搜索结果：publication

Paper publications are no longer the only form of research product. Due to recent initiatives by publication venues and funding institutions, open access datasets and software products are increasingly considered research products and URIs to these products are growing more prevalent in scholarly publications. However, as with all URIs, resources found on the live Web are not permanent. Archivists and institutions including Software Heritage, Internet Archive, and Zenodo are working to preserve data and software products as valuable parts of reproducibility, a cornerstone of scientific research. While some hosting platforms are well-known and can be identified with regular expressions, there are a vast number of smaller, more niche hosting platforms utilized by researchers to host their data and software. If it is not feasible to manually identify all hosting platforms used by researchers, how can we identify URIs to open-access data and software (OADS) to aid in their preservation? We used a hybrid classifier to classify URIs as OADS URIs and non-OADS URIs. We found that URIs to Git hosting platforms (GHPs) including GitHub, GitLab, SourceForge, and Bitbucket accounted for 33\% of

Novelty, akin to gene mutation in evolution, opens possibilities for scholarly advancement. Although peer review remains the gold standard for evaluating novelty in scholarly communication and resource allocation, the vast volume of submissions necessitates an automated measure of scholarly novelty. Adopting a perspective that views novelty as the atypical combination of existing knowledge, we introduce an information-theoretic measure of novelty in scholarly publications. This measure quantifies the degree of 'surprise' perceived by a language model that represents the word distribution of scholarly discourse. The proposed measure is accompanied by face and construct validity evidence; the former demonstrates correspondence to scientific common sense, and the latter is endorsed through alignment with novelty evaluations from a select panel of domain experts. Additionally, characterized by its interpretability, fine granularity, and accessibility, this measure addresses gaps prevalent in existing methods. We believe this measure holds great potential to benefit editors, stakeholders, and policymakers, and it provides a reliable lens for examining the relationship between novelty an

National research assessment exercises are conducted in different nations over varying periods. The choice of the publication period to be observed has to address often contrasting needs: it has to ensure the reliability of the results issuing from the evaluation, but also reach the achievement of frequent assessments. In this work we attempt to identify which is the most appropriate or optimal publication period to be observed. For this, we analyze the variation of individual researchers' productivity rankings with the length of the publication period within the period 2003-2008, by the over 30,000 Italian university scientists in the hard sciences. First we analyze the variation in rankings referring to pairs of contiguous and overlapping publication periods, and show that the variations reduce markedly with periods above three years. Then we will show the strong randomness of performance rankings over publication periods under three years. We conclude that the choice of a three year publication period would seem reliable, particularly for physics, chemistry, biology and medicine.

Scientific writing builds upon already published papers. Manual identification of publications to read, cite or consider as related papers relies on a researcher's ability to identify fitting keywords or initial papers from which a literature search can be started. The rapidly increasing amount of papers has called for automatic measures to find the desired relevant publications, so-called paper recommendation systems. As the number of publications increases so does the amount of paper recommendation systems. Former literature reviews focused on discussing the general landscape of approaches throughout the years and highlight the main directions. We refrain from this perspective, instead we only consider a comparatively small time frame but analyse it fully. In this literature review we discuss used methods, datasets, evaluations and open challenges encountered in all works first released between January 2019 and October 2021. The goal of this survey is to provide a comprehensive and complete overview of current paper recommendation systems.

We introduce a new tool - the CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer, www.crexplorer.net) - which can be used to disambiguate and analyze the cited references (CRs) of a publication set downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS). The tool is especially suitable to identify those publications which have been frequently cited by the researchers in a field and thereby to study for example the historical roots of a research field or topic. CRExplorer simplifies the identification of key publications by enabling the user to work with both a graph for identifying most frequently cited reference publication years (RPYs) and the list of references for the RPYs which have been most frequently cited. A further focus of the program is on the standardization of CRs. It is a serious problem in bibliometrics that there are several variants of the same CR in the WoS. In this study, CRExplorer is used to study the CRs of all papers published in the Journal of Informetrics. The analyses focus on the most important papers published between 1980 and 1990.

The definition of scholarly content has expanded to include the data and source code that contribute to a publication. While major archiving efforts to preserve conventional scholarly content, typically in PDFs (e.g., LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico), are underway, no analogous effort has yet emerged to preserve the data and code referenced in those PDFs, particularly the scholarly code hosted online on Git Hosting Platforms (GHPs). Similarly, the Software Heritage Foundation is working to archive public source code, but there is value in archiving the issue threads, pull requests, and wikis that provide important context to the code while maintaining their original URLs. In current implementations, source code and its ephemera are not preserved, which presents a problem for scholarly projects where reproducibility matters. To understand and quantify the scope of this issue, we analyzed the use of GHP URIs in the arXiv and PMC corpora from January 2007 to December 2021. In total, there were 253,590 URIs to GitHub, SourceForge, Bitbucket, and GitLab repositories across the 2.66 million publications in the corpora. We found that GitHub, GitLab, SourceForge, and Bitbucket were collectively l

We introduce the quantitative method named "reference publication year spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications which are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.

