aiqbench analysis
This research demonstrates how Large Language Models can automate the extraction of open science metrics from transportation literature, revealing that only about 5% of quantitative papers currently share code repositories. The study highlights a significant misalignment between these emerging best practices and traditional academic incentives like citation counts or review speed. Consequently, structural changes by journals and funding bodies will be necessary to encourage broader adoption of data sharing in this domain.
Measuring the State of Open Science in Transportation Using Large Language Models
arXiv:2601.14429v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Open science initiatives have strengthened scientific integrity and accelerated research progress across many fields, but the state of their practice within transportation research remains under-investigated. Key features of open science, defined here as data and code availability, are difficult to extract due to the inherent complexity of the field. Previous work has either been limited to small-scale studies due to the labor-intensive nature of manual analysis or has relied on large-scale bibliometric approaches that sacrifice contextual richness. This paper introduces an automatic and scalable feature-extraction pipeline to measure code and data availability in transportation research. We employ Large Language Models (LLMs) for this task and validate their performance against a manually curated dataset and through an inter-rater agreement analysis. We applied this pipeline to examine 10,724 research articles published in the Transportation Research Part series of journals between 2019 and 2024. Our analysis found that only 5% of quantitative papers shared a code repository, 4% of quantitative papers shared a data repository, and about 3% of papers shared both, with trends differing across journals, topics, and geographic regions. We found no significant difference in citation counts or review duration between papers that provided data and code and those that did not, suggesting a misalignment between open science efforts and traditional academic metrics. Consequently, encouraging these practices will likely require structural interventions from journals and funding agencies to supplement the lack of direct author incentives. The pipeline developed in this study can be readily scaled to other journals, representing a critical step toward the automated measurement and monitoring of open science practices in transportation research.
Authors:Junyi Ji, Ruth Lu, Linda Belkessa, Liming Wang, Silvia Varotto, Yongqi Dong, Nicolas Saunier, Mostafa Ameli, Gregory S. Macfarlane, Bahman Madadi, Cathy Wu
Abstract:Open science initiatives have strengthened scientific integrity and accelerated research progress across many fields, but the state of their practice within transportation research remains under-investigated. Key features of open science, defined here as data and code availability, are difficult to extract due to the inherent complexity of the field. Previous work has either been limited to small-scale studies due to the labor-intensive nature of manual analysis or has relied on large-scale bibliometric approaches that sacrifice contextual richness. This paper introduces an automatic and scalable feature-extraction pipeline to measure code and data availability in transportation research. We employ Large Language Models (LLMs) for this task and validate their performance against a manually curated dataset and through an inter-rater agreement analysis. We applied this pipeline to examine 10,724 research articles published in the Transportation Research Part series of journals between 2019 and 2024. Our analysis found that only 5% of quantitative papers shared a code repository, 4% of quantitative papers shared a data repository, and about 3% of papers shared both, with trends differing across journals, topics, and geographic regions. We found no significant difference in citation counts or review duration between papers that provided data and code and those that did not, suggesting a misalignment between open science efforts and traditional academic metrics. Consequently, encouraging these practices will likely require structural interventions from journals and funding agencies to supplement the lack of direct author incentives. The pipeline developed in this study can be readily scaled to other journals, representing a critical step toward the automated measurement and monitoring of open science practices in transportation research.
Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET)
arXiv:2601.14429 [cs.DL]
(or arXiv:2601.14429v2 [cs.DL] for this version)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 308 words
Related coverage

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026

BRICS Draws a New Global Line: Full Text of New Delhi Declaration
slguardian.org · Sep 12, 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · Jul 26, 2026

34 Amazon Research Awards Build on Trainium recipients announced
Amazon Science · Aug 5, 2026