| Location | Kyiv, Ukraine |
| Blog | https://panbibliotekar.blogspot.com |
| ORCID | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5067-4498 |
| ResearchGate | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serhii-Nazarovets |
Today I gave a talk on @OpenAlex — the largest open database of scholarly metadata. #OpenAlex offers a broader and more inclusive view of science, making previously “invisible” research more visible.
At the same time, it raises important questions about metadata quality, data completeness, and how we interpret metrics.
👉 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31061.79847
A key takeaway: research evaluation can vary significantly depending on the data source and analytical choices.
Can a great song title make your paper more visible? In our new study, we explored how famous song titles appear in Scopus-indexed article titles.
🎧 https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515261437409
We found that in most cases, these titles are used as catchy rhetorical signals to attract readers. But here’s the catch: they don’t necessarily lead to higher citations. So yes, your title can sound like a rock hit… but impact still depends on more than style.
Gave a short online lecture on altmetrics today. Main point: altmetrics measure attention, not quality. Sometimes they capture real interest - sometimes just noise. Attention ≠ impact.
👉 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30154.12488
#Altmetrics #ResearchImpact #OpenScience #ScholarlyCommunication #Scientometrics
In our new short letter, we explored where real discussion on complex scientific issues actually happens. Instead of articles or reports, we analysed letters to the editor in journals – using #geoengineering as a case.
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2025-0161
These short texts turn out to be one of the few spaces where science becomes a dialogue: not only experts, but also broader publics engage, and discussions move beyond technical details to #ethics risks, and governance.
A recent Journal of Informetrics study shows – There is no universal number of “too many authors.”
In some fields, 3–6 may already be unusual.
In medicine – dozens are common.
In physics – large teams are often the norm.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2026.101803
Yes, #hyperauthorship can signal problems (e.g., honorary authorship, metric inflation). But the key question is not “how many authors?” 👉 it is: Is this abnormal for this field and time?
New blog post on @lseimpactblog about our project. Why global databases are not enough, and why national scholarly infrastructures matter more than we think.
The solution is not to replace global systems, but to connect national ones into a network of interoperable, open infrastructures.
#OpenScience #Bibliometrics #OpenInfrastructure #ResearchPolicy
Global scholarly information systems provide poor coverage for social science and humanities research taking place outside of the anglophone world and in languages other than English. Paul Donner, Stephan Stahlschmidt, Serhii Nazarovets, Igor Cojocaru, Irina Cojocaru, Marina Razmadze and Shushanik Sargsyan highlight a range of national initiatives taking place aimed at improving scholarly data for
Our new 📄 in Current Alzheimer Research looks at a strange, and worrying, phenomenon in scientific writing: tortured phrases. Instead of blood-brain barrier, some papers use bizarre alternatives like blood-brain obstruction or blood-cerebrum boundary.
https://doi.org/10.2174/0115672050460224260206052444
These are not just language errors, they can signal deeper issues such as weak #PeerReview or even #PaperMills.
#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #Bibliometrics #Neuroethics #AcademicPublishing
Our correspondence in @Nature is out today - “AI used in warfare needs a strong ethical framework”.
📄 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01008-7
We argue that the real question is not how effective AI is in war, but:
Who does it actually protect?
Who controls these systems?
Who is accountable for their failures?
And are decisions that risk civilian harm ever acceptable?
A new paper by Ioannidis & Baas highlights an uncomfortable shift: most scientific publications today come from countries that are not full democracies and have limited press freedom. In 2006, about two-thirds of global science was produced in full democracies. In 2024 – only 22%.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00190-6
Even more striking – 78% of publications come from countries with problematic press freedom, and there is no link between democracy and scientific productivity.
An interesting study on humour in scientific talks (531 presentations, 870 jokes):
67% of jokes failed.
Only ~9% got real laughter.
Men joke slightly more, and native English speakers are more likely to succeed.
🙂 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.3000
O yes... Joking in a foreign language is hard, and even in your own, it only works if the audience truly gets it.
#AcademicHumor #ConferenceLife #AcademicLife #ResearchCulture #ScholarlyCommunication
