Dataset Information

A systematic metadata harvesting workflow for analysing scientific networks.

ABSTRACT: One of the disciplines behind the science of science is the study of scientific networks. This work focuses on scientific networks as a social network having different nodes and connections. Nodes can be represented by authors, articles or journals while connections by citation, co-citation or co-authorship. One of the challenges in creating scientific networks is the lack of publicly available comprehensive data set. It limits the variety of analyses on the same set of nodes of different scientific networks. To supplement such analyses we have worked on publicly available citation metadata from Crossref and OpenCitatons. Using this data a workflow is developed to create scientific networks. Analysis of these networks gives insights into academic research and scholarship. Different techniques of social network analysis have been applied in the literature to study these networks. It includes centrality analysis, community detection, and clustering coefficient. We have used metadata of Scientometrics journal, as a case study, to present our workflow. We did a sample run of the proposed workflow to identify prominent authors using centrality analysis. This work is not a bibliometric study of any field rather it presents replicable Python scripts to perform network analysis. With an increase in the popularity of open access and open metadata, we hypothesise that this workflow shall provide an avenue for understanding scientific scholarship in multiple dimensions.

SUBMITTER: Butt BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7959659 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMetadata are created to describe the corresponding data in a detailed and unambiguous way and is used for various applications in different research areas, for example, data identification and classification. However, a clear definition of metadata is crucial for further use. Unfortunately, extensive experience with the processing and management of metadata has shown that the term "metadata" and its use is not always unambiguous.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand the definition of metadata and the challenges resulting from metadata reuse.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in this study following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for reporting on systematic reviews. Five research questions were identified to streamline the review process, addressing metadata characteristics, metadata standards, use cases, and problems encountered. This review was preceded by a harmonization process to achieve a general understanding of the terms used.ResultsThe harmonization process resulted in a clear set of definitions for metadata processing focusing on data integration. The following literature review was conducted by 10 reviewers with different backgrounds and using the harmonized definitions. This study included 81 peer-reviewed papers from the last decade after applying various filtering steps to identify the most relevant papers. The 5 research questions could be answered, resulting in a broad overview of the standards, use cases, problems, and corresponding solutions for the application of metadata in different research areas.ConclusionsMetadata can be a powerful tool for identifying, describing, and processing information, but its meaningful creation is costly and challenging. This review process uncovered many standards, use cases, problems, and solutions for dealing with metadata. The presented harmonized definitions and the new schema have the potential to improve the classification and generation of metadata by creating a shared understanding of metadata and its context.

Dataset Information

A systematic metadata harvesting workflow for analysing scientific networks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets