اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAuthor-choice open access publishing in the biological and medical literature: a citation analysis
192
0
0.0
(
0
)
تأليف
Philip M. Davis
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In this article, we analyze the citations to articles published in 11 biological and medical journals from 2003 to 2007 that employ author-choice open access models. Controlling for known explanatory predictors of citations, only 2 of the 11 journals show positive and significant open access effects. Analyzing all journals together, we report a small but significant increase in article citations of 17%. In addition, there is strong evidence to suggest that the open access advantage is declining by about 7% per year, from 32% in 2004 to 11% in 2007.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We present a novel algorithm and validation method for disambiguating author names in very large bibliographic data sets and apply it to the full Web of Science (WoS) citation index. Our algorithm relies only upon the author and citation graphs avail
able for the whole period covered by the WoS. A pair-wise publication similarity metric, which is based on common co-authors, self-citations, shared references and citations, is established to perform a two-step agglomerative clustering that first connects individual papers and then merges similar clusters. This parameterized model is optimized using an h-index based recall measure, favoring the correct assignment of well-cited publications, and a name-initials-based precision using WoS metadata and cross-referenced Google Scholar profiles. Despite the use of limited metadata, we reach a recall of 87% and a precision of 88% with a preference for researchers with high h-index values. 47 million articles of WoS can be disambiguated on a single machine in less than a day. We develop an h-index distribution model, confirming that the prediction is in excellent agreement with the empirical data, and yielding insight into the utility of the h-index in real academic ranking scenarios.
Scientific publishing is the means by which we communicate and share scientific knowledge, but this process currently often lacks transparency and machine-interpretable representations. Scientific articles are published in long coarse-grained text wi
th complicated structures, and they are optimized for human readers and not for automated means of organization and access. Peer reviewing is the main method of quality assessment, but these peer reviews are nowadays rarely published and their own complicated structure and linking to the respective articles is not accessible. In order to address these problems and to better align scientific publishing with the principles of the Web and Linked Data, we propose here an approach to use nanopublications as a unifying model to represent in a semantic way the elements of publications, their assessments, as well as the involved processes, actors, and provenance in general. To evaluate our approach, we present a dataset of 627 nanopublications representing an interlinked network of the elements of articles (such as individual paragraphs) and their reviews (such as individual review comments). Focusing on the specific scenario of editors performing a meta-review, we introduce seven competency questions and show how they can be executed as SPARQL queries. We then present a prototype of a user interface for that scenario that shows different views on the set of review comments provided for a given manuscript, and we show in a user study that editors find the interface useful to answer their competency questions. In summary, we demonstrate that a unified and semantic publication model based on nanopublications can make scientific communication more effective and user-friendly.
Scholarly journals are increasingly using social media to share their latest research publications and communicate with their readers. Having a presence on social media gives journals a platform to raise their profile and promote their content. This
study compares the number of clicks received when journals provide two types of links to subscription articles: open access (OA) and paid content links. We examine the OA effect using unique matched-pair data for the journal Nature Materials. Our study finds that OA links perform better than paid content links. In particular, when the journal does not indicate that a link to an article is an OA link, there is an obvious drop in performance against clicks on links indicating OA status. OA has a positive effect on the number of clicks in all countries, but its positive impact is slightly greater in developed countries. The results suggest that free content is more attractive to users than paid content. Social media exposure of scholarly articles promotes the use of research outputs. Combining social media dissemination with OA appears to enhance the reach of scientific information. However, extensive further efforts are needed to remove barriers to OA.
Accessibility research sits at the junction of several disciplines, drawing influence from HCI, disability studies, psychology, education, and more. To characterize the influences and extensions of accessibility research, we undertake a study of cita
tion trends for accessibility and related HCI communities. We assess the diversity of venues and fields of study represented among the referenced and citing papers of 836 accessibility research papers from ASSETS and CHI, finding that though publications in computer science dominate these citation relationships, the relative proportion of citations from papers on psychology and medicine has grown over time. Though ASSETS is a more niche venue than CHI in terms of citational diversity, both conferences display standard levels of diversity among their incoming and outgoing citations when analyzed in the context of 53K papers from 13 accessibility and HCI conference venues.
The Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG) provides machine-actionable access to scholarly literature that habitually is written in prose. Following the FAIR principles, the ORKG makes traditional, human-coded knowledge findable, accessible, interopera
ble, and reusable in a structured manner in accordance with the Linked Open Data paradigm. At the moment, in ORKG papers are described manually, but in the long run the semantic depth of the literature at scale needs automation. Operational Research is a suitable test case for this vision because the mathematical field and, hence, its publication habits are highly structured: A mundane problem is formulated as a mathematical model, solved or approximated numerically, and evaluated systematically. We study the existing literature with respect to the Assembly Line Balancing Problem and derive a semantic description in accordance with the ORKG. Eventually, selected papers are ingested to test the semantic description and refine it further.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
