From Citations to Contributions: LLM-Assisted Credit Scoring of Research Articles

Citation counts remain the dominant metric for assessing research impact, yet they suffer from well-documented limitations: temporal lag, disciplinary bias, and Matthew effects. Here we propose LLM-Metrics, a research-impact assessment metric derived from the parametric memory of large language models (LLMs). The central hypothesis is that high-impact papers receive greater exposure in the academic community, that this exposure enters LLM training data in textual form, and that models consequently form stronger parametric memory of these papers. We designed four types of multiple-choice probes, covering title recognition, author recognition, method recognition, and venue recognition, and evaluated 549 computer science papers published in 2023-2024 across 17 LLMs spanning 0.5B to 72B parameters from six vendors. Of the 17 models, 15 produced positive predictions, 9 of which were significant at p less than 0.05, with an overall Spearman correlation of rho = 0.1495 and p = 0.0004 against citation counts. Three additional findings support the proposed mechanism. First, the predictive signal was stronger for 2024 papers, rho = 0.1880, whose citation counts were near zero at model-training time, reducing the plausibility of a simple reverse-causality explanation. Second, author-recognition probes showed the strongest discriminative power, consistent with an exposure-driven memory mechanism. Third, model scale and predictive power were non-monotonic: a 3B-parameter model, Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, with rho = 0.1829, outperformed most larger models, supporting a selective-memory hypothesis in which the limited capacity of smaller models can serve as an effective information filter. LLM-Metrics offers a real-time, cross-disciplinary, citation-independent paradigm for research assessment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to brainstorm and evaluate research ideas, yet assessing such judgments is fundamentally difficult because the true impact of a new idea may take years to emerge. We address this challenge by using the impact forecasting of human-authored manuscripts as a verifiable proxy task. In a prospective forecasting study, we find that frontier LLMs fail to reliably distinguish high-impact papers from ordinary publications, suggesting that static text-based judging is insufficient for scientific evaluation. To address this limitation, we propose $\textbf{FAME}$ ($\underline{\text{F}}$orecasting $\underline{\text{A}}$cademic Impact via Continuous-Time $\underline{\text{M}}$anifold $\underline{\text{E}}$volution), a spatiotemporal framework for modeling the dynamic trajectories of scientific topics. FAME projects papers into a dynamic latent space informed by textual features and a verified knowledge-flow graph, learning geometric constraints that align impactful manuscripts with the forward momentum of their fields. Experiments on 3,200 arXiv papers across three fast-evolving subfields show that FAME consistently and substantially outperforms state-of-the-art LLM evaluators in prospective multidimensional impact forecasting. Furthermore, integrating FAME's dynamic geometric signals into LLMs significantly improves their forecasting performance. These results support manuscript impact forecasting as a useful, measurable proxy benchmark and position FAME as a strong, trajectory-aware foundation for automated scientific evaluation.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.