The contribution tree is proposed, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution, and is extended to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores.
Abstract
Citation-based measures of scientific influence typically treat citations as uniform signals, ignoring the different roles that cited works play in a paper's contribution. We introduce contribution-based credit scoring for research articles: a structured citation analysis that decomposes a paper's credit between its own original contribution and the prior work it builds on. Motivated by a cooperative-game view of scientific credit, we propose the contribution tree, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution. To make this framework scalable, we use LLMs as noisy comparative estimators of local importance. We further extend the model to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores. Our experiments suggest that our framework captures contribution signals beyond surface-level heuristics. Our code is available at https://github.com/sanaebrahimi/Importance_Scoring/
The Knowledge Contribution Taxonomy (KCT), derived from the Scientific Research Logic Model, is proposed, which identifies the type of knowledge a cited paper contributes based on the citation context, and classifies citations into Method, Resource Tool, Empirical Finding, and Background, further distinguishing core fr...
Zhi-Bang Quan, Zhentao Liang, Ming Ma et al.· Journal of the Association f...· 0 citations
Analysis of a large-scale dataset covering 234,073 research papers published between 2019 and 2025 suggests that AI-assisted writing confers a modest but systematic advantage in visibility and discoverability that translates into higher measured impact.
S. Paklina, P. Parshakov, Elena Rapoport· Scientometrics· 0 citations
The results show that combining temporal, lexical relevance, and self-citation signals produces publication rankings that consistently differ from traditional citation- and recency-based methods while providing interpretable approach for examining multiple aspects of scientific publications.
INTRODUCTION
The evaluation of individual scientific contribution remains a major challenge in research assessment and academic training. Traditional bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and Journal Impact Factor, rely heavily on citation counts and jornal prestige, neglecting key dimensions including auth...
Luiza Barbosa Freire De Melo· Revista de Ensino de Bioquím...· 0 citations
Attributing journal metrics to individual scholars is essential for modeling research influence, yet current methods rely on a restrictive assumption of monotonicity. Traditional credit allocation frameworks, such as Full and Fractional counting, assume that adding a research article to a portfolio never decreases...
It is well recognised that field weighted citations are approximately lognormally distributed. This skewness reflects competition for attention, whereby most publications are gradually forgotten and only a minority continue to be recalled years later. Exploiting this observation, we construct a researcher-level indicat...