Advanced search in Research products
Research products
arrow_drop_down
Searching FieldsTerms
Any field
arrow_drop_down
includes
arrow_drop_down
Include:
The following results are related to Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage. Are you interested to view more results? Visit OpenAIRE - Explore.
37 Research products, page 1 of 4

  • Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
  • Publications
  • Research data
  • Research software
  • Open Access
  • Article
  • 050905 science studies
  • Scientometrics

10
arrow_drop_down
Relevance
arrow_drop_down
  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Zhiqi Wang; Ronald Rousseau;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Belgium

    The Yule-Simpson paradox refers to the fact that outcomes of comparisons between groups are reversed when groups are combined. Using Essential Sciences Indicators, a part of InCites (Clarivate), data for countries, it is shown that although the Yule-Simpson phenomenon in citation analysis and research evaluation is not common, it isn't extremely rare either. The Yule-Simpson paradox is a phenomenon one should be aware of, otherwise one may encounter unforeseen surprises in scientometric studies. ispartof: SCIENTOMETRICS vol:126 issue:4 pages:3501-3511 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho; John S. Liu;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    Scholars all over the world have produced a large body of COVID-19 literature in an exceptionally short period after the outbreak of this rapidly-spreading virus. An analysis of the literature accumulated in the first 150 days hints that the rapid knowledge accumulation in its early-stage development was expedited through a wide variety of journal platforms, a sense and pressure of national urgency, and inspiration from journal editorials.

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . Other literature type . 2018
    Open Access
    Authors: 
    Giovanni Colavizza;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Switzerland
    Project: SNSF | Understanding Citations i... (168489), SNSF | Linked Books: Reconstruct... (159961)

    The humanities are often characterized by sociologists as having a low mutual dependence among scholars and high task uncertainty. According to Fuchs' theory of scientific change, this leads over time to intellectual and social fragmentation, as new scholarship accumulates in the absence of shared unifying theories. We consider here a set of specialisms in the discipline of history and measure the connectivity properties of their bibliographic coupling networks over time, in order to assess whether fragmentation is indeed occurring. We construct networks using both reference overlap and textual similarity. It is shown that the connectivity of reference overlap networks is gradually and steadily declining over time, whilst that of textual similarity networks is stable. Author bibliographic coupling networks also show signs of a decline in connectivity, in the absence of an increasing propensity for collaborations. We speculate that, despite the gradual weakening of ties among historians as mapped by references, new scholarship might be continually integrated through shared vocabularies and narratives. This would support our belief that citations are but one kind of bibliometric data to consider --- perhaps even of secondary importance --- when studying the humanities, while text should play a more prominent role.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Wolfgang Glänzel; Lin Zhang;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    Proceeding from Moravcsik's paradigmatic ideas of how to build indigenous capability and sustainable science systems in developing countries, we attempted to further focus on the peculiarities of the twenty-first century and the new challenges of globalisation. In doing so, we selected three particular topics deemed relevant in this context: increase of international visibility and reception by the international community, international collaboration and the participation in research in emerging fields. We analysed these issues using the example of 16 developing countries and emerging economies. We found that several countries achieve an impressive citation impact with a considerable share of highly cited papers. The high impact proved to be associated with international collaboration. We also found two extreme situations in international collaboration, both of which might form challenges in building sustainable national science systems and research structures. Research activity in emerging research topics, finally, showed the presence of developing countries in highly topical research and their capability to contribute also to newest research trends.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Liang Meng; Haifeng Wang; Pengfei Han;
    Publisher: Springer International Publishing

    Intriguing unforced regularities in human behaviors have been reported in varied research domains, including scientometrics. In this study we examine the manuscript submission behavior of researchers, with a focus on its monthly pattern. With a large and reliable dataset which records the submission history of articles published on 10 multidisciplinary journals and 10 management journals over a five-year period (2013-2017), we observe a prominent turn-of-the-month submission effect for accepted papers in management journals but not multidisciplinary journals. This effect gets more pronounced in submissions to top-tier journals and when the first day of a month happens to be a Saturday or Sunday. Sense of ceremony is proposed as a likely explanation of this effect, since the first day of a month is a fundamental temporal landmark which has a 'fresh start effect' on researchers. To conclude, an original and interesting day-of-the-month effect in the academia is reported in this study, which calls for more research attention.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Jinseok Kim;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Project: NSF | Collaborative Research: S... (1535370)

