Search results

Citation data needs to be recognised as a part of the Commons – those works that are freely and legally available for sharing – and placed in an open repository. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The Open Citation Corpus is a new open repository of scholarly citation data, made available under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 public domain dedication and encoded as Open Linked Data using the SPAR Ontologies.

The Open Citation Corpus presently provides open access (OA) to reference lists from 204,637 articles from the OA Subset of PubMed Central, containing 6,325,178 individual references to 3,373,961 unique papers.

Scholars, publishers and institutions may freely build upon, enhance and reuse the open citation data for any purpose, without restriction under copyright or database law.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the problem of establishing metrics for the impact of research data when norms of behaviour have not yet become established.

The paper considers existing research into data citation and explores the citation of data journals.

The paper finds that the diversity of data and its citation precludes the drawing of any simple conclusions about how to measure the impact of data, and an over emphasis on metrics before norms of behaviour have become established may adversely affect the data ecosystem.

The paper considers multiple different types of data citation, including for the first time the citation of data journals.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of scientific data in order to assess the reliability of data to support data curation, to establish trust between researchers to support reuse of digital data and encourage researchers to share more data.

The authors compared the correlations between usage counts of associated data in Dryad and citation counts of articles in Web of Science in different subject areas in order to assess the possibility of using altmetric indicators to evaluate scientific data.

There are high positive correlations between usage counts of data and citation counts of associated articles. The citation counts of article’s shared data are higher than the average citation counts in most of the subject areas examined by the authors.

The paper suggests that usage counts of data could be potentially used to evaluate scholarly impact of scientific data, especially for those subject areas without special data repositories.

The study examines the possibility to use usage counts to evaluate the impact of scientific data in a generic repository Dryad by different subject categories.

The main purpose of this study is to explore and validate the question “whether altmetric mentions can predict citations to scholarly articles”. The paper attempts to explore the nature and degree of correlation between altmetrics (from ResearchGate and three social media platforms) and citations.

A large size data sample of scholarly articles published from India for the year 2016 is obtained from the Web of Science database and the corresponding altmetric data are obtained from ResearchGate and three social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook and blog through Altmetric.com aggregator). Correlations are computed between early altmetric mentions and later citation counts, for data grouped in different disciplinary groups.

Results show that the correlation between altmetric mentions and citation counts are positive, but weak. Correlations are relatively higher in the case of data from ResearchGate as compared to the data from the three social media platforms. Further, significant disciplinary differences are observed in the degree of correlations between altmetrics and citations.

The results support the idea that altmetrics do not necessarily reflect the same kind of impact as citations. However, articles that get higher altmetric attention early may actually have a slight citation advantage. Further, altmetrics from academic social networks like ResearchGate are more correlated with citations, as compared to social media platforms.

The paper has novelty in two respects. First, it takes altmetric data for a window of about 1–1.5 years after the article publication and citation counts for a longer citation window of about 3–4 years after the publication of article. Second, it is one of the first studies to analyze data from the ResearchGate platform, a popular academic social network, to understand the type and degree of correlations.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0364

This article presents a novel user‐oriented interface for generalised informetric analysis and demonstrates how informetric calculations can easily and declaratively be specified through advanced data modelling techniques. The interface is declarative and at a high level. Therefore it is easy to use, flexible and extensible. It enables end users to perform basic informetric ad hoc calculations easily and often with much less effort than in contemporary online retrieval systems. It also provides several fruitful generalisations of typical informetric measurements like impact factors. These are based on substituting traditional foci of analysis, for instance journals, by other object types, such as authors, organisations or countries. In the interface, bibliographic data are modelled as complex objects (non‐first normal form relations) and terminological and citation networks involving transitive relationships are modelled as binary relations for deductive processing. The interface is flexible, because it makes it easy to switch focus between various object types for informetric calculations, e.g. from authors to institutions. Moreover, it is demonstrated that all informetric data can easily be broken down by criteria that foster advanced analysis, e.g. by years or content‐bearing attributes. Such modelling allows flexible data aggregation along many dimensions. These salient features emerge from the query interface‘s general data restructuring and aggregation capabilities combined with transitive processing capabilities. The features are illustrated by means of sample queries and results in the article.

The purpose of this study is to assess the value of altmetrics or other indicators, showcasing the impact of academic output, which is seen too often correlated with the citation count.

This study considered three reputed journals of Library and Information Science (LIS) published by Elsevier. A total of 1,164 articles were found in these journals from 2016 to 2020 and the relationships between altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citations were examined. The analysis was extended to compare the grouped data set based on percentile ranks of AAS like top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1%.

