Computer science in Eastern Europe 1989-2014: a bibliometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study the development of research in computer science in 15 Eastern European countries following the breaching of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of 82,121 computer science publications indexed in the Web of Science database and investigated publication, citation, and collaboration patterns of the individual countries. Findings – Poland has been the most productive country, followed by Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, and Slovenia. Publication rates have increased substantially over the period, but this has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the quality of the publications. Hungary and Slovenia are the most influential countries in terms of citations per paper. Artificial Intelligence is the most frequently occurring computer science subject category, with Interdisciplinary Applications the category with the greatest impact. USA, Germany, UK, France, and Canada are the most frequently collaborating western nations, and papers published in collaboration with US authors accrue the most citations. Originality/value – This is the first ever bibliometric study of the whole post-communist Eastern European computer science research as indexed in the Web of Science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.082 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".