, M., & Tarasich, Yu. (2015). Web indicators of ICT use in the work of Ukrainian dissertation committees and graduate schools as element of open science. In Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 594, pp. 3–19). Springer.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates (3rd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007.

Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., & Waltman, L. (2019). Rethinking impact factors: Better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569(7758), 621–623. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3.