Open data linked to higher citations for journal articles | News | Chemistry World

“Research papers that make their underlying data openly available are significantly more likely to be cited in future work, according to an analysis led by researchers at the Alan Turing Institute in London that has been published as a preprint. The study, which is currently under peer review, examined nearly 532,000 articles in over 350 open access journals published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) and BioMed Central (BMC) between 1997 and 2018, and found those that linked directly to source data sets received 25% more citations on average….”

 

 

scite awarded NIH SBIR Fast-Track grant – scite – Medium

“Scite, Inc., a Brooklyn-based startup focused on making research more reliable, has been awarded a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Fast-Track grant by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct further research required for developing and commercializing a platform that identifies studies supporting or contradicting prior research. The award is issued in two phases with a Phase I limit of $225,000 and a Phase II limit of $1,500,000 with the second phase contingent upon meeting specific milestones….”

Software review: COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations | SpringerLink

Abstract:  In this paper, we present COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (http://opencitations.net/index/coci). COCI is the first open citation index created by OpenCitations, in which we have applied the concept of citations as first-class data entities, and it contains more than 445 million DOI-to-DOI citation links derived from the data available in Crossref. These citations are described using the resource description framework by means of the newly extended version of the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM). We introduce the workflow we have developed for creating these data, and also show the additional services that facilitate the access to and querying of these data via different access points: a SPARQL endpoint, a REST API, bulk downloads, Web interfaces, and direct access to the citations via HTTP content negotiation. Finally, we present statistics regarding the use of COCI citation data, and we introduce several projects that have already started to use COCI data for different purposes.

Set citation data free

“However, most poll respondents felt that citation-based indicators are useful, but that they should be deployed in more nuanced and open ways. The most popular responses to the poll were that citation-based indicators should be tweaked to exclude self-citations, or that self-citation rates should be reported alongside other metrics (see ‘The numbers game’). On the whole, respondents wanted to be able to judge for themselves when self-citations might be appropriate, and when not; to be able to compare self-citation across fields; and more….

But this is where there is a real problem, because for many papers citation data are locked inside proprietary databases. Since 2000, more and more publishers have been depositing information about research-paper references with an organization called Crossref, the non-profit agency that registers digital object identifiers (DOIs), the strings of characters that identify papers on the web. But not all publishers allow their reference lists to be made open for anyone to download and analyse — only 59% of the almost 48 million articles deposited with Crossref currently have open references.

 

There is, however, a solution. Two years ago, the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was established for the purpose of promoting open scholarly citation data. As of 1 September, more than 1,000 publishers were members, including Sage Publishing, Taylor and Francis, Wiley and Springer Nature — which joined last year. Publishers still to join I4OC include the American Chemical Society, Elsevier — the largest not to do so — and the IEEE….”

The rise of new citation indexes and the impact on Science mapping tools – Citespace, VOSviewer , Citation Gecko and more | Musings about librarianship

“For a long time, there were just two main citation sources that had data that could claim to be relatively comprehensive multi-discipline wise, namely Web of Science and Scopus. (We will come to Google Scholar later).

 

As I noted in past posts (here, here), this has changed in the last 2 years, new citation sources both  proprietary such as Dimensions, and open such as OpenCitations Corpus have started to emerge.

 

At the same time, I have recently became interested in the potential of Science or bibliometric tools for aiding phd students who want to do more sophisticated literature review.

These tools generally accept inputs from citation indexes and I’ve started to notice that the science mapping tools that are still in active development e.g. VOSViewer , Citespace  or newer tools such as Citation Gecko have started to respond to the trend of new emerging citation indexes and have began supporting these new sources on top of the traditional Web of Science and Scopus data.

Similarly the popular tool Publish or Perish  tool by Anne-Wil Harzing which began by supporting extraction of results and citations from Google Scholar has now also grown now to support other citation indexes beyond Scopus or Web of Science.

 

In this blog post, I will talk about some of the new indexes, Science mapping tools are starting to support, and as an aside provide a brief overview of what such tools can do and my first thoughts on them.

As it stands, it seems Microsoft Academic graph (due to it’s size), Crossref (due to its openness) and Dimensions (Digital Science backed) are starting to be sources used by such tools. The first two are also classed as open data which has helped to fuel their popularity, while the last has made it easy for bona fide researchers to access. 

 

A warning, I’m still trying to figure out these tools, so chances are my understanding is incomplete!…”

[1902.02534] Crowdsourcing open citations with CROCI — An analysis of the current status of open citations, and a proposal

Abstract:  In this paper, we analyse the current availability of open citations data in one particular dataset, namely COCI (the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations; this http URL) provided by OpenCitations. The results of these analyses show a persistent gap in the coverage of the currently available open citation data. In order to address this specific issue, we propose a strategy whereby the community (e.g. scholars and publishers) can directly involve themselves in crowdsourcing open citations, by uploading their citation data via the OpenCitations infrastructure into our new index, CROCI, the Crowdsourced Open Citations Index.