The new platform will allow users to:
- Check if compliance with funder open access policies can be achieved with a particular journal
- Get a summary of publishers’ open access archiving conditions for individual journals and books
- To see funders’ conditions for open access publication
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Those wanting a firmer grip on chatbots, then, may have to explore more underhand techniques, such as the one discovered by two computer-science researchers at Harvard University. They’ve demonstrated how chatbots can be tactically controlled by deploying something as simple as a carefully written string of text. This “strategic text sequence” looks like a nonsensical series of characters – all random letters and punctuation – but is actually a delicate command that can strong-arm chatbots into generating a specific response. Not part of a programming language, it’s derived using an algorithm that iteratively develops text sequences that encourage LLMs to ignore their safety guardrails – and steer them towards particular outputs.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
This study aims to compare the geographical and disciplinary coverage of OA journals in three databases: OpenAlex, Scopus and the WoS. We used the ROAD database, managed by the ISSN International Centre, as a reference database which indexes 62,701 OA active resources (as of May 2024). Among the 62,701 active resources indexed in the ROAD database, the Web of Science indexes 6,157 journals, while Scopus indexes 7,351, and OpenAlex indexes 34,217. A striking observation is the presence of 25,658 OA journals exclusively in OpenAlex, whereas only 182 journals are exclusively present in WoS and 373 in Scopus. The geographical analysis focusses on two levels: continents and countries. As for disciplinary comparison, we use the ten disciplinary levels of the ROAD database. Moreover, our findings reveal a striking similarity in OA journal coverage between WoS and Scopus. However, while OpenAlex offers better inclusivity and indexing, it is not without biases. WoS and Scopus predictably favor journals from Europe, North America and Oceania. Although OpenAlex presents a much more balanced indexing, certain regions and countries remain relatively underrepresented. Typically, Africa is proportionally as under-represented in OpenAlex as it is in WoS, and some emerging countries are proportionally less represented in OpenAlex than in WoS and Scopus. These results underscore a marked similarity in OA journal indexing between WoS and Scopus, while OpenAlex aligns more closely with the distribution observed in the ROAD database, although it also exhibits some representational biases.
https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-04745665v1
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The Web of Science, a leading bibliometric indexing service, yesterday suspended the journal eLife from its listings because its novel publishing model adopted last year—which includes public peer review but no final decision on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected—conflicts with the Web of Science’s standards for assuring quality.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
In this installment of LibTech Tools hosted by Choice editor and publisher Rachel Hendrick and information services industry expert Gary Price, Gary highlights a useful tool within OpenAlex: email alerts for new scholarship. Of course, email alerts can be more annoying than useful, so Gary walks viewers through the different filter options to optimize their notifications and better stay up-to-date with the scholarship relevant to them.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
ChatGPT and Bard (now known as Gemini) are becoming indispensable resources for researchers, academicians and diverse stakeholders within the academic landscape. At the same time, traditional digital tools such as scholarly databases continue to be widely used. Web of Science and Scopus are the most extensive academic databases and are generally regarded as consistently reliable scholarly research resources. With the increasing acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing, this study focuses on understanding the reliability of the new AI models compared to Scopus and Web of Science. The study includes a bibliometric analysis of green, sustainable and ecological buying behaviour, covering the period from 1 January 2011 to 21 May 2023. These results are used to compare the results from the AI and the traditional scholarly databases on several parameters. Overall, the findings suggest that AI models like ChatGPT and Bard are not yet reliable for academic writing tasks. It appears to be too early to depend on AI for such tasks.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100563
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
In a significant step forward for digital preservation, Google Search is now making it easier than ever to access the past. Starting today, users everywhere can view archived versions of webpages directly through Google Search, with a simple link to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. . . .
To access this new feature, conduct a search on Google as usual. Next to each search result, you’ll find three dots—clicking on these will bring up the “About this Result” panel. Within this panel, select “More About This Page” to reveal a link to the Wayback Machine page for that website.
