Open Citations movement and its role in the transformation of research evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799007Keywords:
Open citations, Open Science, linked data, citation indexes, bibliometricsAbstract
The aim of this paper is to review the emerging Open Citations movement, which advocates for the free dissemination of bibliographic citations included in research publications. This movement, framed within the broader mainstream currents of Open Data and Open Access, thus attempts for bibliographic citations to be a common good for the scholarly community, reinforcing bibliometric research and the building of internal scientific information systems. This change is causing a revolution in the scientific information market, as new products and platforms are arising that make it possible to evaluate the production and impact of researchers and organizations using open and alternative sources. This transformation is an opportunity to develop institutional or national portals that, fed by these open sources, permit their own and independent evaluation. The paper begins with an introduction about the origin and context of this movement; then, the extraction and process of citations are explained; next, several sources of open citation data are described (Crossref, Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph, OpenCitation Corpus) and some alternative products (Lens, Dimensions, SemanticScholar); finally, the implications this movement can have on scientific evaluation is analysed, highlighting the possibility of developing local Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) intended for scientific evaluation.
Downloads
References
Berners-Lee, Tim (2006). Linked Data - Design Issues [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
Bode, Christian; Herzog, Christian; Hook, Daniel; McGrath, Robert (2019). A Guide to the Dimensions Data Approach. Dimensions Report [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020].
Byrd, Gary D. (1990). An economic commons tragedy for research libraries: scholarly journal publishing and pricing trends. College & Research Libraries, 51(3), pp. 184-195. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_51_03_184
Clarivate (2021). Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/journal-evaluationprocess-and-selection-criteria/
Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio; Robinson-García, Nicolás; Torres-Salinas, Daniel (2014). The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), pp. 446-454. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056
Elsevier (2021) Content Policy and Selection: Scopus [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content/content-policy-and-selection
Harzing, Anne. W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 120(1), pp. 341-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y
Heibi, Ivan; Peroni, Silvio; Shotton, David (2019a). Software review: COCI, the Open Citations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations. Scientometrics, 121(2), pp. 1213-1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03217-6
Heibi, Ivan; Peroni, Silvio; Shotton, David (2019b). Crowdsourcing open citations with CROCI-An analysis of the current status of open citations, and a proposal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02534.
Hutchins, B. Ian; Baker, Kirk L.; Davis, Matthew T.; Diwersy, Mario A.; Haque, Ehsanul; Harriman, Robert M.; Santangelo, George M. (2019). The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource. PLoS biology, 17(10), pp. e3000385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000385 PMid:31600197 PMCid:PMC6786512
Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) (2020). I4OC: Initiative for Open Citations [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://i4oc.org/
Jacsó, Peter (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), pp. 175-191 https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011024191
Joyanes Aguilar, Luis (2016). Big Data, Análisis de grandes volúmenes de datos en organizaciones. Madrid: Alfaomega Grupo Editor.
Lauscher, Anne; Eckert, Kai; Galke, Lukas; Scherp, Ansgar; Rizvi, Syed Tahseen Raza; Ahmed, Sheraz; Klein, Annette (2018). Linked open citation database: Enabling libraries to contribute to an open and interconnected citation graph. En: Chen, J., Gonsalves. M. A., Allen, J. M. (ed.).Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. New York: ACM, pp. 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197026.3197050
Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Thelwall, Mike; Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), pp. 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Martín-Martín, Alberto; Thelwall, Mike; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and Open Citations' COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), pp. 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 PMid:32981987 PMCid:PMC7505221
Merton, Robert K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Moed, Henk F.; Bar-Ilan, Judit; Halevi, Gali (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of informetrics, 10(2), pp. 533-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017
Mongeon, Philippe y Paul-Hus, Adele (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), pp. 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Ortega, José Luis (2014). Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing (Elsevier Group). https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634722.143
Peroni, Silvio y Shotton, David (2012). FaBiO and CiTO: ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. Journal of Web Semantics, 17, pp. 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001
Peroni, Silvio y Shotton, David (2020). Open Citations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), pp. 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00023
Plume, Andrew (2020). Advancing responsible research assessment. Elsevier Connect [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/advancingresponsible-research-assessment
Price, Derek. J. de Solla (1970). Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology, and Nonscience. En: Nelson, C. E. y Pollock, D. K. (ed.). Communication among Scientists and Engineers, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 3-22.
Regier, Ryan (2019). The longer Elsevier refuses to make their citations open, the clearer it becomes that their high profit model makes them anti-open. Medium [en línea]. [8 de junio de2020]. Disponible en: https://medium.com/@ryregier/the-longer-elsevierrefuses-to-make-their-citations-openthe-clearer-it-becomes-that-their-high-78576a48e64e
Romanello, Matteo y Colavizza, Giovanni (2018). The Scholar Index: A collaborative Citation Index for the Arts and Humanities. Open Citations Workshop. University of Bologna.
Shotton, David (2013). Publishing: open citations. Nature News, 502(7471), pp. 295. https://doi.org/10.1038/502295a PMid:24137832
Tay, Aaron (2018). Understanding the implications of Open Citations - how far along are we? Academic Librarians on open access [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://medium.com/a-academic-librarians-thoughtson-open-access/understanding-opencitations-f31b2f3a2533
Thelwall, Mike y Kousha, Keivan. (2017). ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations? Scientometrics, 112(2), pp. 1125-1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4
Thelwall, Mike. (2018). Does Microsoft Academic find early citations? Scientometrics, 114(1), pp. 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2558-9
Van Eck, Nees. J.; Waltman, Ludo; Larivière, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy. (2018). Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus. CWTS Blog [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234&sthash.lInLf4Uz.mjjo
Van Leeuwen, Thed N.; Moed, Henk. F.; Tijssen, Rober J.; Visser, Martijn. S.; Van Raan, Antony. F. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), pp. 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010549719484
Visser, Martijn; Van Eck, Nees. J.; Waltman, Ludo (2020). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10732. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
Waltman, Ludo (2020). Q&A about Elsevier's decision to open its citations. Leiden Madtrics [en línea]. [8 de junio de 2020]. Disponible en: https://leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/qa-about-elseviers-decision-to-openits-citation
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
