When a Paper Has 1000 Authors: Rethinking Citation Metrics in the Era of LLMs
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06004v1
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 04:18:26 GMT
- Title: When a Paper Has 1000 Authors: Rethinking Citation Metrics in the Era of LLMs
- Authors: Weihang Guo, Zhao Song, Jiahao Zhang,
- Abstract summary: Author-level citation metrics provide a practical, interpretable, and scalable signal of scholarly influence in a complex research ecosystem.<n>The past five years have seen the rapid emergence of large-scale publications in the field of large language models and foundation models.<n>We propose the SBCI index, analyze its theoretical properties, and evaluate its behavior on synthetic publication datasets.
- Score: 11.503915439591735
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Author-level citation metrics provide a practical, interpretable, and scalable signal of scholarly influence in a complex research ecosystem. It has been widely used as a proxy in hiring decisions. However, the past five years have seen the rapid emergence of large-scale publications in the field of large language models and foundation models, with papers featuring hundreds to thousands of co-authors and receiving tens of thousands of citations within months. For example, Gemini has 1361 authors and has been cited around 4600 times in 19 months. In such cases, traditional metrics, such as total citation count and the $h$-index, fail to meaningfully distinguish individual contributions. Therefore, we propose the following research question: How can one identify standout researchers among thousands of co-authors in large-scale LLM papers? This question is particularly important in scenarios such as academic hiring and funding decisions. In this paper, we introduce a novel citation metric designed to address this challenge by balancing contributions across large-scale and small-scale publications. We propose the SBCI index, analyze its theoretical properties, and evaluate its behavior on synthetic publication datasets. Our results demonstrate that the proposed metric provides a more robust and discriminative assessment of individual scholarly impact in the era of large-scale collaborations.
Related papers
- Does GenAI Rewrite How We Write? An Empirical Study on Two-Million Preprints [15.070885964897734]
Generative large language models (LLMs) introduce a further potential disruption by altering how manuscripts are written.<n>This paper addresses the gap through a large-scale analysis of more than 2.1 million preprints spanning 2016--2025 (115 months) across four major repositories.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs have accelerated submission and revision cycles, modestly increased linguistic complexity, and disproportionately expanded AI-related topics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-18T01:37:40Z) - Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals.
Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z) - Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process [82.2069685579588]
We investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research.
We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023.
Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-24T20:05:49Z) - CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations [80.82622421055734]
CausalCite is a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers.
It is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-05T23:09:39Z) - Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References [3.607567777043649]
This study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not.
By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-27T19:51:44Z) - A Measure of Research Taste [91.3755431537592]
We present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste.
The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity.
We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-17T18:01:47Z) - Enhancing Scientific Papers Summarization with Citation Graph [78.65955304229863]
We redefine the task of scientific papers summarization by utilizing their citation graph.
We construct a novel scientific papers summarization dataset Semantic Scholar Network (SSN) which contains 141K research papers in different domains.
Our model can achieve competitive performance when compared with the pretrained models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-07T11:13:35Z) - Early Indicators of Scientific Impact: Predicting Citations with
Altmetrics [0.0]
We use altmetrics to predict the short-term and long-term citations that a scholarly publication could receive.
We build various classification and regression models and evaluate their performance, finding neural networks and ensemble models to perform best for these tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-12-25T16:25:07Z) - What's New? Summarizing Contributions in Scientific Literature [85.95906677964815]
We introduce a new task of disentangled paper summarization, which seeks to generate separate summaries for the paper contributions and the context of the work.
We extend the S2ORC corpus of academic articles by adding disentangled "contribution" and "context" reference labels.
We propose a comprehensive automatic evaluation protocol which reports the relevance, novelty, and disentanglement of generated outputs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-06T02:23:01Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.