Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2201.02006

A comparison of different methods of identifying publications related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Case Study of SDG 13: Climate Action

Philip James Purnell
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As sustainability becomes an increasing priority throughout global society, academic and research institutions are assessed on their contribution to relevant research publications. This study compares four methods of identifying research publications related to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13: climate action. The four methods, Elsevier, STRINGS, SIRIS, and Dimensions have each developed search strings with the help of subject matter experts which are then enhanced through distinct methods to produce a final set of publications. Our analysis showed that the methods produced comparable quantities of publications but with little overlap between them. We visualised some difference in topic focus between the methods and drew links with the search strategies used. Differences between publications retrieved are likely to come from subjective interpretation of the goals, keyword selection, operationalising search strategies, AI enhancements, and selection of bibliographic database. Each of the elements warrants deeper investigation to understand their role in identifying SDG-related research. Before choosing any method to assess the research contribution to SDGs, end users of SDG data should carefully consider their interpretation of the goal and determine which of the available methods produces the closest dataset. Meanwhile data providers might customise their methods for varying interpretations of the SDGs.

Explore related subjects

cs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Philip James Purnell. 2022-09-15. A comparison of different methods of identifying publications related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Case Study of SDG 13: Climate Action. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00215

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

FMMD: A multimodal multidisciplinary dataset of open peer reviews from F1000Research

Automated scholarly paper review (ASPR) has entered the coexistence phase with traditional peer review, where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly incorporated into real-world manuscript evaluation. In parallel, research on automated and AI-assisted peer review has proliferated. Despite this momentum, empirical progress remains constrained by several critical limitations in existing datasets. While reviewers routinely evaluate figures, tables, and complex layouts to assess scientific claims, most existing datasets remain overwhelmingly text-centric. This bias is reinforced by a narrow focus on data from computer science publications. Furthermore, existing datasets rarely preserve precise alignment between review comments and specific manuscript versions, obscuring the iterative relationship between peer review and manuscript evolution. In response, we introduce FMMD, a multimodal and multidisciplinary open peer review dataset curated from F1000Research. The dataset addresses the current limitations by integrating manuscript-level visual and structural data with version-specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions. By explicitly aligning review comments with the exact article version under review, FMMD enables granular analysis of the peer review lifecycle. Importantly, its coverage of F1000Research extends ASPR research beyond its traditional focus on computer science to a diverse range of scientific disciplines. FMMD supports a range of research tasks, including visual-semantic consistency classification, figure-related review comment generation, and editorial decision prediction based on multimodal manuscript inputs, thereby providing a comprehensive empirical resource for developing and evaluating multimodal ASPR systems and advancing peer review research.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

GitScholar: A Dataset for Predicting AI Research Impact from GitHub Engagement

With the rapid pace of AI research and the hundreds of daily new publications, staying up-to-date with the latest developments has become increasingly difficult. For researchers, quickly identifying impactful work is essential, yet manually reviewing each new publication is impractical. Automated impact prediction methods help address this challenge, usually by combining various information sources available, such as a paper's content or citation history. In this work, we propose using GitHub engagement as an additional source and demonstrate that it provides both a timely and accurate signal. To this end, we introduce GitScholar, a novel dataset that links GitHub activity from 444,000 repositories to over 558,000 AI arXiv papers. Our experiments show that GitHub reactions improve early prediction precision by up to 12% over a strong academic baseline. Additionally, we find that GitHub signal offers near-complete coverage of high-impact AI papers, and consistently correlates with future academic success. GitScholar is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/huawei-csl/GitScholar.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL↗