scientific research paper database

Trending Articles

• The miR-200 family is increased in dysplastic lesions in ulcerative colitis patients. Lewis A, et al. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28288169 Free PMC article.
• Global disparities in surgeons' workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study. Podda M, et al. Updates Surg. 2024. PMID: 38684574
• CS incapacitant spray. Southward RD. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000. PMID: 10659007 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Left paraduodenal hernia accompanying chylous ascites. Yu DY, et al. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015. PMID: 26576408 Free PMC article.
• Vitamin D regulates microbiome-dependent cancer immunity. Giampazolias E, et al. Science. 2024. PMID: 38662827

Latest Literature

• Am J Clin Nutr (1)
• Cancer Res (3)
• Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11)
• Nature (48)
• PLoS One (101)
• Pediatrics (2)
• Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (14)
• Science (37)

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• All Solutions

Expertly curated abstract & citation database

About Scopus

Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyse and visualise research.

As research becomes increasingly global, interdisciplinary and collaborative, you can make sure that critical research from around the world is not missed when you choose Scopus.

“Speed is very important … I can easily identify what I need to know, read it, digest it and move on to the next one.” James, Research Pathologist, Medical Device R&D, Scopus user

“Scopus is very customer-friendly… You get more information from all different fields. It saves a lot of time.” Chris, Head of R&D, Diagnostic Testing, Scopus user

“Scopus informs every phase of the editorial process. I would not want to do this job without it, and I intend to continue using it throughout my career.” William, Professor of Economics, University of Tennessee

More information (in English)

• Why I would not want to be without Scopus; an editor’s story
• NASI Scopus Young Scientists Awards 2019

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

PubMed® comprises more than 37 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Featured Bookshelf titles

Drugs and Lactation Database (LactMed®)

Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Systematic Review Update

Donahue KE, Gartlehner G, Schulman ER, et al.

Literature databases

Books and reports

Ontology used for PubMed indexing

Books, journals and more in the NLM Collections

Scientific and medical abstracts/citations

Full-text journal articles

Gene sequences and annotations used as references for the study of orthologs structure, expression, and evolution

Collected information about gene loci

Functional genomics studies

Gene expression and molecular abundance profiles

Homologous genes sets for selected organisms

Sequence sets from phylogenetic and population studies

Protein sequences, 3-D structures, and tools for the study of functional protein domains and active sites

Conserved protein domains

Protein sequences grouped by identity

Protein sequences

Models representing homologous proteins with a common function

Experimentally-determined biomolecular structures

A tool to find regions of similarity between biological sequences

Search nucleotide sequence databases

Search protein sequence databases

Search protein databases using a translated nucleotide query

Search translated nucleotide databases using a protein query

Find primers specific to your PCR template

Genome sequence assemblies, large-scale functional genomics data, and source biological samples

Genome assembly information

Museum, herbaria, and other biorepository collections

Biological projects providing data to NCBI

Descriptions of biological source materials

Genome sequencing projects by organism

DNA and RNA sequences

High-throughput sequence reads

Taxonomic classification and nomenclature

Heritable DNA variations, associations with human pathologies, and clinical diagnostics and treatments

Privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world

Human variations of clinical significance

Genotype/phenotype interaction studies

Short genetic variations

Genome structural variation studies

Genetic testing registry

Medical genetics literature and links

Online mendelian inheritance in man

Repository of chemical information, molecular pathways, and tools for bioactivity screening

Bioactivity screening studies

Chemical information with structures, information and links

Molecular pathways with links to genes, proteins and chemicals

Deposited substance and chemical information

Research news

Talk therapy cuts risk of postpartum depression.

An intervention given to pregnant women by non-specialist providers greatly reduced the chances of developing postpartum depression or anxiety.

How excess niacin may promote cardiovascular disease

Findings about a metabolite of niacin, or vitamin B3, raise concerns about the health effects of too much niacin and suggest new measures to help prevent or treat cardiovascular disease

Birds, bees and even plants might act weird during the solar eclipse

A total eclipse isn’t just a spectacle in the sky. Birds, insects and even plants will take notice, and might start acting strange.

Recent blog posts

Medgen users, we want your feedback.

Do you use NCBI’s MedGen? If so, then you probably know it’s NCBI’s one-stop-shop for genetic phenotype information. If you are a healthcare provider, genetic professional, researcher, or anyone who uses MedGen, we want to hear from you to help us make this resource better meet your needs!   We want to know:  How you currently … Continue reading MedGen Users, We Want Your Feedback! →

Immune Checkpoint Discovery Has Implications for Treating Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases

Your immune system should ideally recognize and attack infectious invaders and cancerous cells. But the system requires safety mechanisms, or brakes, to keep it from damaging healthy cells. To do this, T cells—the immune system’s most powerful attackers—rely on immune “checkpoints” to turn immune activation down when they receive the right signal. While these interactions have been well studied, a research team supported in part by NIH has made an unexpected discovery into how a key immune checkpoint works, with potentially important implications for therapies designed to boost or dampen immune activity to treat cancer and autoimmune diseases.

“Computers don’t diagnose the same way that doctors do” - NLM Lecture Explored How a Cancer Diagnosis Can Help Illustra…

How can cancer help us understand algorithmic bias? At this year’s NLM Science, Technology, and Society Lecture, journalist and AI ethics expert Meredith Broussard shared how her personal experience with breast cancer can help illuminate the potential impact that racial and gender bias can have on the use of AI in medical contexts.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Academic Databases

ERIC research database: complete tutorial

The ERIC database is the premier education literature database for scholarly research. This guide covers search types and strategies, filters, and full text options.

