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.

Citation advantage for open access articles in European Radiology | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Objective

To investigate whether there is a difference in citation rate between open access and subscription access articles in the field of radiology.

Methods

This study included consecutive original articles published online in European Radiology. Pearson ?2, Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess for any differences between open access and subscription access articles. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between open access publishing and citation rate, adjusted for continent of origin, subspeciality, study findings in article title, number of authors, number of references, length of the article, and number of days the article has been online. In a secondary analysis, we determined the association between open access and number of downloads and shares.

Results

A total of 500 original studies, of which 86 (17.2%) were open access and 414 (82.8%) were subscription access articles, were included. Articles from Europe or North America were significantly more frequently published open access (p?=?0.024 and p?=?0.001), while articles with corresponding authors from Asia were significantly less frequently published open access (p?<?0.001). In adjusted linear regression analysis, open access articles were significantly more frequently cited (beta coefficient?=?3.588, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.668 to 6.508, p?=?0.016), downloaded (beta coefficient?=?759.801, 95% CI 630.917 to 888.685, p?<?0.001), and shared (beta coefficient?=?0.748, 95% CI 0.124 to 1.372, p?=?0.019) than subscription access articles (beta coefficient?=?3.94, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 6.44, p?=?0.002).

Conclusion

Open access publishing is independently associated with an increased citation, download, and share rate in the field of radiology.

Disrupting medical publishing and the future of medical journals: a personal view – Gee – 2019 – Medical Journal of Australia – Wiley Online Library

“We strongly support the principle that research must be freely accessible. At the MJA [Medical Journal of Australia], we practise what we believe and make all research freely accessible from publication, a unique feature of a subscription journal. We further support the idea that subscription journals should ensure all peer?reviewed articles are freely accessible after an embargo period and suggest this period be set at no more than 24 months after final publication. We suggest that Plan S is off track in its opposition to hybrid journals. There are many metrics of quality and impact, including media (and social media) attention, but the primary currency by which research quality is judged remains citations by peers; major breakthroughs attract very high citations as the work is replicated then adapted and extended by others around the world, which is in reality how science advances and research is translated. Several of the journals with the greatest impact and highest citations will be excluded under Plan S if they maintain their current subscription models.

When it all boils down to basics, researchers want to have their research published quickly after peer and editorial review, with near perfect certainty in the most prestigious, most impactful place possible. In 2019, authors do not necessarily need a traditional subscription medical journal to achieve this goal, and if this spells the end of the subscription model, time will tell as the market decides. In the meantime and whatever our personal views, researchers will continue to seek to have their work widely read and cited, which is why the top medical journals (many of which remain subscription journals) will continue to attract the best research and will have a wide choice of what to accept….”

The impact of the open-access status on journal indices: oncology journals. – PubMed – NCBI

Abstract: BACKGROUND:

The field of oncology is among the highest productive fields in medicine, with the highest impact journals. The impact of open access (OA) journals is still understudied in the field of oncology. In this study, we aim to study the open-access status of oncology journals and the impact of the open-access status on journal indices.

METHODS:

We collected data on the included journals from Scopus Source List on 1st of November 2018. We filtered the list for oncology journals for the years from 2011 to 2017. OA journals covered by Scopus are indicated as OA if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD).

RESULTS:

There were 318 oncology journals compared to 260 in 2011, an increase by about 24.2%, and the percentage of OA journals has increased from 19.6% to 23.9%. Although non-OA journals have significantly higher scholarly output (P=0.001), percent cited and source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) were higher for OA journals.

CONCLUSIONS:

Publishing in oncology OA journals will yield more impact, in term of citations, and will reach boarder audience