Through this direct link, you’ll be able to view previous versions of a webpage via the Wayback Machine, offering a snapshot of how it appeared at different points in time.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
This article presents the OpenCitations Index, a collection of open citation data maintained by OpenCitations, an independent, not-for-profit infrastructure organisation for open scholarship dedicated to publishing open bibliographic and citation data using Semantic Web and Linked Open Data technologies. The collection involves citation data harvested from multiple sources. To address the possibility of different sources providing citation data for bibliographic entities represented with different identifiers, therefore potentially representing same citation, a deduplication mechanism has been implemented. This ensures that citations integrated into OpenCitations Index are accurately identified uniquely, even when different identifiers are used. This mechanism follows a specific workflow, which encompasses a preprocessing of the original source data, a management of the provided bibliographic metadata, and the generation of new citation data to be integrated into the OpenCitations Index. The process relies on another data collection: OpenCitations Meta, and on the use of a new globally persistent identifier, namely OMID (OpenCitations Meta Identifier). As of July 2024, OpenCitations Index stores over 2 billion unique citation links, harvest from Crossref, the National Institute of Heath Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), DataCite, OpenAIRE, and the Japan Link Center (JaLC). OpenCitations Index can be systematically accessed and queried through several services, including SPARQL endpoint, REST APIs, and web interfaces. Additionally, dataset dumps are available for free download and reuse (under CC0 waiver) in various formats (CSV, N-Triples, and Scholix), including provenance and change tracking information.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02321
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Research on how people look for and interact with information has a long history in the information field. The current literature has been repeatedly reviewed in earlier volumes of Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. In this review, we offer an overview of the research published in this area in the years 2016–2022 with a focus on the trends that have emerged in this period. We use the term "information behavior" as an umbrella for the research area interested in how people become informed and engage with information in diverse manners acknowledging that different researchers and subfields prefer other terms and frameworks, including information practices, information experience, and health information seeking, to name a few. We reviewed 1270 articles in the field published in the years 2016–2022 and identified seven emerging trends: The CoVID-19 Pandemic, Diversity and Inclusion, Embodiment, Misinformation and Trust, Social Q&A Websites, Collaboration, and Information Creation. The reviewed literature and trends are discussed in relation to their significance for information, earlier review of information behavior research, and the long-debated issue of theory-driven versus atheoretical research in the field.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24943
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
"Google is no longer trying to index the entire web," writes Schmalbach [Vincent Schmalbach, SEO expert]. "In fact, it’s become extremely selective, refusing to index most content. This isn’t about content creators failing to meet some arbitrary standard of quality. Rather, it’s a fundamental change in how Google approaches its role as a search engine." The default setting from now on will be not to index content unless it is genuinely unique, authoritative and has ‘brand recognition’.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The preliminary findings from the linear regression analysis (Table 1) suggest a meaningful relationship between the online engagement metrics of videos on YouTube and the academic impact of the publications referenced within these videos. Specifically, the analysis found positive correlations with the citation impact for three key metrics: the number of videos referencing publications, the ratio of likes to dislikes on videos, and the number of comments containing references to other publications. The positive correlation indicates a sort of selective amplification process. Publications mentioned in videos that garner attention in the form of likes and active discussion in comments are likely being selectively chosen for their relevance or quality. This selection process by content creators and the subsequent engagement by viewers may serve as an “informal peer review”, signaling the value and impact of the research. The findings suggest that social media, particularly YouTube in this context, acts as a filter that potentially can highlight the visibility of impactful research.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12734
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Archie, first crafted by Alan Emtage while a student at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, allowed for the searching of various “anonymous” FTP servers around what was then a very small web of universities, researchers, and government and military nodes. . . .