How to efficiently search online databases for academic research

Academic research isn't difficult if you know where and how to search for scholarly articles and research papers. Here's how to do it.

How to use Google Scholar: the ultimate guide

Google Scholar is the number one academic search engine. Our detailed guide covers best practices for basic and advanced search strategies in Google Scholar.

Is Google Scholar a database or search engine? [Update 2024]

Google Scholar is the number one free resource to discover scientific literature, but is it an academic database or a search engine?

The best academic research databases [Update 2024]

Your research is stuck and you need to find new sources? Take a look at our compilation of academic research databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, JSTOR, DOAJ, Science Direct, and IEEE Xplore.

The best academic search engines [Update 2024]

Your research is stuck, and you need to find new sources. Take a look at our compilation of free academic search engines: ✓ Google Scholar ✓ BASE ✓ CORE ✓ Science.gov

The best research databases for computer science [Update 2024]

The top 4 research databases specifically dedicated to computer science: ✓ ACM Digital Library ✓ IEEE Xplore ✓ dbpl ✓ Springer LNCS

The best research databases for healthcare and medicine [Update 2024]

We have compiled the top list of research databases for healthcare, medicine, and biomedical research: PubMed, EMBASE, PMC, and Cochrane Library.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

Breaking boundaries. Empowering researchers. Opening Science.

PLOS is a nonprofit, Open Access publisher empowering researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.

Every country. Every career stage. Every area of science. Hundreds of thousands of researchers choose PLOS to share and discuss their work. Together, we collaborate to make science, and the process of publishing science, fair, equitable, and accessible for the whole community.

FEATURED COMMUNITIES

• Molecular Biology
• Microbiology
• Neuroscience
• Cancer Treatment and Research

RECENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Written by Lindsay Morton Over 4 years: 74k+ eligible articles. Nearly 85k signed reviews. More than 30k published peer review history…

The latest quarterly update to the Open Science Indicators (OSIs) dataset was released in December, marking the one year anniversary of OSIs…

PLOS JOURNALS

PLOS publishes a suite of influential Open Access journals across all areas of science and medicine. Rigorously reported, peer reviewed and immediately available without restrictions, promoting the widest readership and impact possible. We encourage you to consider the scope of each journal before submission, as journals are editorially independent and specialized in their publication criteria and breadth of content. 

PLOS Biology PLOS Climate PLOS Computational Biology PLOS Digital Health PLOS Genetics PLOS Global Public Health PLOS Medicine PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases PLOS ONE PLOS Pathogens PLOS Sustainability and Transformation PLOS Water

Now open for submissions:

PLOS Complex Systems PLOS Mental Health

ADVANCING OPEN SCIENCE

Open opportunities for your community to see, cite, share, and build on your research. PLOS gives you more control over how and when your work becomes available.

Ready, set, share your preprint. Authors of most PLOS journals can now opt-in at submission to have PLOS post their manuscript as a preprint to bioRxiv or medRxiv.

All PLOS journals offer authors the opportunity to increase the transparency of the evaluation process by publishing their peer review history.

We have everything you need to amplify your reviews, increase the visibility of your work through PLOS, and join the movement to advance Open Science.

FEATURED RESOURCES

Ready to submit your manuscript to PLOS? Find everything you need to choose the journal that’s right for you as well as information about publication fees, metrics, and other FAQs here.

We have everything you need to write your first review, increase the visibility of your work through PLOS, and join the movement to advance Open Science.

Transform your research with PLOS.   Submit your manuscript

A free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature

• Albert Bandura
• Crowdsourcing

New & Improved API for Developers

Introducing semantic reader in beta.

Stay Connected With Semantic Scholar Sign Up What Is Semantic Scholar? Semantic Scholar is a free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature, based at the Allen Institute for AI.

• Advanced search
• Peer review

Discover relevant research today

Advance your research field in the open

Reach new audiences and maximize your readership

ScienceOpen puts your research in the context of

Publications

For Publishers

ScienceOpen offers content hosting, context building and marketing services for publishers. See our tailored offerings

• For academic publishers  to promote journals and interdisciplinary collections
• For open access journals  to host journal content in an interactive environment
• For university library publishing  to develop new open access paradigms for their scholars
• For scholarly societies  to promote content with interactive features

For Institutions

ScienceOpen offers state-of-the-art technology and a range of solutions and services

• For faculties and research groups  to promote and share your work
• For research institutes  to build up your own branding for OA publications
• For funders  to develop new open access publishing paradigms
• For university libraries to create an independent OA publishing environment

For Researchers

Make an impact and build your research profile in the open with ScienceOpen

• Search and discover relevant research in over 93 million Open Access articles and article records
• Share your expertise and get credit by publicly reviewing any article
• Publish your poster or preprint and track usage and impact with article- and author-level metrics
• Create a topical Collection  to advance your research field

Create a Journal powered by ScienceOpen

Launching a new open access journal or an open access press? ScienceOpen now provides full end-to-end open access publishing solutions – embedded within our smart interactive discovery environment. A modular approach allows open access publishers to pick and choose among a range of services and design the platform that fits their goals and budget.

Continue reading “Create a Journal powered by ScienceOpen”   

What can a Researcher do on ScienceOpen?

ScienceOpen provides researchers with a wide range of tools to support their research – all for free. Here is a short checklist to make sure you are getting the most of the technological infrastructure and content that we have to offer. What can a researcher do on ScienceOpen? Continue reading “What can a Researcher do on ScienceOpen?”   

ScienceOpen on the Road

Upcoming events.