Using Spearman correlation analysis, the findings reveal a positive correlation between AAS and citations with different significant levels for all articles, and articles with AAS, as well as for normalized AAS in the top 50%, top 25%, top 10% and top 1% data set. For the three journals International Journal of Information Management (IJIM), Journal of Informetrics (JIF) and Library and Information Science Research (LISR), a significant positive correlation is observed across all data sets. But an unexpected result was observed: in the case of the top 50% of articles for the IJIM and JIF showed no significant correlation but the LISR journal showed a positive correlation for the whole data set. This journal though has fewer articles in comparison to the other two.

A source item that is highly cited may not be having high social media attention as reflected in the findings. This demarcates AAS with citations implying various factors on which these measurements are dependent. The study distinguishes these metrics lucidly. There is not a single guideline or uniformity in assessing the correlation found. But the problem is that the interpretation of the correlation strength affects the conclusion of the study. Moreover, this study will be a role model as a draft for librarians to select relevant journals for their libraries and will facilitate authors in the choice of the publication outlets for their papers, particularly concerning the journals that have both visibility and research impact.

The study reported devising a comprehensive tool to validate AAS as a measure of scholarly impact to include appropriate social media sources and verify its relationship with other metrics. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first attempt to discover the correlation between AAS and citations for the highly impactful LIS journal published by Elsevier. The empirical evidence lies in the citation and altmetric data extracted from the dimension database.

In recent years, a large number of data repositories have been built and used. However, the extent to which scientific data are re-used in academic publications is still unknown. The purpose of this paper is to explore the functions of re-used scientific data in scholarly publication in different fields.

To address these questions, the authors identified 827 publications citing resources in the Dryad Digital Repository indexed by Scopus from 2010 to 2015.

The results show that: the number of citations to scientific data increases sharply over the years, but mainly from data-intensive disciplines, such as agricultural, biology science, environment science and medicine; the majority of citations are from the originating articles; and researchers tend to reuse data produced by their own research groups.

Dryad data may be re-used without being formally cited.

The conservatism in data sharing suggests that more should be done to encourage researchers to re-use other’s data.

With the rise of alternate discovery services, such as Google Scholar, in conjunction with the increase in open access content, researchers have the option to bypass academic libraries when they search for and retrieve scholarly information. This state of affairs implies that academic libraries exist in competition with these alternate services and with the patrons who use them, and as a result, may be disintermediated from the scholarly information seeking and retrieval process. Drawing from decision and game theory, bounded rationality, information seeking theory, citation theory, and social computing theory, this study investigates how academic librarians are responding as competitors to changing scholarly information seeking and collecting practices. Bibliographic data was collected in 2010 from a systematic random sample of references on CiteULike.org and analyzed with three years of bibliometric data collected from Google Scholar. Findings suggest that although scholars may choose to bypass libraries when they seek scholarly information, academic libraries continue to provide a majority of scholarly documentation needs through open access and institutional repositories. Overall, the results indicate that academic librarians are playing the scholarly communication game competitively.

The purpose of paper is twofold. First, it provides a consolidated overview of the existing literature on “big data” and second, it presents the current trends and opens up various future directions for researchers who wish to explore and contribute in this rapidly evolving field.

To achieve the objective of this study, the bibliographic and network techniques of citation and co-citation analysis was adopted. This analysis involved an assessment of 57 articles published over a period of five years (2011-2015) in ten selected journals.

The findings reveal that the number of articles devoted to the study of “big data” has increased rapidly in recent years. Moreover, the study identifies some of the most influential articles of this area. Finally, the paper highlights the new trends and discusses the challenges associated with big data.

This study focusses only on big data concepts, trends, and challenges and excludes research on its analytics. Thus, researchers may explore and extend this area of research.

To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first study to review the literature on big data by using citation and co-citation analysis.

Due to the rapid growth of blockchain technology in recent years, the fusion of blockchain and the Internet of Things (BIoT) has drawn considerable attention from researchers and industrial practitioners and is regarded as a future trend in technological development. Although several authors have conducted literature reviews on the topic, none have examined the development of the knowledge structure of BIoT, resulting in scattered research and development (R&D) efforts.

This study investigates the intellectual core of BIoT through a co-citation proximity analysis–based systematic review (CPASR) of the correlations between 44 highly influential articles out of 473 relevant research studies. Subsequently, we apply a series of statistical analyses, including exploratory factor analysis (EFA), hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), k-means clustering (KMC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS) to establish the intellectual core.

Our findings indicate that there are nine categories in the intellectual core of BIoT: (1) data privacy and security for BIoT systems, (2) models and applications of BIoT, (3) system security theories for BIoT, (4) frameworks for BIoT deployment, (5) the fusion of BIoT with emerging methods and technologies, (6) applied security strategies for using blockchain with the IoT, (7) the design and development of industrial BIoT, (8) establishing trust through BIoT and (9) the BIoT ecosystem.

We use the CPASR method to examine the intellectual core of BIoT, which is an under-researched and topical area. The paper also provides a structural framework for investigating BIoT research that may be applicable to other knowledge domains.