IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i5d10.1007_s11192-025-05318-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring scientific contributions through citation context and division of labor

Author

Listed:
  • Liyue Chen

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Jielan Ding

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Donghuan Song

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Zihao Qu

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Scientific contributions are a direct reflection of a research paper's value, demonstrating its impact on existing theories or practices. Existing research mainly focuses on the authors' perceived or self-identified contributions, while the actual contributions which are the contributions of papers to other research in the context of scholarly communication are rarely investigated. This research studies the actual contributions of papers and further explores the labor input patterns of which from an input–output perspective, based on papers published in Nature and Science using 1.53 million citation contexts from citing literature. Additionally, we design a method for identifying the types of scientific contributions using large language model technology. Results show that the distribution of the actual contributions of studied papers is unbalanced, with experimental contributions being predominant, contrasting with majority of the theoretical and methodological contributions self-identified by authors, which highlights a notable discrepancy between actual contributions and authors' self-perceptions, indicating an "ideal bias." Regarding the input–output patterns of actual contributions, there is no significant correlation between the overall labor input pattern and the actual contribution pattern of papers, but a positive correlation is observed between input and output for specific types of scientific contributions, reflecting a "more effort, more gain" effect. As for the internal relationships among different types of scientific contributions, different types of DOL input in papers exhibit a notable co-occurrence trend; while, once the paper reaches the dissemination stage, the co-occurrence of different types of actual contributions becomes weaker, indicating that a paper’s actual contributions often concentrate on a single type.

Suggested Citation

  • Liyue Chen & Jielan Ding & Donghuan Song & Zihao Qu, 2025. "Exploring scientific contributions through citation context and division of labor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2901-2921, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05318-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05318-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05318-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-025-05318-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoyu Cai & Tao Han, 2020. "Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1077-1094, November.
    2. Gertrud Herlach, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 29(6), pages 308-310, November.
    3. Heather Piwowar, 2013. "Value all research products," Nature, Nature, vol. 493(7431), pages 159-159, January.
    4. Dag W. Aksnes, 2006. "Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 169-185, January.
    5. Yiling Lin & Carl Benedikt Frey & Lingfei Wu, 2022. "Remote Collaboration Fuses Fewer Breakthrough Ideas," Papers 2206.01878, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    6. Yiling Lin & Carl Benedikt Frey & Lingfei Wu, 2023. "Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas," Nature, Nature, vol. 623(7989), pages 987-991, November.
    7. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    8. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    9. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    10. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na, 2015. "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1584-1600.
    11. Edson Melo Souza & Jose Eduardo Storopoli & Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves, 2022. "Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2249-2276, May.
    12. Mengnan Zhao & Erjia Yan & Kai Li, 2018. "Data set mentions and citations: A content analysis of full†text publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(1), pages 32-46, January.
    13. Hyoungjoo Park & Sukjin You & Dietmar Wolfram, 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 & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(11), pages 1346-1354, November.
    14. Wenhan Chao & Mengyuan Chen & Xian Zhou & Zhunchen Luo, 2023. "A joint framework for identifying the type and arguments of scientific contribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3347-3376, June.
    15. Liz Allen & Jo Scott & Amy Brand & Marjorie Hlava & Micah Altman, 2014. "Publishing: Credit where credit is due," Nature, Nature, vol. 508(7496), pages 312-313, April.
    16. Biao Zhang & Yunwei Chen, 2024. "Automated recognition of innovative sentences in academic articles: semi-automatic annotation for cost reduction and SAO reconstruction for enhanced data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5403-5432, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    2. O'Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Zhang, Jing A. & Haar, Jarrod, 2024. "How research agendas are framed: Insights for leadership, learning and spillover in science teams," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(7).
    3. Yang, Wenlong & Wang, Yang, 2024. "Exploring team creativity: The nexus between freshness and experience," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    4. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    5. Ren, Linlin & Guo, Lei & Yu, Hui & Guo, Feng & Wang, Xinhua & Han, Xiaohui, 2025. "Collaborating with top scientists may not improve paper novelty: A causal analysis based on the propensity score matching method," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    6. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Rodrigo Barbosa & Mayara Barbosa & Amalia Raquel Pérez-Nebra & Esther Villajos & Fernando González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, 2025. "A half-century perspective of entrepreneur’s well-being: comparing academic and global entrepreneurship monitor trends," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    9. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    10. Christian Leibel & Lutz Bornmann, 2024. "Specification uncertainty: what the disruption index tells us about the (hidden) multiverse of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7971-7979, December.
    11. Chang, Le & Zhang, Huiying & Zhang, Chao, 2024. "Should we circumvent knowledge path dependency? The impact of conventional learning and collaboration diversity on knowledge creation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    12. Burdett, Ashley & Etheridge, Ben & Tang, Li & Wang, Yikai, 2024. "Worker productivity during Covid-19 and adaptation to working from home," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Liu, Meijun & Jaiswal, Ajay & Bu, Yi & Min, Chao & Yang, Sijie & Liu, Zhibo & Acuña, Daniel & Ding, Ying, 2022. "Team formation and team impact: The balance between team freshness and repeat collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    14. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    15. Mike Thelwall & Marcus Munafò & Amalia Mas-Bleda & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Verena Weigert & Chris Keene & Nushrat Khan & Katie Drax & Kayvan Kousha, 2020. "Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    16. Levecque, Katia & Anseel, Frederik & De Beuckelaer, Alain & Van der Heyden, Johan & Gisle, Lydia, 2017. "Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 868-879.
    17. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.
    18. O.Szabo, Rebeka & Deritei, David & Battiston, Federico, 2024. "Coordination and balanced communication enhance collective problem-solving in organic teams," OSF Preprints 4rwpd, Center for Open Science.
    19. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    20. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "On the temporal diversity of knowledge in science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05318-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.