• 20 – 22 February – ResearcherToReader Conferece

Past Events

• 09 November – Webinar for the Discoverability of African Research
• 26 – 27 October – Attending the Workshop on Open Citations and Open Scholarly Metadata
• 18 – 22 October – ScienceOpen at Frankfurt Book Fair.
• 27 – 29 September – Attending OA Tage, Berlin .
• 25 – 27 September – ScienceOpen at Open Science Fair
• 19 – 21 September – OASPA 2023 Annual Conference .
• 22 – 24 May – ScienceOpen sponsoring Pint of Science, Berlin.
• 16-17 May – ScienceOpen at 3rd AEUP Conference.
• 20 – 21 April – ScienceOpen attending Scaling Small: Community-Owned Futures for Open Access Books .
• 18 – 20 April – ScienceOpen at the London Book Fair .

What is ScienceOpen?

• Smart search and discovery within an interactive interface
• Researcher promotion and ORCID integration
• Open evaluation with article reviews and Collections
• Business model based on providing services to publishers

Live Twitter stream

Some of our partners:.

🇺🇦    make metadata, not war

A comprehensive bibliographic database of the world’s scholarly literature

The world’s largest collection of open access research papers, machine access to our vast unique full text corpus, core features, indexing the world’s repositories.

We serve the global network of repositories and journals

Comprehensive data coverage

We provide both metadata and full text access to our comprehensive collection through our APIs and Datasets

Powerful services

We create powerful services for researchers, universities, and industry

Cutting-edge solutions

We research and develop innovative data-driven and AI solutions

Committed to the POSI

Cost-free PIDs for your repository

OAI identifiers are unique identifiers minted cost-free by repositories. Ensure that your repository is correctly configured, enabling the CORE OAI Resolver to redirect your identifiers to your repository landing pages.

OAI IDs provide a cost-free option for assigning Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) to your repository records. Learn more.

Who we serve?

Enabling others to create new tools and innovate using a global comprehensive collection of research papers.

“ Our partnership with CORE will provide Turnitin with vast amounts of metadata and full texts that we can ... ” Show more

Gareth Malcolm, Content Partner Manager at Turnitin

Academic institutions.

Making research more discoverable, improving metadata quality, helping to meet and monitor open access compliance.

“ CORE’s role in providing a unified search of repository content is a great tool for the researcher and ex... ” Show more

Nicola Dowson, Library Services Manager at Open University

Researchers & general public.

Tools to find, discover and explore the wealth of open access research. Free for everyone, forever.

“ With millions of research papers available across thousands of different systems, CORE provides an invalu... ” Show more

Jon Tennant, Rogue Paleontologist and Founder of the Open Science MOOC

Helping funders to analyse, audit and monitor open research and accelerate towards open science.

“ Aggregation plays an increasingly essential role in maximising the long-term benefits of open access, hel... ” Show more

Ben Johnson, Research Policy Adviser at Research England

Our services, access to raw data.

Create new and innovative solutions.

Content discovery

Find relevant research and make your research more visible.

Managing content

Manage how your research content is exposed to the world.

Companies using CORE

Gareth Malcolm

Content Partner Manager at Turnitin

Our partnership with CORE will provide Turnitin with vast amounts of metadata and full texts that we can utilise in our plagiarism detection software.

Academic institution using CORE

Kathleen Shearer

Executive Director of the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)

CORE has significantly assisted the academic institutions participating in our global network with their key mission, which is their scientific content exposure. In addition, CORE has helped our content administrators to showcase the real benefits of repositories via its added value services.

Partner projects

Ben Johnson

Research Policy Adviser

Aggregation plays an increasingly essential role in maximising the long-term benefits of open access, helping to turn the promise of a 'research commons' into a reality. The aggregation services that CORE provides therefore make a very valuable contribution to the evolving open access environment in the UK.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 29 April 2024

How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer

• Dalmeet Singh Chawla

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

RedacTek’s tool alerts users to PubPeer discussions, and indicates when a study, or the papers that it cites, has been retracted. Credit: deepblue4you/Getty

A free online tool released earlier this month alerts researchers when a paper cites studies that are mentioned on the website PubPeer , a forum scientists often use to raise integrity concerns surrounding published papers.

Studies are usually flagged on PubPeer when readers have suspicions, for example about image manipulation , plagiarism , data fabrication or artificial intelligence (AI)-generated text . PubPeer already offers its own browser plug-in that alerts users when a study that they are reading has been posted on the site. The new tool, a plug-in released on 13 April by RedacTek , based in Oakland, California, goes further — it searches through reference lists for papers that have been flagged. The software pulls information from many sources, including PubPeer’s database; data from the digital-infrastructure organization Crossref, which assigns digital object identifiers to articles; and OpenAlex , a free index of hundreds of millions of scientific documents.

It’s important to track mentions of referenced articles on PubPeer, says Jodi Schneider, an information scientist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who has tried out the RedacTek plug-in. “Not every single reference that’s in the bibliography matters, but some of them do,” she adds. “When you see a large number of problems in somebody’s bibliography, that just calls everything into question.”

The aim of the tool is to flag potential problems with studies to researchers early on, to reduce the circulation of poor-quality science, says RedacTek founder Rick Meyler, based in Emeryville, California. Future versions might also use AI to automatically clarify whether the PubPeer comments on a paper are positive or negative, he adds.

Third-generation retractions

As well as flagging PubPeer discussions, the plug-in indicates when a study, or the papers that it cites, has been retracted. There are existing tools that alert academics about retracted citations ; some can do this during the writing process, so that researchers are aware of the publication status of studies when constructing bibliographies. But with the new tool, users can opt in to receive notifications about further ‘generations’ of retractions — alerts cover not only the study that they are reading, but also the papers it cites, articles cited by those references and even papers cited by the secondary references.

