Publication Numbers are Increasing at American Research Universities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of:
 Budd, J. (2017). Faculty publications and citations: a longitudinal examination. College & Research Libraries, 78(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.80
 Abstract
 Objective – To study the publishing output and citation activity of faculty at research universities.
 Design – Bibliometric and citation analysis.
 Setting – Academic citation databases.
 Subjects – Institutions in the United States that are members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
 Methods – This study builds on three previous studies conducted by the author looking at faculty publication productivity, which were conducted for three different time periods beginning in 1991. For the present study, the author searched Scopus by institution to collect the total number of publications and citations for the faculty of more than 100 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member universities, covering the years 2011 to 2013. The author acquired the total number of faculty at each institution from the ARL website. The faculty number from the ARL website and publication and citation data from Scopus were used to calculate the per capita publication and citation numbers for each institution. The author calculated the total mean number of publications and the mean number of per capita publications per university. Chi tests were used to compare the means for statistical significance. 
 Main Results – The number of both total and per capita publications for each institution went up over the course of all three studies. The mean number of total publications per university for 1991 to 1993, the first time period studied, was 4,595.8; for the time period of the current study, 2011 to 2013, the mean was 9,662.0. For per capita publications, the mean for 1991 to 1993 was 3.56 and the mean for the present study was 5.96. Based on chi-square tests, the results were found to be statistically significant.
 Conclusions – The study found that the number of total publications increased significantly over time, exceeding the author’s statistical expectations based on previous work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.263 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it