Not only did The Serial Code rescue the last working version of Archie (seemingly a 3.5 beta), but they posted its docs and now run an actual Archie server on an emulated Sun SPARCstation 5. It’s currently indexing its own mirror
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Using data from seven R1 and R2 universities in Ohio, this study seeks to determine the extent of usage of full-text e-journal articles stored across multiple platforms. . . . The overarching goal of the analysis is to identify where exactly usage occurred for this e-journal content within the different platforms, especially in cases where an individual title has duplicate full-text access.. . . Findings raise significant questions about end-user behavior in terms of student’ and faculty’s ability to locate full text, regardless of whether it is discoverable from Google or other commercial search engines. The findings also suggest a strong connection between EBSCO usage and the academic calendar, with peak usage (as a percentage of overall usage) occurring in October, November, March, and April. Lastly, findings for Taylor & Francis e-journals within EBSCO call into question what these duplicate holdings mean for "big deal" subscription packages.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2024.2337578
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Web search is a crucial technology for the digital economy. Dominated by a few gatekeepers focused on commercial success, however, web publishers have to optimize their content for these gatekeepers, resulting in a closed ecosystem of search engines as well as the risk of publishers sacrificing quality. To encourage an open search ecosystem and offer users genuine choice among alternative search engines, we propose the development of an Open Web Index (OWI). We outline six core principles for developing and maintaining an open index, based on open data principles, legal compliance, and collaborative technology development. The combination of an open index with what we call declarative search engines will facilitate the development of vertical search engines and innovative web data products (including, e.g., large language models), enabling a fair and open information space. This framework underpins the EU-funded project OpenWebSearch.EU, marking the first step towards realizing an Open Web Index.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24818
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
PubTator 3.0 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/pubtator3/) is a biomedical literature resource using state-of-the-art AI techniques to offer semantic and relation searches for key concepts like proteins, genetic variants, diseases and chemicals. It currently provides over one billion entity and relation annotations across approximately 36 million PubMed abstracts and 6 million full-text articles from the PMC open access subset, updated weekly. PubTator 3.0’s online interface and API utilize these precomputed entity relations and synonyms to provide advanced search capabilities and enable large-scale analyses, streamlining many complex information needs. We showcase the retrieval quality of PubTator 3.0 using a series of entity pair queries, demonstrating that PubTator 3.0 retrieves a greater number of articles than either PubMed or Google Scholar, with higher precision in the top 20 results. We further show that integrating ChatGPT (GPT-4) with PubTator APIs dramatically improves the factuality and verifiability of its responses. In summary, PubTator 3.0 offers a comprehensive set of features and tools that allow researchers to navigate the ever-expanding wealth of biomedical literature, expediting research and unlocking valuable insights for scientific discovery.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae235
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
As many of us in the information retrieval (IR) research community know and appreciate, search is far from being a solved problem. Millions of people struggle with tasks on search engines every day. Often, their struggles relate to the intrinsic complexity of their task and the failure of search systems to fully understand the task and serve relevant results. The task motivates the search, creating the gap/problematic situation that searchers attempt to bridge/resolve and drives search behavior as they work through different task facets. Complex search tasks require more than support for rudimentary fact finding or re-finding. Research on methods to support complex tasks includes work on generating query and website suggestions, personalizing and contextualizing search, and developing new search experiences, including those that span time and space. The recent emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and the arrival of assistive agents, based on this technology, has the potential to offer further assistance to searchers, especially those engaged in complex tasks. There are profound implications from these advances for the design of intelligent systems and for the future of search itself. This article, based on a keynote by the author at the 2023 ACM SIGIR Conference, explores these issues and how AI agents are advancing the frontier of search system capabilities, with a special focus on information interaction and complex task completion.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01235
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Using OpenAlex and the Directory of Open Access Journals as a benchmark, this paper investigates the coverage of diamond and gold through authorship and journal coverage in the Web of Science and Scopus by field, country, and language. Results show their lower coverage in WoS and Scopus, and the local scope of diamond OA. The share of English-only journals is considerably higher among gold journals. High-income countries have the highest share of authorship in every domain and type of journal, except for diamond journals in the social sciences and humanities. Understanding the current landscape of diamond OA indexing can aid the scholarly communications network with advancing policy and practices towards more inclusive OA models.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01985
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
OurResearch is proud to announce a $7.5M grant from Arcadia, to establish a sustainable and completely open index of the world’s research ecosystem. With this 5-year grant, OurResearch expands their open science ambitions to replace paywalled knowledge graphs with OpenAlex. . . .
OpenAlex indexes more than twice as many scholarly works as the leading proprietary products and the entirety of the knowledge graph and its source code are openly licensed and freely available through data snapshots, an easy to use API, and a nascent user interface. . . .
Development of OpenAlex started only two years ago and it already serves 115M API calls per month; underlies a major university ranking; is displacing proprietary products at Universities; and has established partnerships with national governments. We are excited by these early successes of OpenAlex and its promise to revolutionize scholarly communication and democratize the world’s research.
You can use OpenAlex‘s Author Profile Change Request Form, to correct certain types of errors about your publications, such as "My work has been incorrectly attributed to another author."
There is also a Submit a Request form, but it is not clear if this can be used to correct citation count or other types of errors not covered by the above form.
