Gergő Háló

This study examines shifting patterns in global academic knowledge production through the lens of world-systems theory, focusing on the role of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in reshaping epistemic hierarchies. Drawing on longitudinal bibliometric data (1996–2023), it analyses publication volumes, international collaborations and open access trends across core (U.S., U.K.), semi-peripheral and peripheral regions, with special attention to China’s emergence as a leading scientific producer. The paper highlights a growing divergence in AI infrastructure and access: Western scholars increasingly rely on open tools like ChatGPT, while China’s closed ecosystem is governed by distinct political and epistemic norms. Thesedevelopments may entrench parallel scientific systems, exacerbating inequalities in visibility, legitimacy and collaboration. As AI becomes a central driver of researchpractices, this paper argues for inclusive, interoperable knowledge infrastructures to avoid deepening global academic fragmentation. The findings offer a critical perspective on the geopolitics of knowledge in the digital age.

The rise of populist communication on social media has attracted increasing scholarly attention since the late 2010s. However, the global research landscape on this phenomenon has not yet been comprehensively mapped, and there is also an absence of meta-research in the field to identify the quantitative design challenges scholars face. This article fills those gaps and suggests that the field should refine research designs. The study employs a two-stage empirical strategy. First, it conducts a scoping review of 122 peer-reviewed quantitative studies to synthesize major findings on populist communication on social media platforms. Second, it examines methodological and contextual factors associated with confirming, partially supporting, or rejecting hypotheses in a subset of 62 studies with Quasi-Poisson regressions. The results suggest that none of the examined variables affect the number of supported or partially supported hypotheses per study. However, multicountry designs, the inclusion of noncampaign periods, and longer timeframes are associated with a higher likelihood of rejecting hypotheses. These patterns point to an asymmetry in the evidence base: research design features predict hypothesis rejection more consistently than they predict hypothesis support. Consequently, we outline recommendations that can address these issues in future research.

The present paper outlines a comprehensive quantitative analysis of Eastern European communication journals indexed on Scopus, a largely overlooked area of global research. Drawing on Scopus, SciVal, SCImagoJR, and manual editorial board data, we assess 36 journals over the past decade, focusing on performance, visibility, internationalisation, authorship patterns, and editorial composition. Results show modest growth in indexed journals, though most remain in the lower quartiles. Journals with a higher level of international and collaborative authorship tend to have a greater impact. A small cohort of prolific authors dominates output, often with low citation impact; some of these authors also sit on the editorial boards of their preferred journals, raising ethical concerns. Our editorial analysis reveals that journals with internationally diverse boards publish more globally and rank higher. The findings also highlight both progress and persistent structural challenges in integrating EEC journals into global scholarly networks.

Este artículo analiza cómo la inteligencia artificial generativa (GenAI) redefine la comunicación académica, tomando a Iberoamérica como caso de estudio. Desde una perspectiva de sistema-mundo, mapeamos tendencias globales de publicación, marcos de gobernanza de IA (UE, EE.UU., China) y puntos de referencia regionales en producción, colaboración y acceso abierto. Identificamos recursos, como capacidad multilingüe y plataformas comunitarias de Acceso Abierto Diamante (Diamond OA), y vulnerabilidades, como estratificación por costo por procesamiento de artículo (APC), implicaciones de los modelos anglocéntricos de lenguaje extenso y dependencia de herramientas editoriales privativas. Proyectamos tres escenarios para 2025–2030: 1) Convergencia inclusiva con modelos extensos de lenguaje (LLM) públicos en español/portugués y Diamond OA que reducen brechas de visibilidad y colaboración; 2) Sistemas paralelos, con ecosistemas regulatorios divergentes que fragmentan flujos de trabajo; y 3) Captura de costos, donde las tasas de publicación (Article Processing Charges: APC) y paywalls concentran los beneficios de la IA entre actores con mayores recursos, socavando la bibliodiversidad. Proponemos una estrategia de beneficio garantizado: vincular inversiones en GenAI con infraestructuras abiertas, datos multilingües y revistas Diamond OA; estandarizar la divulgación de uso de IA; y fortalecer el poder negociador regional mediante consorcios de financiación y acceso equitativo a APIs. Estas medidas alinean la IA generativa con los preceptos de ciencia abierta, equidad lingüística y ecosistemas académicos viables en Iberoamérica.

Improving gender equality in top-tier scholars and addressing gender bias in research impact are among the significant challenges in academia. However, extant research has observed that lingering gender differences still undermine female scholars. This study examines the recognition of female scholars through Google Scholar data in four different subfields of communication, focusing on two pressing issues: (1) gender representation among the most cited scholars and (2) gender differences in citations. Our findings demonstrate significant differences in gender proportions among the most cited scholars across all subfields, but especially in Political Communication and Journalism. The regression analysis revealed significant differences in citation scores in Political Communication, Journalism, and the pooled sample. However, results revealed that gender differences in research impact were not statistically significant in Health Communication and Media Psychology. Our study advocates for shifts in the citing behavior of communication scholars, emphasizing the importance of actively recognizing and citing studies conducted by female researchers to drive advancements in communication research.

Purpose: Gender and geographical imbalance in production and impact levels is a pressing issue in global knowledge production. Within Health Sciences, while some studies found stark gender and geographical biases and inequalities, others found little empirical evidence of this marginalization. The purpose of the study is to clear the ambiguity concerning the topic.Design/methodology/approach: Based on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of Health Sciences research data downloaded from the Scival (Scopus/Scimago) database from 2017 to 2020 (n = 7,990), this study first compares gender representation in research productivity, as well as differences in terms of citation per document, citations per document view and view per document scores according to geographical location. Additionally, the study clarifies whether there is a geographic bias in productivity and impact measures (i.e. citation per document, citations per document view and view per document) moderated by gender.Findings: Results indicate that gender inequalities in productivity are systematic at the overall disciplinary, as well as the subfield levels. Findings also suggest statistically significant geographical differences in citation per document, citations per document view, and view per document scores, and interaction effect of gender over the relation between geography and (1) the number of citations per view and (2) the number of views per document.Originality/value: This study contributes to scientometric studies in health sciences by providing insightful findings about the geographical and gender bias in productivity and impact across world regions.

This theoretical essay critically examines the intricate relationship between academic knowledge production, academic capital accumulation, and the pervasive influence of neo-liberalization within the contemporary knowledge-based society and economy. After introducing the concepts of academic capital and academic labor, the paper identifies a concerning emphasis on academic capital in the world system of academic knowledge production, where qualifications from prestigious institutions disproportionately influence career opportunities, mobility, and research funds. The essay argues that while there is ongoing criticism regarding the neo-liberalization of academia, a related phenomenon, namely the prestige economy, remains oftentimes uncovered. The paper ultimately highlights the adverse consequences of a capital-centric academic environment, urging for a more balanced approach that prioritizes knowledge diversity, internationalization, and localized research initiatives, countering the homogenizing forces of the prestige economy within global higher education, and puts more emphasis on the production of labor than on academic capital.