Gergely Ferenc Lendvai
58546393600
Publications - 6
All Roads Lead to Excellence: A Comparative Scientometric Assessment of French and Dutch European Research Council Grant Winners’ Academic Performance in the Domain of Social Sciences and Humanities
Publication Name: Publications
Publication Date: 2025-09-01
Volume: 13
Issue: 3
Page Range: Unknown
Description:
This study investigates how differing national research governance models impact academic performance by comparing European Research Council (ERC) grant winners in the social sciences and humanities from France and the Netherlands. Situated within the broader context of centralized versus decentralized research systems, the analysis aims to understand how these structures shape publication trends, thematic diversity, and collaboration patterns. Drawing on Scopus and SciVal data covering 9996 publications by 305 ERC winners between 2019 and 2023, we employed a multi-method approach, including latent Dirichlet allocation for topic modeling, compound annual growth rate analysis, and co-authorship network analysis. The results show that neuroscience, climate change, and psychology are dominant domains, with language and linguistics particularly prevalent in France and law and political science in the Netherlands. French ERC winners are more likely to be affiliated with national or sectoral institutions, whereas in the Netherlands, elite universities dominate. Collaboration emerged as a key success factor, with an average of four co-authors per publication and network analyses revealing central figures who bridge topical clusters. International collaborations were consistently linked with higher visibility, while single-authored publications showed limited impact. These findings suggest that institutional context and collaborative practices significantly shape research performance in both countries.
Open Access: Yes
Exploring the collaboration networks between highly cited researchers in highly cited papers
Publication Name: Scientometrics
Publication Date: 2025-11-01
Volume: 130
Issue: 11
Page Range: 6513-6540
Description:
Collaboration between researchers has been shown to influence their productivity and scientific impact. Although these ties have been widely discussed in the literature, the nature of the co-authorship networks between the most successful scholars remains a question. To provide an answer, this study conducts a cross-case analysis of the collaboration networks between Highly Cited Researchers, focusing on the research output and co-authorship patterns in Highly Cited Papers across three award categories: Clinical Medicine, Materials Science, and Social Sciences. Our findings indicate that there are category-specific differences in publication output and the intensity of collaboration between Highly Cited Researchers. Notably, Highly Cited Researchers in the Social Sciences demonstrate a less collaborative approach to research than those in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science. While Highly Cited Researchers in all three categories featured interconnected collaboration networks among themselves, those in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science exhibited a more collaborative environment, while those in Social Sciences showed a tendency towards independent research efforts. The case of Social Sciences is further evidenced by higher fragmentation within the collaboration network of Social Sciences, indicating a less cohesive collaborative framework. The analysis of the Giant Component—the largest cohesive subset of the network—revealed that it is less representative of the overall network structure in the Social Sciences than in Clinical Medicine and Materials Science. Finally, the centrality measures indicated that Highly Cited Researchers with high betweenness and closeness centrality act as crucial bridges within each network, significantly shaping the structural cohesion and collaborative dynamics of their respective fields.
Open Access: Yes
Mitigating harmful content on social media via platform regulation: The Digital Services Act and content assessment
Publication Name: Informacios Tarsadalom
Publication Date: 2025-01-01
Volume: 25
Issue: 2
Page Range: 59-72
Description:
The Digital Services Act (DSA) implements a legal framework for digital services, including social media platforms, to ensure that they operate in responsible, accountable ways. With an objective involving three critical theoretical pillars—transparency, accountability, and responsibility—the DSA, among other functions, (mostly) holds online platforms liable for content that they publish and also imposes requirements that they mitigate and remove harmful content. However, from a critical standpoint, the DSA begs some pivotal questions. For one, how can such a legal document, even if binding, mitigate the severe societal, psychological, emotional, and even physical dangers and detriments experienced by victims of social media abuse? For another, how can a supranational regulation combat local disinformation campaigns and political propaganda? In this article, we encourage not only introducing, analyzing, and critically examining the DSA but also propose policy recommendations to ameliorate content moderation on social media platforms.
