LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

Mathematical knowledge is split between bibliographic databases (e.g., MathSciNet, zbMATH Open) and formal proof libraries (e.g., Lean mathlib), preventing unified access between published results and their formalizations. We propose a relational bridge-database that aligns publication metadata with formal artifacts, providing an interoperability layer between mathematical literature and machine-verifiable proofs. We introduce a paper-level formalization score that measures how much of a publication is covered in formal systems. As a feasibility study, we show how such scores can be estimated via cross-document alignment between informal texts and Lean formalizations, enabling large-scale analysis of formalization coverage. This framework is a first step toward integrating bibliographic and formal mathematical ecosystems into scalable, machine-actionable knowledge graphs linking publications to formal proof objects.

Atom probe tomography (APT) literature is broad, rapidly growing, and dispersed across a wide range of journals, which can make it difficult to identify prior work on a given material system, instrument, or analytical approach. Conventional search engines (e.g., Google Scholar) excel at general retrieval but do not preserve the domain-specific metadata that often determines the relevance of an APT publication (e.g., analysis mode, laser wavelength, or instrument configuration). Herein, APTLAS is presented, which is an indexed repository of published APT literature. At present, the database contains ~2,300 records, each accompanied by metadata extracted from the source publication. The accompanying web tool, available at this https URL, allows users to browse and filter by material system, instrument, application, publication type, or keyword search.

In academic publishing, names connect scholars to their work. When scholars change their names, including for marriage, academic recognition, or gender transition, they may lose credit for past publications. However, despite significant impacts on citation accuracy and researcher well-being, no existing studies examine how naming policies in computer science serve researchers who change their names. We use a mixed-methods approach combining surveys, interviews, and large-scale citation analysis of papers from eight major computer science venues from 2019-2025. We document the multi-year advocacy effort that established the first name change policies, identify implementation barriers including incomplete publisher updates and months-long processing delays. Researchers continue being cited with misparsed and incorrect names despite publisher updates. When these citation errors happen, interviewees report significant mental health impacts, including stress, anxiety, and safety risks. Empirically, we find that venues with accessible and visible name change policies have significantly fewer citation errors compared to inaccessible policies (899 vs. 996 errors per 1,000 papers). Our annotation analysis shows that deadnaming of transgender researchers in citations decreased by 92% from 2019 to 2024. Our findings demonstrate the importance of inclusive publishing policies, for which name change policy advocacy led by trans researchers has been a significant driver. We recommend that venues adopt proactive visible name change policies, support queer advocacy groups, and improve publication infrastructure to build an inclusive publishing landscape. The accompanied toolkit to check errors in bibliographic latex file is available here this https URL.

Science advances not only by accumulating discovered patterns but by changing how new problems and solutions are expressed. While structural indicators track scholarly attention, they offer only an indirect proxy for the reorganization of meaning. We propose a semantic geometry based on the R-P-C (references, focal publication, and citing publications) framework to quantify how a publication positions itself relative to its knowledge base and diffusion. This geometry identifies three publication types: consolidating, exploratory and balanced. Our results show that the semantic similarity and distance between a publication's knowledge base and diffusion serve as a semantic foundation for disruption, with novelty (atypical reference combinations) acting as an antecedent disturbance that triggers a semantic rupture. This is related to team size, where small teams preserve a higher potential for exploratory departures while large collaborations systematically align with paradigmatic consolidation. Crucially, this geometry explains why citation trajectories differ; consolidating research earns rapid recognition by lowering comprehension costs, while exploratory work faces high paradigm conversion costs that result in slower, more selective diffusion. Collectively, this R-P-C framework provides a robust instrument for monitoring the dynamics of scientific paradigms.

This paper presents a comprehensive dataset of doctoral theses defended in France between 1985 and 2025, constructed from multiple national academic metadata sources. The dataset is primarily based on data from the French national thesis platform and is enriched using additional authority and bibliographic databases to improve data quality, completeness, and interoperability. The data production pipeline includes the aggregation of heterogeneous sources, the correction of inconsistent identifiers, the enrichment of person and institution records, and the construction of derived variables describing academic careers, jury participation, institutional affiliations, and thesis characteristics. Additional identifiers from major academic repositories and library catalogues are integrated to facilitate linkage with external data sources and future dataset extensions. The resulting dataset provides structured information at the thesis, individual, and institutional levels, enabling both descriptive and relational analyses. This resource is particularly suited for research on doctoral education, academic networks, supervision practices, jury composition, institutional collaboration, and the evolution of research communities over time. The paper documents the data sources, processing pipeline, feature construction, data quality issues, and limitations, with the objective of facilitating reuse of the dataset by other researchers and supporting future extensions and longitudinal analyses of the academic system.

Scientific literature is increasingly fragmented by disciplinary boundaries, specialized terminology, and potentially sparse keyword systems, making it difficult to capture the evolving structure of modern science. This study introduces a large language model (LLM)-driven framework for mapping scientific literature from a topic modeling perspective. The approach is demonstrated on a 20-year corpus of more than 1,500 engineering-related articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). A two-stage classification pipeline first assigns a primary thematic category to each article based on its abstract, followed by full-text analysis to identify secondary classifications that reveal latent cross-topic connections within the corpus. Unlike conventional topic models, the LLM-based framework produces semantically interpretable topics while maintaining strong quantitative performance. Comparative evaluation against established topic modeling methods shows higher topic diversity and lower overlap with competitive coherence metrics. Manual validation on a randomly sampled subset of abstracts yields an accuracy of 75.9%. Additional traditional natural language processing analyses confirm that the generated topics correspond to meaningful linguistic patterns in the corpus. A bipartite network linking primary and secondary classifications further reveals implicit thematic relationships that are not readily observable through abstracts or keyword systems alone. The findings indicate that the framework independently recovers much of the journal's editorial dual-classification structure without prior knowledge of its schema. Overall, the proposed approach offers a powerful tool for mapping science and identifying emerging cross-topic connections in research.