“Wikipedia aims to be verifiable. Every statement of fact should be supported by a reliable source that the reader can check. Citations in Wikipedia typically refer to online documents accessible at URLs. But with the advent of standard web annotation we can do better. We can add citations to Wikipedia that refer precisely to statements that support Wikipedia articles….”
Data showing that both OA and non-OA publications by faculty at Utrecht University cite non-OA sources more than OA sources. But the ratios are significantly different. The non-OA publications cite non-OA sources 67% of the time (open sources, 33%), while the OA publications cite non-OA sources 56% of the time (open sources, 44%).
“We describe a domain-specific knowledge base aimed at supporting the extraction of bibliographic references in the domain of Classics. In particular, we deal with references to canonical works of the Greek and Latin literature by providing a model that represents key aspects of this domain such as names and abbreviations of authors, the canonical structure of classical works, and links to related web resources. Finally, we show how the availability of linked data in the emerging Graph of Ancient World Data has helped bootstrapping the creation of our knowledge base.”
“Here’s the idea in three steps.
First, identify the basic propositions in the field or sub-field you want to cover. To start small, identify the basic propositions you want to defend in a given article.
Second, create a separate OA web page for each proposition. For now, don’t worry about the file format or other technicalities. What’s important is that the pages should (1) be easy to update, (2) carry a time-stamp showing when they were last updated, and (3) give each proposition a unique URL. Let’s call them “proposition pages”.
Third, start filling in each page with the evidence in support of its proposition. If some evidence has been published in an article or book, then cite the publication. When the work is online (OA or TA), add a link as well. Whenever you can link directly to evidence, rather than merely to publications describing evidence, do that. For example, some propositions can be supported by linkable data in an open dataset. But because citations and data don’t always speak for themselves, consider adding some annotations to explain how cited pieces of evidence support the given proposition.
Each supporting study or piece of evidence should have an entry to itself. A proposition page should look more like a list than an article. It should look like a list of citations, annotated citations, or bullet points. It should look like a footnote, perhaps a very long footnote, for the good reason that one intended use of a proposition page is to be available for citation and review as a compendious, perpetually updated, public footnote. …”
Openness is central to the research endeavor. It is essential to promote reproducibility and appraisal of research, reduce misconduct, and ensure equitable access to and participation in science. Yet, calls for increased openness in science are often met with initial resistance. The introduction of pre-print servers, open access repositories, and open data sets were, for example, initially resisted, but eventually adopted without adverse effects to the scholarly ecosystem. The launch of the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) is facing similar obstacles. This initiative has campaigned for scholarly publishers to make openly available the references found in articles from their journals. Many publishers, including most of the large ones, support the initiative and have opened their references. However, the initiative still lacks support from a minority of the large publishers.
“Professor Feng Zhang’s original 2013 gene editing paper on CRISPR/Cas amassed nearly 2,400 citations in its first four years (1). In addition to publishing in Science, Professor Zhang deposited the associated plasmids with Addgene. Since then, Addgene has filled over 6,500 requests for these plasmids. While clearly an outlier, this story had us wondering: is there a larger trend here? Do papers associated with Addgene deposits accumulate more citations than those without Addgene deposits? Even more interestingly, could we tell if depositing a plasmid with Addgene causes a paper to get cited more? …So what do we find [from Web of Science]? Lots more citations for the papers with plasmids deposited at Addgene – typically about four times as many as papers without plasmids deposited with Addgene….”
The analyses show that, of 956,050,193 references from journal articles stored at Crossref, 486,041,671 (50.84%) are now in the category “Open”, and are freely available for third parties to download and use for any purpose.
This is a significant milestone for the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC, https://i4oc.org/), which since early 2017 has been campaigning for scholarly publishers to open their reference lists, and a major gain for the world of open scholarship.
“A collection of studies that have investigated the potential Open Access citation advantage. The majority, to date, have concluded that there is a significant citation advantage for Open Access articles. Much of the data here is sourced from The Open Access Citation Advantage Service, SPARC Europe (accessed August 2017)”