Many studies in information science have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we re-examine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (i) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (ii) analyse it across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data are analysed with an advanced statistical technique - segmented regression analysis - which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (1) The number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (2) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We have looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars and 8 to 9% to 2

In a previews paper we introduced the quantitative method named Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. In this study, we illustrate that RPYS can also be used to reveal the origin of scientific legends. We selected Darwin finches as an example for illustration. Charles Darwin, the originator of evolutionary theory, was given credit for finches he did not see and for observations and insights about the finches he never made. We have shown that a book published in 1947 is the most-highly cited early reference cited within the relevant literature. This book had already been revealed as the origin of the term Darwin finches by Sulloway through careful historical analysis.

The effects of Open Access (OA) upon journal performance are investigated. The key research question holds: How does the citation impact and publication output of journals switching ('flipping') from non-OA to Gold-OA develop after their switch to Gold-OA? A review is given of the literature, with an emphasis on studies dealing with flipping journals. Two study sets with 119 and 100 flipping journals, derived from two different OA data sources (DOAJ and OAD), are compared with two control groups, one based on a standard bibliometric criterion, and a second controlling for a journal's national orientation. Comparing post-switch indicators with pre-switch ones in paired T-tests, evidence was obtained of an OA Citation advantage but not of an OA Publication Advantage. Shifts in the affiliation countries of publishing and citing authors are characterized in terms of countries' income class and geographical world region. Suggestions are made for qualitative follow-up studies to obtain more insight into OA flipping or reverse-flipping

The objective of this research is to determine if the reference to a country in the title, keywords or abstract of a publication can influence its visibility (measured by the impact factor of the publishing journal) and citability (measured by the citations received). The study is based on Italian scientific production indexed in the Web of Science over the period 2004-2011. The analysis is conducted by comparing the values of four impact indicators for two subsets: i) the indexed publications with a country's name in the title, keywords or abstract; ii) the remainder of the population, with no country' name. The results obtained both at the general level and by subject category show that publications with a country name systematically receive lower impact values, with the exception of a limited number of subject categories, Also, the incidence of highly-cited articles is lower for the first subset.

The scientific community of researchers in a research specialty is an important unit of analysis for understanding the field specific shaping of scientific communication practices. These scientific communities are, however, a challenging unit of analysis to capture and compare because they overlap, have fuzzy boundaries, and evolve over time. We describe a network analytic approach that reveals the complexities of these communities through examination of their publication networks in combination with insights from ethnographic field studies. We suggest that the structures revealed indicate overlapping sub- communities within a research specialty and we provide evidence that they differ in disciplinary orientation and research practices. By mapping the community structures of scientific fields we aim to increase confidence about the domain of validity of ethnographic observations as well as of collaborative patterns extracted from publication networks thereby enabling the systematic study of field differences. The network analytic methods presented include methods to optimize the delineation of a bibliographic data set in order to adequately represent a research specialty, and metho

Here we consider the download statistics of EPL publications. We find that papers in the journal are characterised by fast accumulations of downloads during the first couple of months after publication, followed by slower rates thereafter, behaviour which can be represented by a model with predictive power. We also find that individual papers can be classified in various ways, allowing us to compare categories for open-access and non-open-access papers. For example, for the latter publications, which comprise the bulk of EPL papers, a small proportion (2%) display intense bursts of download activity, possibly following an extended period of less remarkable behaviour. About 18% have an especially high degree of attractiveness over and above what is typical for the journal. One can also classify the ageing of attractiveness by examining download half-lives. Approximately 18% have strong interest initially, waning in time. A further 20% exhibit "delayed recognition" with relatively late spurs in download activity. Although open-access papers enjoy more downloads on average, the proportions falling into each category are similar.

Referenced Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) was recently introduced as a method to analyze the historical roots of research fields and groups or institutions. RPYS maps the distribution of the publication years of the cited references in a document set. In this study, we apply this methodology to the œuvre of an individual researcher on the occasion of a Festschrift for András Schubert's 70th birthday. We discuss the different options of RPYS in relation to one another (e.g. Multi-RPYS), and in relation to the longer-term research program of algorithmic historiography (e.g., HistCite) based on Schubert's publications (n=172) and cited references therein as a bibliographic domain in scientometrics. Main path analysis and Multi-RPYS of the citation network are used to show the changes and continuities in Schubert's intellectual career. Diachronic and static decomposition of a document set can lead to different results, while the analytically distinguishable lines of research may overlap and interact over time, and intermittent.

Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering a paper as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more papers, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference papers seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators

One way of evaluating individual scientists is the determination of the number of highly cited publications, where the threshold is given by a large reference set. It is shown that this indicator behaves in a counterintuitive way, leading to inconsistencies in the ranking of different scientists.

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies which explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organizational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers: 1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e. dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive & organisational justice? 2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3,509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 19% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7 and 13% of

World University rankings have become well-established tools that students, university managers and policy makers read and use. Each ranking claims to have a unique methodology capable of measuring the 'quality' of universities. The purpose of this paper is to analyze to which extent these different rankings measure the same phenomenon and what it is that they are measuring. For this, we selected a total of seven world-university rankings and performed a principal component analysis. After ensuring that despite their methodological differences, they all come together to a single component, we hypothesized that bibliometric indicators could explain what is being measured. Our analyses show that ranking scores from whichever of the seven league tables under study can be explained by the number of publications and citations received by the institution. We conclude by discussing policy implications and opportunities on how a nuanced and responsible use of rankings can help decision making at the institutional level