The software also calculates a ‘retraction association value’ for studies, a metric that measures the extent to which the paper is associated with science that has been withdrawn from the literature. As well as informing individual researchers, the plug-in could help scholarly publishers to keep tabs on their own journals, Meyler says, because it allows users to filter by publication.

In its ‘paper scorecard’, the tool also flags any papers in the three generations of referenced studies in which more than 25% of papers in the bibliography are self-citations — references by authors to their previous works.

Future versions could highlight whether papers cited retracted studies before or after the retraction was issued, notes Meyler, or whether mentions of such studies acknowledge the retraction. That would be useful, says Schneider, who co-authored a 2020 analysis that found that as little as 4% of citations to retracted studies note that the referenced paper has been retracted 1 .

Meyler says that RedacTek is currently in talks with scholarly-services firm Cabell’s International in Beaumont, Texas, which maintains pay-to-view lists of suspected predatory journals , which publish articles without proper quality checks for issues such as plagiarism but still collect authors’ fees. The plan is to use these lists to improve the tool so that it can also automatically flag any cited papers that are published in such journals.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01247-6

Schneider, J., Ye, D., Hill, A. M. & Whitehorn, A. S. Scientometrics 125 , 2877–2913 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Predatory-journal papers have little scientific impact

Pioneer behind controversial PubPeer site reveals his identity

• Scientific community

My PI yelled at me and I’m devastated. What do I do?

Career Feature 02 MAY 24

US National Academies report outlines barriers and solutions for scientist carers

Career News 02 MAY 24

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Nature Index 01 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

Silver Endowed Chair (Developmental Psychiatry)(Open Rank Faculty)

The Robert A. Silver Endowed Chair in Developmental Neurobiology leads an internationally recognized, competitively funded research program...

Tampa, Florida

University of South Florida - Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences

W2 Professorship with tenure track to W3 in Animal Husbandry (f/m/d)

The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Göttingen invites applications for a temporary professorship with civil servant status (g...

Göttingen (Stadt), Niedersachsen (DE)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Postdoctoral Associate- Cardiovascular Research

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Director, NLM

Vacancy Announcement Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health   DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE   THE POSITION:...

Bethesda, Maryland

National Library of Medicine - Office of the Director

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects

We present an approach for automatically generating and testing, in silico, social scientific hypotheses. This automation is made possible by recent advances in large language models (LLM), but the key feature of the approach is the use of structural causal models. Structural causal models provide a language to state hypotheses, a blueprint for constructing LLM-based agents, an experimental design, and a plan for data analysis. The fitted structural causal model becomes an object available for prediction or the planning of follow-on experiments. We demonstrate the approach with several scenarios: a negotiation, a bail hearing, a job interview, and an auction. In each case, causal relationships are both proposed and tested by the system, finding evidence for some and not others. We provide evidence that the insights from these simulations of social interactions are not available to the LLM purely through direct elicitation. When given its proposed structural causal model for each scenario, the LLM is good at predicting the signs of estimated effects, but it cannot reliably predict the magnitudes of those estimates. In the auction experiment, the in silico simulation results closely match the predictions of auction theory, but elicited predictions of the clearing prices from the LLM are inaccurate. However, the LLM's predictions are dramatically improved if the model can condition on the fitted structural causal model. In short, the LLM knows more than it can (immediately) tell.

This research was made possible by a generous grant from Dropbox Inc. Thanks to Jordan Ellenberg, Benjamin Lira Luttges, David Holtz, Bruce Sacerdote, Paul Röttger, Mohammed Alsobay, Ray Duch, Matt Schwartz, David Autor, and Dean Eckles for their helpful feedback. Author's contact information, code, and data are currently or will be available at http://www.benjaminmanning.io/. Both Benjamin S. Manning and Kehang Zhu contributed equally to this work. John J. Horton is a co-founder of a company, Expected Parrot Inc., using generative AI models for market research. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS

Publications output: u.s. trends and international comparisons.

• Report PDF (1.4 MB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (8.9 MB)
• Supplemental Materials - All Formats .ZIP (4.1 MB)
• MORE DOWNLOADS OPTIONS
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Publication Output by Region, Country, or Economy and by Scientific Field

This section of the report outlines trends over time in publication output across regions, countries, or economies and by fields of science. This section also provides insights into the research contributions of different regions, countries, or economies and how the focus of their scientific publications has changed over time. In addition, the section highlights variations in the distribution of publications across scientific fields for different regions, countries, or economies and examines trends over time in closed-access and open-access (OA) publications. This section also summarizes federal funding acknowledgments as a source of data to shed light on published research that received federal funding. (See sidebar Using Funding Acknowledgments to Track Federally Funded Research Over Time .)