Open Access: Yes
Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers
Publication Name: Research Evaluation
Publication Date: 2026-01-01
Volume: 35
Issue: Unknown
Page Range: Unknown
Description:
The present study investigates how the five largest academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE) are responding to the epistemic and procedural challenges posed by generative AI through formal policy frameworks. Situated within ongoing debates about the boundaries of authorship and the governance of AI-generated content, our research aims to critically assess the discursive and regulatory contours of publishers’ authorship guidelines (PGs). We employed a multi-method design that combines qualitative coding, semantic network analysis, and comparative matrix visualization to examine the official policy texts collected from each publisher’s website. Findings reveal a foundational consensus across all five publishers in prohibiting AI systems from being credited as authors and in mandating disclosure of AI usage. However, beyond this shared baseline, marked divergences emerge in the scope, specificity, and normative framing of AI policies. Co-occurrence and semantic analyses underline the centrality of ‘authorship’, ‘ethics’, and ‘accountability’ in AI discourse. Structural similarity measures further reveal alignment among Wiley, Elsevier, and Taylor & Francis, with Springer as a clear outlier. Our results point to an unsettled regulatory landscape where policies serve not only as instruments of governance but also as performative assertions of institutional identity and legitimacy. Consequently, the fragmented field of PG highlights the need for harmonized, inclusive, and enforceable frameworks that recognize both the potential and risks of AI in scholarly communication.
Open Access: Yes
Mapping the scholarly literature on the infodemic using topic modelling
Publication Name: Social Sciences and Humanities Open
Publication Date: 2026-06-01
Volume: 13
Issue: Unknown
Page Range: Unknown
Description:
The present study aims to map the scholarly evolution of the infodemic as a research subject through a scientometric analysis of 852 peer-reviewed articles indexed in Web of Science between 2020 and 2024 building on scientometric methods and Structural Topic Modeling (STM). Findings reveal a sharp rise in publications during the pandemic years, peaking in 2022, followed by a remarkable decline in both output and citation impact. The STM uncovered 20 distinct topics, with dominant themes centred on health communication, misinformation, social media, and institutional trust. While several themes peaked early in the pandemic, others, such as institutional or public trust, gained prominence later. Topic correlations showed dense interlinkages but low modularity suggested conceptual fragmentation and weak field consolidation. The results highlight that infodemic scholarship remains an emergent, interdisciplinary domain, however, there is a need for stable theoretical foundations.
Open Access: Yes
So, What Is Chilling Effect?—(Re)Conceptualizing the Phenomenon of Chilling Effect in the Context of Legal Doctrine and Social Perception
Publication Name: Ius Gentium
Publication Date: 2026-01-01
Volume: 137
Issue: Unknown
Page Range: 1-17
Description:
The present chapter revisits the concept of the chilling effect, a phenomenon traditionally described as a case where individuals refrain from exercising their rights (particularly freedom of expression) due to perceived risks of legal or institutional repercussions. Although the term originated in U.S. constitutional law, its meaning has expanded across legal systems and disciplines, and it remains conceptually ambiguous and inconsistently applied. The chapter critically examines whether the chilling effect functions primarily as a legal doctrine, a psychological response, or a rhetorical tool—or perhaps all of these combined. The article highlights the tension between legal reasoning, which demands concrete harm and causality, and the anticipatory, often subjective nature of chilling effects. The chapter’s key findings underline that chilling effects rarely result from direct enforcement alone. Rather, they are shaped by overlapping pressures, for instance, legal ambiguity, institutional norms, cultural context, and internalised perceptions of risk. Therefore, we claim that the chilling effect is best understood as a systemic, multidimensional dynamic rather than a discrete legal problem since its impact varies across actors, contexts, and regulatory environments (often affecting marginalised communities more severely). The chapter argues for moving beyond narrow legal definitions toward an interdisciplinary, empirically informed approach that accounts for the symbolic, social, and psychological dimensions through which chilling effects are produced and maintained.
Open Access: Yes
