Smart(er) Citations

Nicholson, Joshua M.

doi:10.1016/j.matt.2021.02.007

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To not having to repeat past research by themselves or others, authors cite relevant research [ 1 ]. However, the reasons why authors cite literature vary, which complicates how we use citations [ 2 ]. Typing citations is therefore of interest: it allows us to navigate literature more easily: it points us to essential research methods, data, and can warn us of research that cannot be reproduced, or others disagree with [ 2 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the reasons why authors cite literature vary, which complicates how we use citations [ 2 ]. Typing citations is therefore of interest: it allows us to navigate literature more easily: it points us to essential research methods, data, and can warn us of research that cannot be reproduced, or others disagree with [ 2 ]. Indeed, it helps us understand the history of science [ 3 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the use of citations increasingly being picked up to help researchers with tools like scite.ai [ 2 ] en Connected Papers [ 4 ], having typed citations will help us explore literature. Therefore, the Journal of Cheminformatics started a pilot to explore capturing the intent of citations using annotations [ 5 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two years of explicit CiTO annotations

Willighagen

2023

J Cheminform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citations are an essential aspect of research communication and have become the basis of many evaluation metrics in the academic world. Some see citation counts as a mark of scientific impact or even quality, but in reality the reasons for citing other work are manifold which makes the interpretation more complicated than a single citation count can reflect. Two years ago, the Journal of Cheminformatics proposed the CiTO Pilot for the adoption of a practice of annotating citations with their citation intentions. Basically, when you cite a journal article or dataset (or any other source), you also explain why specifically you cite that source. Particularly, the agreement and disagreement and reuse of methods and data are of interest. This article explores what happened after the launch of the pilot. We summarize how authors in the Journal of Cheminformatics used the pilot, shows citation annotations are distributed with Wikidata, visualized with Scholia, discusses adoption outside BMC, and finally present some thoughts on what needs to happen next.

show abstract

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two years of explicit CiTO annotations

Willighagen

2023

J Cheminform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As with the MIP above, a SI can be calculated for a given journal for any time interval (e.g., a 1-year period, 5-year period, lifetime). This permits both internal evaluation of a journal's quality across time and for its comparison with peers (Nicholson, 2021;Nicholson et al, 2021;scite, 2019a).…”

Section: The Scite Index (Si)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Progressive and Degenerative Journals: On the Growth and Appraisal of Knowledge in Scholarly Publishing

Dunleavy¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing “good” from “bad”scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by thework of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I beginby reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality – focusing primarily on theimpact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note theirlimitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. Iargue that Lakatos’s MSRP and specifically his classifications of “progressive” and“degenerative” research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation ofscholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitationsdiscussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality – one that helpsaccount for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendantcontributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seemingproblem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (themistake index and scite index) to further operationalize aspects of the MSRP.

show abstract

“…with the MIP above, a SI can be calculated for a given journal for any time interval (e.g., a 1-year period, 5-year period, lifetime). This permits both internal evaluation of a journal's quality across time and for its comparison with peers (Nicholson, 2021;Nicholson et al, 2021;scite, 2019a).…”

Section: The Scite Index (Si)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

Dunleavy

2022

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite continued attention, finding adequate criteria for distinguishing "good" from "bad" scholarly journals remains an elusive goal. In this essay, I propose a solution informed by the work of Imre Lakatos and his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). I begin by reviewing several notable attempts at appraising journal quality -focusing primarily on the impact factor and development of journal blacklists and whitelists. In doing so, I note their limitations and link their overarching goals to those found within the philosophy of science. I argue that Lakatos's MSRP and specifically his classifications of "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes can be analogized and repurposed for the evaluation of scholarly journals. I argue that this alternative framework resolves some of the limitations discussed above and offers a more considered evaluation of journal quality -one that helps account for the historical evolution of journal-level publication practices and attendant contributions to the growth (or stunting) of scholarly knowledge. By doing so, the seeming problem of journal demarcation is diminished. In the process I utilize two novel tools (the mistake index and scite index) to further illustrate and operationalize aspects of the MSRP.

show abstract

Smart(er) Citations

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Two years of explicit CiTO annotations

Two years of explicit CiTO annotations

Progressive and Degenerative Journals: On the Growth and Appraisal of Knowledge in Scholarly Publishing

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About