Output by Region, Country, or Economy

Total worldwide S&E publication output reached 3.3 million articles in 2022, based on entries in the Scopus database. Indicators 2018 : Bibliometric Data Filters )." data-bs-content="Publication output includes only those indexed in the Scopus database. The publication output discussion uses fractional counting, which credits coauthored publications according to the collaborating institutions or regions, countries, or economies based on the proportion of their participating authors. Country assignments refer to the institutional address of authors, with partial credit given for each international coauthorship. As part of the data analysis, filters were employed on the raw Scopus S&E publication data to remove publications with questionable quality, which appear in what are sometimes called predatory journals (NSB Indicators 2018 : Bibliometric Data Filters )." data-endnote-uuid="a5778137-c92e-4694-991d-a1545bdcca18">​ Publication output includes only those indexed in the Scopus database. The publication output discussion uses fractional counting, which credits coauthored publications according to the collaborating institutions or regions, countries, or economies based on the proportion of their participating authors. Country assignments refer to the institutional address of authors, with partial credit given for each international coauthorship. As part of the data analysis, filters were employed on the raw Scopus S&E publication data to remove publications with questionable quality, which appear in what are sometimes called predatory journals (NSB Indicators 2018 : Bibliometric Data Filters ). Approximately 86% of publications in 2022 came from regions, countries, or economies with high-income and upper-middle-income economies ( Figure PBS-1 ). The number of publications from all income-level groups grew between 2003 and 2022 ( Table SPBS-2 ). Also, the number of publications from upper-middle-income economies grew more quickly than the number from high-income economies during the more recent period between 2010 and 2022.

• For grouped bar charts, Tab to the first data element (bar/line data point) which will bring up a pop-up with the data details
• To read the data in all groups Arrow-Down will go back and forth
• For bar/line chart data points are linear and not grouped, Arrow-Down will read each bar/line data points in order
• For line charts, Arrow-Left and Arrow-Right will move to the next set of data points after Tabbing to the first data point
• For stacked bars use the Arrow-Down key again after Tabbing to the first data bar
• Then use Arrow-Right and Arrow-Left to navigate the stacked bars within that stack
• Arrow-Down to advance to the next stack. Arrow-Up reverses

S&E publications, by income group: 2003–22

Article counts refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles produced by authors from different regions, countries, or economies, each region, country, or economy receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). Data are not directly comparable with data from Science and Engineering Indicators 2022 ; see the Technical Appendix for information on data filters. Low-income regions, countries, or economies are not included in this figure because of their low publication output. Data by region, country, or economy and income group are available in Table SPBS-2 . Regions, countries, or economies are allocated to income groups based on World Bank data, using their current designation. For example, all of China’s publications from 2003 to 2022 are counted as part of the upper-middle-income category because that is China's current designation.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics; Science-Metrix; Elsevier, Scopus abstract and citation database, accessed April 2023; World Bank Country and Lending Groups, accessed May 2023.

Science and Engineering Indicators

In 2022, six regions, countries, or economies each produced more than 100,000 articles: China, the United States, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Together, these leading regions, countries, or economies accounted for over 50% of the worldwide total in 2022 ( Figure PBS-2 ; Table PBS-1 ). Figure PBS-2 and Table PBS-1 , or whole counting, as in Table SPBS-17 . There is a slight difference between the United States and China when looking at the whole-counting total production numbers. Using whole counting for 2022, the United States had 605,633 articles, whereas China had 976,141. A whole-counting measure allocates one full count to each region, country, or economy with an author contributing to the article; in fractional counting, each region, country, or economy receives a proportion of the count based on the number of authors from that region, country, or economy. For example, if an article had four authors—two from the United States, one from China, and one from Brazil—the fractional scores would be half for the United States, a quarter for China, and a quarter for Brazil. The difference between whole and fractional counting indicates that the United States has more authors working with Chinese authors than China has working with U.S. authors." data-bs-content="The proportion of output attributable to the large producers is consistent whether using fractional counting, as in Figure PBS-2 and Table PBS-1 , or whole counting, as in Table SPBS-17 . There is a slight difference between the United States and China when looking at the whole-counting total production numbers. Using whole counting for 2022, the United States had 605,633 articles, whereas China had 976,141. A whole-counting measure allocates one full count to each region, country, or economy with an author contributing to the article; in fractional counting, each region, country, or economy receives a proportion of the count based on the number of authors from that region, country, or economy. For example, if an article had four authors—two from the United States, one from China, and one from Brazil—the fractional scores would be half for the United States, a quarter for China, and a quarter for Brazil. The difference between whole and fractional counting indicates that the United States has more authors working with Chinese authors than China has working with U.S. authors." data-endnote-uuid="a3ba485a-d862-4069-8166-933aa601ea66">​ The proportion of output attributable to the large producers is consistent whether using fractional counting, as in Figure PBS-2 and Table PBS-1 , or whole counting, as in Table SPBS-17 . There is a slight difference between the United States and China when looking at the whole-counting total production numbers. Using whole counting for 2022, the United States had 605,633 articles, whereas China had 976,141. A whole-counting measure allocates one full count to each region, country, or economy with an author contributing to the article; in fractional counting, each region, country, or economy receives a proportion of the count based on the number of authors from that region, country, or economy. For example, if an article had four authors—two from the United States, one from China, and one from Brazil—the fractional scores would be half for the United States, a quarter for China, and a quarter for Brazil. The difference between whole and fractional counting indicates that the United States has more authors working with Chinese authors than China has working with U.S. authors. In absolute numbers, the growth in worldwide annual publication output (from 2.0 million in 2010 to 3.3 million in 2022) was driven in particular by two countries: China (42% of additional publications during that period) and India (11%) together accounted for more than half of that increase in publications ( Figure PBS-3 ). Russia, South Korea, Iran, and Brazil made notable contributions to the growth in the number of publications from the rest of the world from 2010 to 2022 ( Figure PBS-3 ; Table SPBS-2 ). Generally, the set of the top 15 producers of S&E articles was the same each year between 2010 and 2022, with the exception of Iran replacing Taiwan in the top 15 beginning in 2014 ( Table PBS-1 ; Table SPBS-2 ).

S&E publications for 10 leading regions, countries, or economies: 2022

Article counts refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles produced by authors from different regions, countries, or economies, each region, country, or economy receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). Data by all countries, regions, and economies are available in Table SPBS-2 .

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics; Science-Metrix; Elsevier, Scopus abstract and citation database, accessed April 2023.

S&E publications in all fields for 15 largest producing regions, countries, or economies: 2012 and 2022

na = not applicable.

The regions, countries, or economies are ranked based on the 2022 total. Article counts refer to publications from conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal articles in S&E and indexed in Scopus (see Technical Appendix for more details). Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles from multiple regions, countries, or economies, each region, country, or economy receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). Detail may not add to total because of regions, countries, or economies that are not shown. Proportions are based on the world total excluding unclassified addresses (data not presented). Details and other regions, countries, or economies are available in Table SPBS-2 .

S&E publications, by selected region, country, or economy and rest of world: 2003–22

Article counts refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles produced by authors from different countries, each country receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). Data for all regions, countries, and economies are available in Table SPBS-2 .

The U.S. trend of moderate but increasing publication output varied by state. The National Science Board’s (NSB’s) State Data Tool ( https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states/ ) provides state-level data based on each state’s doctorate population and research and development (R&D) funding. Indicators include academic S&E article output per 1,000 science, engineering, and health doctorate holders in academia (NSB 2021a) and academic S&E article output per $1 million in academic S&E R&D funding (NSB 2021b).

Output by Scientific Field

The distribution of publications by field of science across region, country, or economy may indicate research priorities and capabilities. Health sciences was the field of science in which most articles were published in 2022, representing almost a quarter of all publications ( Table SPBS-2 and Table SPBS-10 ). Other fields with large numbers of publications included engineering (17% of publications in 2022), biological and biomedical sciences (13%), and social sciences (5%) ( Table SPBS-2 , Table SPBS-5 , Table SPBS-8 , and Table SPBS-16 ). In the United States, the European Union (EU-27), and Japan, health sciences publication output in 2022 far exceeded that of any other field. Table SPBS-17 through Table SPBS-31 )." data-bs-content="The use of whole counting or fractional counting to tally the publication output of nations can change the calculated publication count based on the degree to which a region, country, or economy is involved in international collaborations. Under whole counting, a nation receives credit for any publication with an author from that nation. Under fractional counting, the nation’s credit for a publication is prorated based on the share of the publication’s coauthors who are located in that nation ( Table SPBS-17 through Table SPBS-31 )." data-endnote-uuid="05c8023f-5250-4386-96cf-f321c7f293c4">​ The use of whole counting or fractional counting to tally the publication output of nations can change the calculated publication count based on the degree to which a region, country, or economy is involved in international collaborations. Under whole counting, a nation receives credit for any publication with an author from that nation. Under fractional counting, the nation’s credit for a publication is prorated based on the share of the publication’s coauthors who are located in that nation ( Table SPBS-17 through Table SPBS-31 ). Meanwhile, of the other top producers, publications from China were most highly concentrated in engineering (25%), and publications from India were published predominantly in computer and information sciences (21%) ( Figure PBS-4 ).

Distribution of national S&E research portfolios across scientific fields, by selected region, country, or economy: 2022

EU-27 = European Union.

Articles refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles from multiple countries, each country receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). See Table SPBS-1 for countries included in the EU; beginning in 2020, the United Kingdom was no longer a member of the EU. See Table SPBS-3 through Table SPBS-16 for data on all regions, countries, and economies by each S&E field.

Fields within life sciences were dominant in the United States in 2022, with more than half of all U.S. publications in health sciences (37%) or biological and biomedical sciences (14%) ( Figure PBS-5 ). There were fewer U.S. publications in engineering (11%), computer and information sciences (7%), and physics (5%). In comparison with the United States, China had a stronger focus on publications in engineering and in the physical sciences and information sciences. In 2022, 25% of China’s publications were in engineering, 11% were in computer and information sciences, and 9% were in physics ( Figure PBS-6 ). Compared with the United States, China had a lower percentage of its publications in health sciences (14%) and biological and biomedical sciences (12%). In 2022, China also had a much lower percentage of its publications in social sciences (1%) when compared with the United States (8%).

U.S. S&E publication portfolio, by field of science: 2022

Articles refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles from multiple countries, each country receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). See Table SPBS-3 through Table SPBS-16 for data on all regions, countries, and economies by each S&E field.

S&E publication portfolio from China, by field of science: 2022

Articles refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Articles are credited on a fractional count basis (i.e., for articles from multiple countries, each country receives fractional credit on the basis of the proportion of its participating authors). See Table SPBS-3 through Table SPBS-16 for data on all regions, countries, and economies and by each S&E field.

All the leading regions, countries, or economies saw an increase in their output of health sciences publications between 2010 and 2022. This increase is to be expected, given the context of increasing publication rates in general over that period, with overall number of publications increasing by 71% ( Table SPBS-2 ), while publications in health sciences increased by 66% ( Table SPBS-10 ). Russia had the highest relative growth rate among the 20 leading regions, countries, or economies in health sciences, increasing its publication output by almost 450% between 2010 and 2022 ( Table SPBS-10 ). China and Iran each increased their output of health sciences publications by more than 250% over this period, while India’s health sciences publication output increased by more than 180%. The United States increased its output of health sciences publications by 32% over this period, while Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan had the smallest increases, each with less than 20%.

Leading regions, countries, or economies also saw increases in engineering publications. The fastest growing between 2010 and 2022 were India (up 378%) and Russia (up 230%) ( Table SPBS-8 ). China increased its output of engineering publications by 176% from 2010 to 2022, while France, the United States, and Japan all saw declines in newly published engineering articles per year over this period (3%, 13%, and 26%, respectively).

