Category Archives: oa.metadata

WikiCite awards 23 grants & eScholarships to improve open citations – Diff

Posted on by

“Palm-leaf manuscripts from Bali; Legislation from Brazil; and Newspapers from Nigeria. These are just three of 23 groups and individuals across 15 countries which received WikiCite grants – the majority of which are outside the OECD. Project categories include: content creation & upload, outreach & training, software development, and documentation/localization. Combined these grants are valued at $69,000 USD, and we received more than double the number of excellent applications than the budget could support.

The WikiCite initiative focuses the development of open citations and linked bibliographic data to serve free knowledge and is itself supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation….”

Library Summer Project Attracts Grant Funding – Library News Online

Posted on by

“The Wikimedia Foundation has awarded Vanderbilt University a grant to advance WikiCite among information professionals. WikiCite is a “Wikimedia initiative to develop open citations and linked bibliographic data to serve free knowledge.” The grant will fund a training program titled “WikiCite for Librarians: Interactive Learning Pathways for Information Professionals.” The participants in this grant gained entering bibliographic data into Wikidata by way of their participation in our summer VandyCite team. This grant will permit them to consolidate what they learned and to share that knowledge with fellow information professionals. If you would like to read the grant in its entirely, please….”

ScienceOpen: The Publisher Partner for Best-Practice Metadata – ScienceOpen Blog

Posted on by

“For many publishers the requirements of modern digital publishing can be dizzying – XML DTDs, PIDs, DOIs, metatags. At ScienceOpen we have been consulting publishers on their metadata for years to help get the most visibility possible for academic publications. We have increasingly built systems with our technical partner, Ovitas, to support publishers with metadata creation and distribution and made each new tool available to the next customer.  As a metadata technical hub, we can automate time-consuming tasks and let publishers concentrate on the content. Here are a few of the services that we can provide to help take the pain out of publishing:  …”

Jobs: Open Source & OA Software Engineer | Open Book Publishers

Posted on by

[…]

We are looking for a software engineer who is enthusiastic about open source and Open Access initiatives, to join our small energetic team.  OBP is taking a leading role in developing open source infrastructure to support open access book publishing within the Research England and Arcadia Fund financed COPIM project. The OBP development team has responsibility for the technical development of the Open Dissemination System and Archiving and Preservation services for open access books. The Open Dissemination System is being developed in rust, and it consists of a PostgreSQL database and a GraphQL API, which is consumed by a WebAssembly application. Python and Bash are also used throughout development to aid with minor tasks, and all components of the system are deployed as docker containers.

The successful candidate will be working directly with the Lead Software Engineer on these projects. The role will be varied and broad ranging, including: the development of open source infrastructure as well as maintenance and deployment supporting scripts; designing and implementing sound data models; implementing unit and end-to-end tests to ensure the reliability of the software through its update cycle; writing documentation for any piece of software produced; and offering user support.

We are looking for somebody passionate about contributing to the open source and Open Access communities. The successful applicant is likely to have had previous work experience using at least one interpreted language and one compiled language; knowledge of Bash, a version control system (preferably Git) and SQL; and a good understanding of relational databases.

This is a full-time fixed term position, funded by the COPIM project, which will end with the completion of that project on 31 October 2022. The position will be available to start immediately. Gross annual salary will be in the range GBP £24,000-£30,000 (depending on experience). Open Book Publishers has offices based in King’s College, Cambridge, however presently all staff are working remotely. While we hope staff will be able to return to working in our office in due course, we are open to applications from people proposing to work remotely for the entire duration of the contract.

[…]

OpenAIRE – Research Graph

Posted on by

“OpenAIRE Research Graph is an open resource that aggregates a collection of research data properties (metadata, links) available within the OpenAIRE Open Science infrastructure for funders, organizations, researchers, research communities and publishers to interlink information by using a semantic graph database approach….

It is available for download and re-use as CC-BY (due to some input sources whose license is CC-BY); parts of the graphs can be re-used as CC-0; provenance is tracked at the level of the records and, when these are the result of full-text mining, of the properties (provenance also includes an indicator of trust, in the range [0..1])….

Metadata and links are collected from data sources, such as institutional/data/software repositories, publishers, registries, and re-distributed to such sources via brokering services….

Abstracts, full-texts of Open Access publications and links are processed by several algorithms that infer new links and enrich the graph….”

[2010.03083] ‘I Updated the <ref>’: The Evolution of References in the English Wikipedia and the Implications for Altmetrics

Posted on by

Abstract:  With this work, we present a publicly available dataset of the history of all the references (more than 55 million) ever used in the English Wikipedia until June 2019. We have applied a new method for identifying and monitoring references in Wikipedia, so that for each reference we can provide data about associated actions: creation, modifications, deletions, and reinsertions. The high accuracy of this method and the resulting dataset was confirmed via a comprehensive crowdworker labelling campaign. We use the dataset to study the temporal evolution of Wikipedia references as well as users’ editing behaviour. We find evidence of a mostly productive and continuous effort to improve the quality of references: (1) there is a persistent increase of reference and document identifiers (DOI, PubMedID, PMC, ISBN, ISSN, ArXiv ID), and (2) most of the reference curation work is done by registered humans (not bots or anonymous editors). We conclude that the evolution of Wikipedia references, including the dynamics of the community processes that tend to them should be leveraged in the design of relevance indexes for altmetrics, and our dataset can be pivotal for such effort.

 

OCLC-LIBER Open Science Discussion on Scholarly Publishing – Hanging Together

Posted on by

“Recently OCLC Research and LIBER (the Association of European Research Libraries) hosted the first of seven small group discussions comprising the OCLC-LIBER Open Science Discussion Series. This discussion series, which takes place from 24 September through 5 November 2020, is based upon the LIBER Open Science Roadmap, and will help guide research libraries in envisioning the support infrastructure for Open Science (OS) and their roles at local, national, and global levels. I wrote about this collaborative effort between our two organizations in an earlier blog on 28 September….”

Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case – Alfonso Quarati, Juliana E Raffaghelli, 2020

Posted on by

Abstract:  Open research data (ORD) have been considered a driver of scientific transparency. However, data friction, as the phenomenon of data underutilisation for several causes, has also been pointed out. A factor often called into question for ORD low usage is the quality of the ORD and associated metadata. This work aims to illustrate the use of ORD, published by the Figshare scientific repository, concerning their scientific discipline, their type and compared with the quality of their metadata. Considering all the Figshare resources and carrying out a programmatic quality assessment of their metadata, our analysis highlighted two aspects. First, irrespective of the scientific domain considered, most ORD are under-used, but with exceptional cases which concentrate most researchers’ attention. Second, there was no evidence that the use of ORD is associated with good metadata publishing practices. These two findings opened to a reflection about the potential causes of such data friction.

 

Metadata as a driver for usage:?The case for?open?abstracts – ScienceOpen Blog

Posted on by

“A common goal of authors and publishers has long been more readership for their publications.?Traditionally, the abstract was a teaser to encourage the potential reader to buy or subscribe to read the full text. Even in an open access economy, a good abstract can trigger a coveted “download” and even more coveted citation. Why then do many publishers not make their abstracts and other metadata such as references or license information freely accessible in a machine-readable format?”

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations | SpringerLink

Posted on by

Abstract:  New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89–94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.