A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cousijn H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6244190 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers.
Cousijn Helena H Kenall Amye A Ganley Emma E Harrison Melissa M Kernohan David D Lemberger Thomas T Murphy Fiona F Polischuk Patrick P Taylor Simone S Martone Maryann M Clark Tim T
Scientific data 20181120
This article presents a practical roadmap for scholarly publishers to implement data citation in accordance with the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (JDDCP), a synopsis and harmonization of the recommendations of major science policy bodies. It was developed by the Publishers Early Adopters Expert Group as part of the Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) project, an initiative of FORCE11.org and the NIH BioCADDIE program. The structure of the roadmap presented here follows the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article presents a practical roadmap for scholarly data repositories to implement data citation in accordance with the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, a synopsis and harmonization of the recommendations of major science policy bodies. The roadmap was developed by the Repositories Expert Group, as part of the Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) project, an initiative of FORCE11.org and the NIH-funded BioCADDIE ( https://biocaddie.org ) project. The roadmap makes 11 specific recommendations, grouped into three phases of implementation: a) required steps needed to support the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, b) recommended steps that facilitate article/data publication workflows, and c) optional steps that further improve data citation support provided by data repositories. We describe the early adoption of these recommendations 18 months after they have first been published, looking specifically at implementations of machine-readable metadata on dataset landing pages.
| S-EPMC6472386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Databases catalogue the corpus of research literature into scientific categories and report classes of bibliometric data such as the number of citations to articles, the number of authors, journals, funding agencies, institutes, references, etc. The number of articles and citations in a category are gauges of productivity and scientific impact but a quantitative basis to compare researchers between categories is limited. Here, we compile a list of bibliometric indicators for 236 science categories and citation rates of the 500 most cited articles of each category. The number of citations per paper vary by several orders of magnitude and are highest in multidisciplinary sciences, general internal medicine, and biochemistry and lowest in literature, poetry, and dance. A regression model demonstrates that citation rates to the top articles in each category increase with the square root of the number of articles in a category and decrease proportionately with the age of the references: articles in categories that cite recent research are also cited more frequently. The citation rate correlates positively with the number of funding agencies that finance the research. The category h-index correlates with the average number of cites to the top 500 ranked articles of each category ([Formula: see text]). Furthermore, only a few journals publish the top 500 cited articles in each category: four journals publish 60% ([Formula: see text]) of these and ten publish 81% ([Formula: see text]).
| S-EPMC5446096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose a new method to assess the merit of any set of scientific papers in a given field based on the citations they receive. Given a field and a citation impact indicator, such as the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index, the merit of a given set of [Formula: see text] articles is identified with the probability that a randomly drawn set of [Formula: see text] articles from a given pool of articles in that field has a lower citation impact according to the indicator in question. The method allows for comparisons between sets of articles of different sizes and fields. Using a dataset acquired from Thomson Scientific that contains the articles published in the periodical literature in the period 1998-2007, we show that the novel approach yields rankings of research units different from those obtained by a direct application of the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index.
| S-EPMC3496740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011-2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists.
| S-EPMC4930269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:International collaboration is becoming increasingly important for the advancement of science. To gain a more precise understanding of how factors such as international collaboration influence publication success, we divide publication success into two categories: journal placement and citation performance. Analyzing all papers published between 1996 and 2012 in eight disciplines, we find that those with more countries in their affiliations performed better in both categories. Furthermore, specific countries vary in their effects both individually and in combination. Finally, we look at the relationship between national output (in papers published) and input (in citations received) over the 17 years, expanding upon prior depictions by also plotting an expected proportion of citations based on Journal Placement. Discrepancies between this expectation and the realized proportion of citations illuminate trends in performance, such as the decline of the Global North in response to rapidly developing countries, especially China. Yet, most countries' show little to no discrepancy, meaning that, in most cases, citation proportion can be predicted by Journal Placement alone. This reveals an extreme asymmetry between the opinions of a few reviewers and the degree to which paper acceptance and citation rates influence career advancement.