In the United States, publication output varied from that of other regions, countries, or economies with respect to scientific fields. Of the fields not already mentioned, the fastest growing from 2010 to 2022 were psychology (up 39% from 2010 to 2022) and the social sciences (up 38%) ( Figure PBS-7 ). Meanwhile, fields with the largest decreases in U.S. publications included physics (down 31% from 2010 to 2022) and materials science (down 16%).

Index of U.S. publications, by field: 2010–22

Using funding acknowledgments to track federally funded research over time.

Federally funded research is an important component of the research ecosystem and is often envisioned as a means of supporting science performed for public benefit that may not otherwise be motivated by commercial interest (Bornmann 2013; Stephan 2012; Yin et al. 2022). Federal research funding supports applied and basic research (see Indicators 2022 report “ Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons ”) and has long been linked to successful expansions in scientific production—through the increased productivity and impact of individual researchers and laboratories (Ebadi and Schiffauerova 2016) and the national scale (Leydesdorff and Wagner 2009). This sidebar explores funding acknowledgments, as recorded in Scopus, as an emerging source to help illustrate the extent to which published research is supported by federal agencies and the trends in federally funded research. Specifically, the share of published research acknowledging support by federal funding was highest in chemistry and smaller in other fields, such as the social sciences ( Table PBS-A ). These differences may be driven by factors such as the resource costs to conduct research and by field differences, such as the overall frequency of publication, team size, and cultural differences among the disciplines. The time period analyzed in this sidebar is 2018–22, unless otherwise indicated.

Funding acknowledgments can shed light on the ability and priorities of federal funding to support discovery as measured by peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings. However, some benefits and limitations of this emerging data source are important to highlight so as to accurately interpret these trends. Each peer-reviewed journal article and conference proceeding in the Scopus database includes a field for funding acknowledgments that are extracted by algorithmic (software) means. In some cases where the acknowledgments field is incomplete, funding information from agencies is also used to identify funded publications in Scopus. Using this field, it is possible to observe the conversion of federal funds to published research outputs, but a direct linkage between funding inputs and published discoveries remains challenging. First, extraction of this information into a structured field is a relatively new effort and is most complete for the most recent 4 years. Figure SPBS-1 shows how funding acknowledgment sections have grown in coverage since 2003 and that funding information was indexed for 68% of all publications in 2022. * Many factors may have contributed to this growth in addition to improved extraction, including increasing pressure and requirements from funders to include funding acknowledgments, standardization of acknowledgment language, and incentives to demonstrate high publication output—because future funding is tied to past conversion of funds into publications—while receiving funding. † Last, this inquiry helps explore research that acknowledges any federal funding but does not only account for publications that source all their funding from a single source. In practice, a publication may be generated using funding from multiple sources within the federal government, or from additional sources in state government, local government, or the private sector.

U.S. S&E publications with and without acknowledgments of U.S. federal funding: 2003–22

Articles are classified by their year of publication and are assigned to a region, country, or economy on the basis of the institutional address(es) of the author(s) listed in the article. Whole counting is used. An article is considered to be federally funded if the funding information tied with the publication record in Scopus links it with one of the U.S. federal agencies. Not all Scopus publications have funding information available, and coverage has evolved with time. For more information, see Figure SPBS-1 . For a breakdown of federally funded papers by funding agency, see Table SPBS-90 .

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics; Science-Metrix; Elsevier, Scopus abstract and citation database, accessed April 2023.

Figure PBS-A tracks the growth of federally funded publications relative to the total research production in the United States. Other than a small downturn from 2021 to 2022, every year has seen an increase from the previous year in the number of publications that acknowledge funding support from federal agencies. The most comprehensive data from the past 4 years show variation among subject areas in the percentage of publications that acknowledge federal support. Table PBS-A shows number and share of publications appearing between 2018 and 2022 that acknowledged funding from federal sources and those acknowledging funding from other sources. During this time, more than 50% of publications in the following subject fields acknowledged federal funding support: chemistry (55% of publications), biological and biomedical sciences (53%), astronomy and astrophysics (53%), and physics (52%). Only two subject areas have less than 30% of publications with federal funding acknowledged: agricultural sciences (28%), and social sciences (15%). Otherwise, all other fields had between 30% and 50% of their publications acknowledging federal funding.

U.S. S&E publications, by U.S. federal funding status and field: 2018–22

In conclusion, federal funding plays an important role in the current research environment in the United States. Of the 606,144 articles published in journals and conference proceedings in 2022, 35% acknowledged support from federal agencies ( Figure PBS-A ). Ultimately, acknowledgment of federal funding can help show trends in the conversion of grants into published research over time and show variation at the subject or field level.

* Missing data in funding fields in a Scopus entry may mean that the research did not receive funding, the authors did not cite any funding despite receiving it, or the algorithm was unable to extract the acknowledgment. Of the articles from 2003 that had an entry for funding acknowledgment (27% had text in the funding field in Scopus), around 76% acknowledged a federal funding source. Comparatively, of the publications in 2022 with indexed funding information (68%), 52% acknowledged a federal source. The growth of coverage of funding not being tied to federal funding acknowledgments provides evidence that the data source has become more dependable over time. Data for the percentage of publications with indexed funding sources by year and field can be found in Figure SPBS-1 .

† Table SPBS-90 displays the number of articles and conference proceedings acknowledging federal funding at the agency level and sub-agency level. These counts represent the number of supported articles as acknowledged and attributed in Scopus from 2003 to 2022.

