Each calendar year, the members of the NAMES Editorial Board review the articles that appeared in the previous volume to determine the winners of the Best Article of the Year. All article publications are judged across the following three criteria: (1) creativity and originality; (2) potential scholarly contribution to onomastics; and (3) writing style and organization. The article that was roundly selected as the top publication for 2024 was contributed by a scientific team of three researchers:  Siyue Li (Zhejiang University, CHINA), Chunyu Kit (City University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG), and Le Cheng (Zhejiang University, CHINA).  Their article is entitled  “Unveiling the Landscape of Onomastics from 1972 to 2022: A Bibliometric Analysis” appears in volume 72, issue 3 of NAMES. As the title implies, the investigation provides an intriguing diachronic look at the publication trends in onomastic research over the past six decades. The NAMES editorial board was  impressed with not only the innovative methodology used in this research article, but also the excellent graphics  the team employed to communicate their research findings. This novel and thought-provoking investigation can be read for free here: https://ans-names.pitt.edu/ans/article/view/2755  For the international onomastic community, the winning team of researchers  kindly agreed to give NAMES Editor-in-Chief, Professor I. M. Nick, an e-interview about their fascinating research.

1.) How did you and your colleagues come up with the idea for this investigation?

The idea emerged as we explored the relationship between naming and its underlying determinants, on the original course of terminology research. While grappling with the foundational question of what determines a name’s designation and its designated object (echoing the musing that if “a rose is a rose is a rose”), we encountered the rich and multifaceted field of onomastics, where names are significant information to reflect social cognition varieties behind the formation changes of our appellative usages. The maturity of scholarship in this area led us to reflect on the field’s evolution and motivated us to map out what onomastics has accomplished and how it continues to develop the multi-sidedness of names.

2.) Where there any results which you found that you and your colleagues found to be unexpected?

Yes, there were several unexpected yet fascinating findings that emerged from the bibliometric analysis. One particularly surprising aspect was the extent to which onomastic studies have diversified and deepened in scope, such as the growing convergence of name studies beyond linguistics and literature, but with anthropology, archaeology, and cognitive science. It is also intriguing in delving on the articles regarding intersection with issues that are critical to modern society like online identity, language processing, gender bias, social stratifications, and minority representation. Additionally, we were struck by the way recent scholarship has redefined the functional roles of names. Such as socio-demographic insights revealed in personal names, the universal or discrepant hierarchies in place-naming markedness in toponyms, and new interpretive horizons in the authenticity or anti-aesthetic naming practices for literary onomastics. […]Another unexpected finding was the significant methodological shift towards interdisciplinary approaches, particularly the adoption of digital and data-driven tools such as corpus-assisted techniques, NLP, and neural-cognitive models. These methods can synchronically and diachronically dig into the messages encoded in big-data of names and map social sentiment and diversities, for example, yielding robust statistical correlations between name choices and life trajectories.

3.) What advice would you give onomastic researchers who are interested in using the same methodology?

For onomastic researchers interested in this methodology, we recommend careful calibration of algorithms, data scope, and subcategories, as these choices shape outcomes. While bibliometric methods are powerful and highly replicable for mapping research landscapes, their effectiveness depends on how they are applied and interpreted. As discussed in our article, actions in altering the algorithms, data scopes, sub-subcategories to analyze, can lead to a different perspective of results. There is no standard for a “best representative picture”, only perspectives shaped by researcher interpretation. So deeper and wide-scoped reading into the sketched notable literature and qualitative analysis of how a citation is important to others is important. Also notably, researchers must be mindful of implicit biases in large-scale name data to avoid reinforcing social stereotypes or overgeneralizing patterns, especially for future research if applying bigger-size name data, large language models and AI-systems.

4.) Given the fact that your research team was composed of investigators in different locations and different institutions, can you describe how your research team managed to work together so well?  Do you have any advice for other international research teams?

Our team collaborated effectively through a clear division of labor and strong mutual understanding. For example, Li led the data analysis and initial drafting of the article; KIT ensured methodological rigor and polished the language; and Cheng refined the detailed analyses while contributing theoretical and practical insights to better engage readers. For international research teams, we believe that smooth cross-institutional collaboration relies on clearly defined roles, mutual respect for different working styles, and ongoing communication grounded in constructive feedback during the writing process. And of course, a shared deadline to keep a regular pace, and the occasional virtual coffee chat to keep the team spirit alive across different locations.