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
How important is Google for scientific research? This paper exploits the exogenous shock represented by Google’s sudden withdrawal of its services from mainland China to assess the importance of access to information for the knowledge production function of scientific scholars in the field of economics. For economists, a type of scholar with a simple knowledge production function, results from difference-in-difference analyses, which compare their scientific output to scholars located in the neighbouring regions, show that the scientific productivity declines by about 28% in volume and 30% in terms of citations. These results are consistent with the view that information accessibility is an important driver of scientific progress. Considering that the negative effect of the shock is stronger for top scholars located in China, Google’s sudden exit bears the risk that researchers lose touch with the research frontier and persistently lag behind their foreign peers.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2023.2298293
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
With Dimensions Research GPT, any Plus or Enterprise ChatGPT Store subscriber can gain insight from the tens of millions of Open Access publications available through Dimensions, providing a quick and effective search of open research on the user-friendly ChatGPT platform. Search results include clickable links that take users to Dimensions, where they can learn more about source materials.
Dimensions Research GPT Enterprise is available to mutual ChatGPT Enterprise and organization-wide Dimensions customers, and incorporates insights from all publications, grants, clinical trials and patents within the Dimensions database. Queries such as "tell me about clinical trials for malaria vaccines", followed by "tell me about the key research articles that underpin these trials" provide answers that come fully linked to the research literature behind the responses, ensuring that researchers can access and check the source of the information.
https://www.digital-science.com/news/dimensions-research-gpt/
Here is a inquiry I made to Dimensions Research GPT:
Describe the history of the open access movement
The history of the open access movement, which aims to make scholarly research freely available to all, is rich and diverse, involving various stakeholders including researchers, libraries, publishers, and educational institutions. The top results from Dimensions include a range of perspectives and approaches, with a total of 946,585 related documents found.
Perspectives on Open Access Publishing:
Particle Physics and Open Access: Travis C. Brooks (2007) discusses the adoption of open access in particle physics, highlighting the field’s longstanding tradition of preprints and the European efforts towards fully open access publishing models (Brooks, 2007).
Scholarly Publishing System Critique: Molly Kleinman (2017) offers a critical view of the traditional scholarly publishing system and presents the open access movement as a remedy to its drawbacks, emphasizing its benefits for faculty, universities, and the public (Kleinman, 2017).
Academic Publishing Evolution: Bernard Forgues and Sébastien Liarte (2013) reflect on the evolution of academic publishing, discussing the challenges of subscription prices and time embargoes, and how the open access movement aims to reshape scholarly communication (Forgues & Liarte, 2013).
Innovative Open Access Models and Reflections:
Open Access Archives for Education: Bonnie Gordon et al. (2016) describe how Interference Archive uses an open stacks policy for education, allowing for a participatory approach in deciding how histories are told and accessed (Gordon et al., 2016).
Scholarly Knowledge Freedom: Peter Baldwin (2023) examines the past, present, and future of the open access movement, arguing for the free dissemination of scholarly knowledge (Baldwin, 2023).
University Presses and Open Access: Paul Ayris and Lara Speicher (2015) discuss the launch of UCL Press, the UK’s first fully open access university press, highlighting the global movement towards open access and open science (Ayris & Speicher, 2015).
Other Relevant Insights:
MOOCs and Licensing Challenges: David Kernohan (2013) examines the challenges of licensing and intellectual property in the massive open online course (MOOC) movement, advocating for open licenses to maximize content management benefits (Kernohan, 2013).
National Parks and Open Access: Kristian Martinus Mennen (2023) explores the history of the national parks movement in England and Wales, emphasizing its role in providing public access to natural spaces (Mennen, 2023).
In conclusion, the history of the open access movement is characterized by efforts across various fields to make scholarly knowledge freely available, addressing the challenges posed by traditional publishing models and exploring innovative solutions. With 946,585 documents identified, the movement’s impact and evolution continue to be a rich area for exploration and discussion.
This is what Microsoft’s Copilot said:
The Open Access Movement has a rich history spanning several decades. Let’s delve into some key milestones:
Project Gutenberg (1971): Michael Hart launched Project Gutenberg, an initiative to digitize and archive cultural works, making them freely accessible 1.
Psycoloquy (1989): Stevan Harnad launched the free online journal Psycoloquy, which later became a peer-reviewed journal in January 1990 1.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review (1989): Charles W. Bailey Jr. initiated this free online journal, which transitioned to peer-reviewed status in April 1992 1.
Tim Berners-Lee and the World Wide Web (1990-1991): Tim Berners-Lee proposed the concept of the World Wide Web, leading to its launch in March 1991. This pivotal development facilitated global information sharing 1.
ArXiv (1991): Physicist Paul Ginsparg established ArXiv, an open repository for preprints in physics and related fields 1.
Emergence of E-Journals (Early 1990s): Several e-journals, such as Ejournal, Electronic Journal of Communication, and Postmodern Culture, emerged during this period 1.
Standards for the World Wide Web (1991): Tim Berners-Lee released the standards for the World Wide Web, shaping its growth and accessibility 1.
Project MUSE (1993): The Milton S. Eisenhower Library, in partnership with Johns Hopkins University Press, launched Project MUSE, a pioneer in online distribution that allowed full-text searches 1.
Self-Archiving Proposal (1994): Stevan Harnad proposed self-archiving, advocating for authors to freely share their research 1.
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) (1994): Wayne Marr and Michael Jensen founded SSRN, a platform for sharing working papers and preprints 1.
Open Access Conversion (1994): The print journal Florida Entomologist transitioned to an open-access format, making all previous issues available for free 1.
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) (1996): Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University launched NDLTD, promoting open access to theses and dissertations 1.
Internet Archive (1996): Brewster Kahle established the Internet Archive, preserving digital content for public access 1.
Medline and PubMed (1997): Medline, initially launched in 1966, became open access and was incorporated into PubMed 1. SciELO (1997): SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) began development as a project supported by FAPESP and BIREME 1.
The Open Access Movement continues to evolve, driven by the vision of making scholarly knowledge freely available to all.
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
In October, my institution was granted access to the Beta version of ScopusAI. I have tested it using a concept connected to my PhD dissertation in physics, an "electromagnon". In this post, I want to share my experience and use it to illustrate the many dimensions the design and assessment of such tools need to consider. . . .
[The author provides an extensive description and analysis of the performed tests as well as their broader implications.]
And if AI is only as good as its underlying data, let’s not forget who owns the scholarly data and regulates access to it. Big scholarly publishers have long been using content as a resource to capitalize on. AI tools amplify existing imbalances in access to scholarly text: if a publisher owns the exclusive right to a text, they can train their own AI on it and make this content unavailable to competing AI projects, profiting from the copyright yet again. Currently, most AI research assistants are grounded with abstracts, but the real value is contained in the full text of articles, and accessing them remains very difficult.
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Will traffic from search engines to your website drop 25% by 2026 as a result of the rise of generative AI answer engines? That’s what Gartner, a technological research and consulting firm, is predicting. . . . Gartner previously predicted that "organic search traffic will decrease by 50% or more [by 2028] as consumers embrace generative AI-powered search."
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
OpenAI is reportedly developing a search app that would directly compete with Google Search . . . Microsoft Bing would allegedly power the service from Sam Altman, which could be the most serious threat Google Search has ever faced. Current AI-enabled search engines from Google and Perplexity answer your questions with a clear AI-generated answer, usually in one to two sentences. Then, the engine provides links to its sources below, like a hybrid between an AI chatbot and a search engine. The report says this new search product could be faster than ChatGPT, without sacrificing its powerful summarizing abilities.
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The main objective of this study is to compare the amount of metadata and the completeness degree of research publications in new academic databases. Using a quantitative approach, we selected a random Crossref sample of more than 115k records, which was then searched in seven databases (Dimensions, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, OpenAlex, Scilit, Semantic Scholar, and The Lens). Seven characteristics were analyzed (abstract, access, bibliographic info, document type, publication date, language, and identifiers), to observe fields that describe this information, the completeness rate of these fields, and the agreement among databases. The results show that academic search engines (Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and Semantic Scholar) gather less information and have a low degree of completeness. Conversely, third-party databases (Dimensions, OpenAlex, Scilit, and The Lens) have more metadata quality and a higher completeness rate. We conclude that academic search engines lack the ability to retrieve reliable descriptive data by crawling the Web, while the main problem of third-party databases is the loss of information derived from integrating different sources.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00286
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Citations are widely considered in scientists’ evaluation. As such, scientists may be incentivized to inflate their citation counts. While previous literature has examined self-citations and citation cartels, it remains unclear whether scientists can purchase citations. Here, we compile a dataset of ~1.6 million profiles on Google Scholar to examine instances of citation fraud on the platform. We survey faculty at highly-ranked universities, and confirm that Google Scholar is widely used when evaluating scientists. Intrigued by a citation-boosting service that we unravelled during our investigation, we contacted the service while undercover as a fictional author, and managed to purchase 50 citations. These findings provide conclusive evidence that citations can be bought in bulk, and highlight the need to look beyond citation counts.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04607
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