| S-EPMC4189927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Linking nucleotide sequence data (NSD) to scientific publication citations can enhance understanding of NSD provenance, scientific use, and reuse in the community. By connecting publications with NSD records, NSD geographical provenance information, and author geographical information, it becomes possible to assess the contribution of NSD to infer trends in scientific knowledge gain at the global level. We extracted and linked records from the European Nucleotide Archive to citations in open-access publications aggregated at Europe PubMed Central. A total of 8,464,292 ENA accessions with geographical provenance information were associated with publications. We conducted a data quality review to uncover potential issues in publication citation information extraction and author affiliation tagging and developed and implemented best-practice recommendations for citation extraction. We constructed flat data tables and a data warehouse with an interactive web application to enable ad hoc exploration of NSD use and summary statistics. The extraction and linking of NSD with associated publication citations enables transparency. The quality review contributes to enhanced text mining methods for identifier extraction and use. Furthermore, the global provision and use of NSD enable scientists worldwide to join literature and sequence databases in a multidimensional fashion. As a concrete use case, we visualized statistics of country clusters concerning NSD access in the context of discussions around digital sequence information under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
| S-EPMC8716361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:We recently developed CoCites, a citation-based search method that is designed to be more efficient than traditional keyword-based methods. The method begins with identification of one or more highly relevant publications (query articles) and consists of two searches: the co-citation search, which ranks publications on their co-citation frequency with the query articles, and the citation search, which ranks publications on frequency of all citations that cite or are cited by the query articles. METHODS:We aimed to reproduce the literature searches of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and assess whether CoCites retrieves all eligible articles while screening fewer titles. RESULTS:A total of 250 reviews were included. CoCites retrieved a median of 75% of the articles that were included in the original reviews. The percentage of retrieved articles was higher (88%) when the query articles were cited more frequently and when they had more overlap in their citations. Applying CoCites to only the highest-cited article yielded similar results. The co-citation and citation searches combined were more efficient when the review authors had screened more than 500 titles, but not when they had screened less. CONCLUSIONS:CoCites is an efficient and accurate method for finding relevant related articles. The method uses the expert knowledge of authors to rank related articles, does not depend on keyword selection and requires no special expertise to build search queries. The method is transparent and reproducible.
| S-EPMC7006380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data from open access biomolecular data resources, such as the European Nucleotide Archive and the Protein Data Bank are extensively reused within life science research for comparative studies, method development and to derive new scientific insights. Indicators that estimate the extent and utility of such secondary use of research data need to reflect this complex and highly variable data usage. By linking open access scientific literature, via Europe PubMedCentral, to the metadata in biological data resources we separate data citations associated with a deposition statement from citations that capture the subsequent, long-term, reuse of data in academia and industry. We extend this analysis to begin to investigate citations of biomolecular resources in patent documents. We find citations in more than 8,000 patents from 2014, demonstrating substantial use and an important role for data resources in defining biological concepts in granted patents to both academic and industrial innovators. Combined together our results indicate that the citation patterns in biomedical literature and patents vary, not only due to citation practice but also according to the data resource cited. The results guard against the use of simple metrics such as citation counts and show that indicators of data use must not only take into account citations within the biomedical literature but also include reuse of data in industry and other parts of society by including patents and other scientific and technical documents such as guidelines, reports and grant applications.
| S-EPMC4821287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCitation classics represent the highest cited works in a field and are often regarded as the most influential literature. Analyzing thematic trends in citation classics across eras enables recognition of important historical advances within a field. We present the first analysis of the citation classics in neuro-oncology.MethodsThe Web of Science database was searched using terms relevant to "neuro-oncology." Articles with >400 citations were identified and the top 100 cited articles were evaluated.ResultsThe top 100 neuro-oncology citation classics consisted of 43 clinical studies (17 retrospective, 10 prospective, 16 randomized trials), 43 laboratory investigations, 8 reviews/meta-analyses, and 6 guidelines/consensus statements. Articles were classified into 4 themes: 13 pertained to tumor classification, 37 to tumor pathogenesis/clinical presentation, 6 to imaging, 44 to therapy (15 chemotherapy, 10 radiotherapy, 5 surgery, 14 new agents). Gliomas were the most common tumor type examined, with 70 articles. There was a significant increase in the number of citation classics in the late 1990s, which was paralleled by an increase in studies examining tumor pathogenesis, chemotherapy, and new agents along with laboratory and randomized studies.ConclusionsThe majority of citation classics in neuro-oncology are related to gliomas and pertain to tumor pathogenesis and treatment. The rise in citation classics in recent years investigating tumor biology, new treatment agents, and chemotherapeutics may reflect increasing scientific interest in nonsurgical treatments for CNS tumors and the need for fundamental investigations into disease processes.
| S-EPMC5570246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpin one's own findings and opinion. Over time, selective use of literature, by means of citations, can lead to a skewed knowledge development and a biased scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which factors drive citation and whether this results in the overrepresentation of harmful health effects of BPA.MethodsA citation network analysis was performed to test various determinants of citation. A systematic search identified all relevant publications on the human health effect of BPA. Data were extracted on potential determinants of selective citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, authority of the author, self-citation, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation.ResultsOne hundred sixty-nine publications on BPA were identified, with 12,432 potential citation pathways of which 808 citations occurred. The network consisted of 63 cross-sectional studies, 34 cohort studies, 29 case-control studies, 35 narrative reviews, and 8 systematic reviews. Positive studies have a 1.5 times greater chance of being cited compared to negative studies. Additionally, the authority of the author and self-citation are consistently found to be positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. Overall, the network seems to be highly influenced by two highly cited publications, whereas 60 out of 169 publications received no citations.ConclusionIn the literature on BPA, citation is mostly driven by positive study outcome and author-related factors, such as high authority within the network. Interpreting the impact of these factors and the big influence of a few highly cited publications, it can be questioned to which extent the knowledge development in human literature on BPA is actually evidence-based.
| S-EPMC6440006 | biostudies-literature