Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42876989›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2026

Opinion paper: generative AI and the future of scientometrics.

Benedetto Lepori, Jens Peter Andersen, Karsten Donnay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Benedetto LeporiUniversità Della Svizzera Italiana, via Buffi 13, 6904 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4178-4687
Jens Peter AndersenUniversity of Aarhus, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2444-6210
Karsten DonnayUniversity of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9080-6539

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we contribute to the debate on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in scientometrics. We argue that moving from a trial-and-error approach to an explainable and actionable use requires a principled understanding of strengths and weaknesses of GenAI as compared with other techniques and with human judgment. To this end, we introduce a conceptual framework based on the distinction between the semantic dimensions of texts, i.e., the meanings attributed to words, and their pragmatic dimension, i.e., their embedding within communicative situations. We leverage this framework to interpret the results of applications of GenAI in scientometrics and to provide guidance to users. Specifically, we conclude that key parameters to be considered are the nature of the task, the level of granularity of the analysis and whether the goal was descriptive, inferential or evaluative. These parameters lead to different strategies for using GenAI and human-machine integration. Finally, we suggest that, by generating large amounts of scientific language, GenAI might affect textual characteristics used to measure science, such as authors, words, and references. We argue that careful empirical work and theoretical reflection will be essential to remain capable of interpreting the evolving patterns of knowledge production in the age of AI.

Indexed as

AuthorshipChatGPTGenerative AILarge language modelsPragmaticsScientific languageScientometricsSemantics

Identifiers

PMID42876989
PMCPMC13661719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.