Clinical trial registry searches are under-utilized in systematic reviews from critical care journals: A bibliometric analysis – ScienceDirect



• Performing clinical trial registry searches for grey literature can decrease publication bias imputed into systematic reviews.
• 88.7% of critical care systematic reviews did not conduct clinical trial registry searches.
• 56% of systematic reviews that did not perform a trial registry search had at least 1 potentially relevant trial that was not included in their analysis….”


The next generation discovery citation indexes — a review of the landscape in 2020 (I) | by Aaron Tay | Academic librarians and open access | Oct, 2020 | Medium

“In terms of cross disciplinary citation indexes that are used for discovery, everyone knows of the two incumbants — Web of Science and Scopus(2004). Joined by the large web scale Google Scholar (2004), these three reigned as the “Big 3” of citation indexes for roughly a decade more or less unchallenged.

However 10 years later, around 2015 and in the years after, a new generation of citation indexes started to emerge to challenge the big 3 in a variety of ways .

As of time of writing in 2020, some of these new challengers have had a couple of years of development. How do things look now?

First off, using newer techniques and paradigms, we have for-profit companies like Digital Science launching Dimensions (2018) which strike me as challengers to Scopus and Web of Science in the arena of citation/bibliometric assessment, just as Scopus itself was a challenge to the older Web of Science back in 2004.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the rise of more “open” citation indexes . In particular, a very important player in this area is the relaunched Microsoft Academic(2016) which not only uses web crawling style technologies like Google Scholar to scour the web, applies the latest in Natural Language Processing (NLP) /“semantic” technologies and makes the dataset dubbed Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) available with open licenses.

Semantic Scholar(2015) is yet another project with Microsoft ties ( funded by the Allen Institute for AI) that play in the same area and releases data with open licenses. One of the more “Semantic” features of this search engine is that it types citations into whether the cite is for citing of background, methods or results using machine learning.

While scite (2018) a new citation index by a startup does not provide open data, it’s selling point is the use of NLP to type citation relationships into “Supporting”, “Disputing” and “Neutral” cites which is yet another way of contextualizing research by describin citation relationships.

Besides the two above mentioned well funded think tanks projects, we also see more grassroot like movements like 2017’s I4OC (Intiative for open Citations) — an amazingly successful push to get publishers to deposit and make references open in Crossref as well as efforts by (a founding member of I4OC) to extract citations from open access papers from PMC to produce the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC), which have served to further increase the pool of Scholarly meta-data and citations that are available in the public domain/CCO….”

GDD Network – AHRC Network for a global dataset of digitised texts

“What is the GDD Network?

Digital scholarship relies on access to digital sources but finding these sources, whether a large corpus for digital scholarship or a single text for in-depth study, is often difficult.

All around the world, libraries, archives and search providers are digitising collections to make them available. While this is making millions of texts available online, there is still no single place where you can search all of them at once.

The difficulty of discovering digitised texts, including but extending beyond the millions of items digitised by national libraries and mass digitisation programmes, often means that these efforts do not have the impact they could and should.

The Global Digitised Dataset Network (GDD Network) is a research collaboration investigating the feasibility of creating a global catalogue of digitised texts, which would enable people to search and find texts, and access them for reading, digital scholarship, collections analysis, and more….” Home

“OpenTexts.World is an experimental service that provides free access to digitised text collections from around the world. Think of it as a search engine for books.

Every year, libraries worldwide digitise hundreds of thousands of books. Open Texts brings (some of!) those collections together, allowing you to search across a multitude of different libraries worldwide….”

Global online library Open Texts goes live with 8m books and rare works | Scotland | The Times

“When historians of the future are searching the archives for “good things to come out of the great pandemic” one of the answers will surely be “Open Texts was founded”.

Formally launching today, Open Texts is a global online library, with eight million digital titles from nine of the world’s great collections. All are free to use by scholars, students and the general public who can search with a simple searchable database….”

Here’s Open Texts itself =

DataCite Commons – Discovering PIDs and the PID Graph

“DataCite recently launched DataCite Commons, a new discovery service which allows you to conduct simple searches across different types of PIDs giving a comprehensive overview of the connections between entities. DataCite Commons has been released as a minimum viable product and will be developed in the future. This webinar will present the new service and provide the background to it, including the user driven requirements gathering and give an opportunity for feedback on how much it meets your needs and what else you would like it to do….”