Dataset Information

A large dataset of scientific text reuse in Open-Access publications.

ABSTRACT: We present the Webis-STEREO-21 dataset, a massive collection of Scientific Text Reuse in Open-access publications. It contains 91 million cases of reused text passages found in 4.2 million unique open-access publications. Cases range from overlap of as few as eight words to near-duplicate publications and include a variety of reuse types, ranging from boilerplate text to verbatim copying to quotations and paraphrases. Featuring a high coverage of scientific disciplines and varieties of reuse, as well as comprehensive metadata to contextualize each case, our dataset addresses the most salient shortcomings of previous ones on scientific writing. The Webis-STEREO-21 does not indicate if a reuse case is legitimate or not, as its focus is on the general study of text reuse in science, which is legitimate in the vast majority of cases. It allows for tackling a wide range of research questions from different scientific backgrounds, facilitating both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the phenomenon as well as a first-time grounding on the base rate of text reuse in scientific publications.

SUBMITTER: Gienapp L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9879940 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A large dataset of scientific text reuse in Open-Access publications.

Gienapp Lukas L Kircheis Wolfgang W Sievers Bjarne B Stein Benno B Potthast Martin M

Scientific data 20230126 1

We present the Webis-STEREO-21 dataset, a massive collection of Scientific Text Reuse in Open-access publications. It contains 91 million cases of reused text passages found in 4.2 million unique open-access publications. Cases range from overlap of as few as eight words to near-duplicate publications and include a variety of reuse types, ranging from boilerplate text to verbatim copying to quotations and paraphrases. Featuring a high coverage of scientific disciplines and varieties of reuse, as ...[more]

PMID: 36702840

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic is creating a global health emergency. Mapping this health emergency in scientific publications demands multiple approaches to obtain a picture as complete as possible. To progress in the knowledge of this pandemic and to control its effects, international collaborations between researchers are essentials, as well as having open and immediate access to scientific publications, what we called "coopetition". Our main objectives are to identify the most productive countries in coronavirus publications, to analyse the international scientific collaboration on this topic, and to study the proportion and typology of open accessibility to these publications. We have analyzed 18,875 articles indexed in Web of Science. We performed the descriptive statistical analysis in order to explore the performance of the more prolific countries and organizations, as well as paying attention to the last 2 years. Registers have been analyzed separately via the VOSviewer software, drawing a network of links among countries and organizations to identify the starred countries and organizations, and the strongest links of the net. We have explored the capacity of researchers to generate scientific knowledge about a health crisis emergency, and their global capacity to collaborate among them in a global emergency. We consider that science is moving rapidly to find solutions to international health problems but access to this knowledge by society is not so quick due to several limitations (open access policies, corporate interests, etc.). We have observed that papers from China in the last 3 months (from January 2020 to March 2020) have a strong impact compared with papers published in years before. The United States and China are the major producers of documents of our sample, followed by all European countries, especially the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the same time, the leading role of Saudi Arabia, Canada or South Korea should be noted, with a significant number of documents submitted but very different dynamics of international collaboration. The proportion of international collaboration is growing in all countries in 2019-2020, which contrasts with the situation of the last two decades. The organizations providing the most documents to the sample are mostly Chinese. The percentage of open access articles on coronavirus for the period 2001-2020 is 59.2% but if we focus in 2020 the figures increase up to 91.4%, due to the commitment of commercial publishers with the emergency.

Project description:BackgroundThe problem of access to medical information, particularly in low-income countries, has been under discussion for many years. Although a number of developments have occurred in the last decade (e.g., the open access (OA) movement and the website Sci-Hub), everyone agrees that these difficulties still persist very widely, mainly due to the fact that paywalls still limit access to approximately 75% of scholarly documents. In this study, we compare the accessibility of recent full text articles in the field of ophthalmology in 27 established institutions located worldwide.MethodsA total of 200 references from articles were retrieved using the PubMed database. Each article was individually checked for OA. Full texts of non-OA (i.e., "paywalled articles") were examined to determine whether they were available using institutional and Hinari access in each institution studied, using "alternative ways" (i.e., PubMed Central, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and Online Reprint Request), and using the website Sci-Hub.ResultsThe number of full texts of "paywalled articles" available using institutional and Hinari access showed strong heterogeneity, scattered between 0% full texts to 94.8% (mean = 46.8%; SD = 31.5; median = 51.3%). We found that complementary use of "alternative ways" and Sci-Hub leads to 95.5% of full text "paywalled articles," and also divides by 14 the average extra costs needed to obtain all full texts on publishers' websites using pay-per-view.ConclusionsThe scant number of available full text "paywalled articles" in most institutions studied encourages researchers in the field of ophthalmology to use Sci-Hub to search for scientific information. The scientific community and decision-makers must unite and strengthen their efforts to find solutions to improve access to scientific literature worldwide and avoid an implosion of the scientific publishing model. This study is not an endorsement for using Sci-Hub. The authors, their institutions, and publishers accept no responsibility on behalf of readers.

Dataset Information

A large dataset of scientific text reuse in Open-Access publications.

Publications

A large dataset of scientific text reuse in Open-Access publications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets