![]() |
| Citation data for articles colored by availability of a full text, as indicated in Wikidata. Mind the artifacts. Reproduce with this query and the new GraphBuilder functionality. |
So, the current rankings in the challenge are as follows.
Highest Score
- Bianca Kramer
Best Tool
- Bianca Kramer
I'm sure she is more than happy if you use her tool to calculate your score. If you're patient, you may even wish to take it one level deeper.
What are you talking about??
Well, the original post sheds some idea on this, but basically scientific writing has become so dense, that a single paper does not provide enough information. But if you cannot read the cited papers, you may not be able to precisely reproduce what they did. Now that many countries are steadily heading to 100% #OpenAccess it is time to start thinking about the next step. So, is the knowledge you built on also readily available or is that still locked away.
For example, take the figure on the right-hand side: it shows when articles are published that I cited in my work (a subset, because based on data in Wikidata, using the increasing amount of I4OC data). We immediately see some indication of the availability of the cited papers. The more yellow, the more available. However, keep in mind that this is based on "full text availability" information in Wikidata, which is very sparse. That makes Bianca's approach so powerful: it uses (the equally wonderful) oadoi.org.
You also note the immediate quality issues. Apparently, this data tells me I am citing articles from the future :) You also see that I am citing some really old articles.

No comments:
Post a Comment