Output and Open Access

There is growing support for the availability of S&E publications through OA sources among government and private funders, institutions, and scientists themselves. Some of these funders have imposed requirements on their grantees to publish their research results in OA journals. In the United States, the Office of Science and Technology Policy announced that all federal agencies should update their public access policies as soon as possible to ensure that results of their funded research are publicly available, with full implementation of these policies by the end of 2025 (Brainard and Kaiser 2022). Meanwhile, restricted access to scientific literature may impede researchers’ ability to stay informed (Larivière and Sugimoto 2018; Piwowar et al. 2018). As alternatives to traditional closed-access journals (where readers must subscribe to gain access or pay per article), articles may be made OA through several avenues, with different levels of availability and durability.

There are four commonly defined types of OA: Gold, Hybrid, Bronze, and Green. Gold OA denotes articles published in journals that are entirely OA as a matter of journal policy. Hybrid OA denotes articles for which the authors have elected to pay a fee for publication as OA rather than as closed access. Bronze OA denotes articles that appear as OA after an embargo period of closed access or articles that appear available as OA despite lacking license information to guarantee OA in the long term. Green OA denotes articles that are self-archived by authors in OA repositories, which are often maintained, curated, and administered by universities or other institutions. The Hybrid and Bronze categories have been combined as Other Journal-Based OA in this report because of their similar structure as journal-hosted types of OA that allow only conditional—and potentially revocable—OA.

The number of articles published annually in closed-access journals increased by 112% between 2003 and 2022 ( Figure PBS-8 ). Over the same period, annual publishing of Green OA articles increased by 228%, while Other Journal-Based OA articles (Hybrid and Bronze OA) increased by 198%. Gold OA articles (which are published in OA journals with no restrictions) had the largest percentage growth, from 19,089 articles in 2003 to 991,805 articles in 2022, an increase of over 5,000%. Hence, although the majority (77%) of S&E articles in 2003 whose access status is known were published in closed-access journals, fewer than half (49%) were in closed-access journals in 2022.

S&E publications, by publication access type: 2003–22

OA = open access.

Articles refer to publications from a selection of conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals in S&E fields from Scopus. Articles are classified by their year of publication. OA types are mutually exclusive. For articles published under multiple OA types, the article will be counted as part of only the first type it matches in this list: Gold OA, Other Journal-Based OA, or Green OA. Summing all OA and closed-access article counts results in a smaller number of articles than for all S&E because the access status of some articles (e.g., those without digital object identifiers) cannot be reliably ascertained. Green articles are published in toll-access journals but archived in an OA archive, or "repository." These repositories may be discipline specific (like arXiv) or institutional repositories operated by universities or other institutions. Green articles may be published versions or preprints and can have any license or no license. Bronze (Other Journal-Based OA) articles are free to read on the publisher's website, without a license that grants any other rights. There may be a delay between publication and availability to read, and often articles can be removed unilaterally by the publisher. Hybrid (Other Journal-Based OA) articles are free to read at the time of publication, with an open license. These are usually published in exchange for an article processing charge. Gold articles have all the same characteristics as Hybrid articles but are published in all-OA journals, which are in turn called "Gold journals" or just "OA journals."

To conclude this section, the findings of the output analysis reveal the growth in scientific publications over time, with upper-middle-income economies exhibiting particularly large percentage increases. Meanwhile, the distribution of publications across scientific fields shows that life sciences dominated in the United States, Europe, and Japan, whereas publications in engineering and computer sciences dominated in China and India. In OA, the dramatic growth of Gold OA publications and the steady growth of publications in other OA categories show an increased shift toward open science. However, OA can impede the dissemination of some scientific research. Publishing research as OA often requires authors to pay article processing fees, which may be prohibitive for scientists in less-developed nations or whose funders do not subsidize those fees. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing . Wiley APCs are at https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/article-publication-charges.html . Springer Nature APCs are at https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/journals-books/journals ." data-bs-content="Many publishers make their article processing charges (APCs) known publicly. For example, a list of Elsevier APCs can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing . Wiley APCs are at https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/article-publication-charges.html . Springer Nature APCs are at https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/journals-books/journals ." data-endnote-uuid="9a612a36-466d-4d60-af1a-57e93bd50e76">​ Many publishers make their article processing charges (APCs) known publicly. For example, a list of Elsevier APCs can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing . Wiley APCs are at https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/article-publication-charges.html . Springer Nature APCs are at https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/journals-books/journals . The fees can be seen as shifting the costs of accessing research from readers and libraries to authors (Larivière and Sugimoto 2018).

Related Content

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Digital Libraries

Title: from chatgpt, dall-e 3 to sora: how has generative ai changed digital humanities research and services.

Abstract: Generative large-scale language models create the fifth paradigm of scientific research, organically combine data science and computational intelligence, transform the research paradigm of natural language processing and multimodal information processing, promote the new trend of AI-enabled social science research, and provide new ideas for digital humanities research and application. This article profoundly explores the application of large-scale language models in digital humanities research, revealing their significant potential in ancient book protection, intelligent processing, and academic innovation. The article first outlines the importance of ancient book resources and the necessity of digital preservation, followed by a detailed introduction to developing large-scale language models, such as ChatGPT, and their applications in document management, content understanding, and cross-cultural research. Through specific cases, the article demonstrates how AI can assist in the organization, classification, and content generation of ancient books. Then, it explores the prospects of AI applications in artistic innovation and cultural heritage preservation. Finally, the article explores the challenges and opportunities in the interaction of technology, information, and society in the digital humanities triggered by AI technologies.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .