交叉引用能取代科学网进行研究评估吗?开放引文的份额

Tomás Chudlarský, J. Dvorák
{"title":"交叉引用能取代科学网进行研究评估吗?开放引文的份额","authors":"Tomás Chudlarský, J. Dvorák","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2020-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose We study the proportion of Web of Science (WoS) citation links that are represented in the Crossref Open Citation Index (COCI), with the possible aim of using COCI in research evaluation instead of the WoS, if the level of coverage was sufficient. Design/methodology/approach We calculate the proportion on citation links where both publications have a WoS accession number and a DOI simultaneously, and where the cited publications have had at least one author from our institution, the Czech Technical University in Prague. We attempt to look up each such citation link in COCI. Findings We find that 53.7% of WoS citation links are present in the COCI. The proportion varies largely by discipline. The total figures differ significantly from 40% in the large-scale study by Van Eck, Waltman, Larivière, and Sugimoto (blog 2018, https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234). Research limitations The sample does not cover all science areas uniformly; it is heavily focused on Engineering and Technology, and only some disciplines of Natural Sciences are present. However, this reflects the real scientific orientation and publication profile of our institution. Practical implications The current level of coverage is not sufficient for the WoS to be replaced by COCI for research evaluation. Originality/value The present study illustrates a COCI vs WoS comparison on the scale of a larger technical university in Central Europe.","PeriodicalId":92237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","volume":"5 1","pages":"35 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Crossref Citations Replace Web of Science for Research Evaluation? The Share of Open Citations\",\"authors\":\"Tomás Chudlarský, J. Dvorák\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jdis-2020-0037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose We study the proportion of Web of Science (WoS) citation links that are represented in the Crossref Open Citation Index (COCI), with the possible aim of using COCI in research evaluation instead of the WoS, if the level of coverage was sufficient. Design/methodology/approach We calculate the proportion on citation links where both publications have a WoS accession number and a DOI simultaneously, and where the cited publications have had at least one author from our institution, the Czech Technical University in Prague. We attempt to look up each such citation link in COCI. Findings We find that 53.7% of WoS citation links are present in the COCI. The proportion varies largely by discipline. The total figures differ significantly from 40% in the large-scale study by Van Eck, Waltman, Larivière, and Sugimoto (blog 2018, https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234). Research limitations The sample does not cover all science areas uniformly; it is heavily focused on Engineering and Technology, and only some disciplines of Natural Sciences are present. However, this reflects the real scientific orientation and publication profile of our institution. Practical implications The current level of coverage is not sufficient for the WoS to be replaced by COCI for research evaluation. Originality/value The present study illustrates a COCI vs WoS comparison on the scale of a larger technical university in Central Europe.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"35 - 42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

摘要目的研究交叉参考开放引文索引(COCI)中Web of Science (WoS)引文链接的比例,以期在覆盖水平足够的情况下,使用COCI代替WoS进行研究评价。设计/方法/方法我们计算引文链接的比例,其中两个出版物同时具有WoS登录号和DOI,并且被引用的出版物至少有一位作者来自我们的机构,布拉格的捷克技术大学。我们试图在COCI中查找每一个这样的引文链接。研究发现53.7%的WoS引文链接存在于COCI中。这一比例在很大程度上因学科而异。总的数字与Van Eck、Waltman、larivi和Sugimoto的大规模研究中的40%有很大不同(博客2018,https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234)。研究局限样本并未均匀覆盖所有科学领域;它主要侧重于工程和技术,只有一些自然科学学科存在。然而,这反映了我们机构真正的科学取向和出版形象。实际影响目前的覆盖范围不足以让COCI取代WoS进行研究评价。原创性/价值本研究说明了中欧一所大型技术大学的COCI与WoS的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Can Crossref Citations Replace Web of Science for Research Evaluation? The Share of Open Citations
Abstract Purpose We study the proportion of Web of Science (WoS) citation links that are represented in the Crossref Open Citation Index (COCI), with the possible aim of using COCI in research evaluation instead of the WoS, if the level of coverage was sufficient. Design/methodology/approach We calculate the proportion on citation links where both publications have a WoS accession number and a DOI simultaneously, and where the cited publications have had at least one author from our institution, the Czech Technical University in Prague. We attempt to look up each such citation link in COCI. Findings We find that 53.7% of WoS citation links are present in the COCI. The proportion varies largely by discipline. The total figures differ significantly from 40% in the large-scale study by Van Eck, Waltman, Larivière, and Sugimoto (blog 2018, https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234). Research limitations The sample does not cover all science areas uniformly; it is heavily focused on Engineering and Technology, and only some disciplines of Natural Sciences are present. However, this reflects the real scientific orientation and publication profile of our institution. Practical implications The current level of coverage is not sufficient for the WoS to be replaced by COCI for research evaluation. Originality/value The present study illustrates a COCI vs WoS comparison on the scale of a larger technical university in Central Europe.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial board publication strategy and acceptance rates in Turkish national journals Multimodal sentiment analysis for social media contents during public emergencies Perspectives from a publishing ethics and research integrity team for required improvements Build neural network models to identify and correct news headlines exaggerating obesity-related scientific findings An author credit allocation method with improved distinguishability and robustness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1