    Author name ambiguity in a digital library may affect the findings of research that mines authorship data of the library. This study evaluates author name disambiguation in DBLP, a widely used but insufficiently evaluated digital library for its disambiguation performance. In doing so, this study takes a triangulation approach that author name disambiguation for a digital library can be better evaluated when its performance is assessed on multiple labeled datasets with comparison to baselines. Tested on three types of labeled data containing 5,000 ~ 700K disambiguated names and 6M pairs of disambiguated names, DBLP is shown to assign author names quite accurately to distinct authors, resulting in pairwise precision, recall, and F1 measures around 0.90 or above overall. DBLP's author name disambiguation performs well even on large ambiguous name blocks but deficiently on distinguishing authors with the same names. When compared to other disambiguation algorithms, DBLP's disambiguation performance is quite competitive, possibly due to its hybrid disambiguation approach combining algorithmic disambiguation and manual error correction. A discussion follows on strengths and weaknesses of labeled datasets used in this study for future efforts to evaluate author name disambiguation on a digital library scale. Scientometrics (2018)

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Alberto Martín-Martín; Enrique Orduña-Malea; Emilio Delgado López-Cózar;
    Publisher: Springer
    Country: Spain

    This article describes a procedure to generate a snapshot of the structure of a specific scientific community and their outputs based on the information available in Google Scholar Citations (GSC). We call this method MADAP (Multifaceted Analysis of Disciplines through Academic Profiles). The international community of researchers working in Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics was selected as a case study. The records of the top 1,000 most cited documents by these authors according to GSC were manually processed to fill any missing information and deduplicate fields like the journal titles and book publishers. The results suggest that it is feasible to use GSC and the MADAP method to produce an accurate depiction of the community of researchers working in Bibliometrics (both specialists and occasional researchers) and their publication habits (main publication venues such as journals and book publishers). Additionally, the wide document coverage of Google Scholar (specially books and book chapters) enables more comprehensive analyses of the documents published in a specific discipline than were previously possible with other citation indexes, finally shedding light on what until now had been a blind spot in most citation analyses. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4 Research funded by Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (FPU2013/05863). Universitat Politècnica de València (PAID-10-14).

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . Other literature type . 2016
    Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Alberto Martín-Martín; Enrique Orduña-Malea; Juan Manuel Ayllon; Emilio Delgado López-Cózar;
    Publisher: Springer
    Country: Spain

    A study released by the Google Scholar team found an apparently increasing fraction of citations to old articles from studies published in the last 24 years (1990-2013). To demonstrate this finding we conducted a complementary study using a different data source (Journal Citation Reports), metric (aggregate cited half-life), time spam (2003-2013), and set of categories (53 Social Science subject categories and 167 Science subject categories). Although the results obtained confirm and reinforce the previous findings, the possible causes of this phenomenon keep unclear. We finally hypothesize that first page results syndrome in conjunction with the fact that Google Scholar favours the most cited documents are suggesting the growing trend of citing old documents is partly caused by Google Scholar. Comment: 12 pages, 2 tables

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Stan Benjamens; Vincent E de Meijer; Robert A. Pol; Martijn P D Haring;
    Publisher: Springer International Publishing
    Country: Netherlands

    The COVID-19 pandemic has vast global consequences. Yet, effective mitigation strategies and economic and medical outfall differ extensively across the globe. It is currently unclear how well researchers from all continents are represented in the unsolicited and solicited publications. A literature review was performed in SCOPUS on COVID-19 oriented publications in the four most impactful medical journals. These included the British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. We identified 809 eligible publications out of identified 924 records. The vast majority of publications on COVID-19, in the four can be considered European (47.7%) or North-American (37.3%) research. Chinese reports were relatively common (8.8%); however, reports from other Asian countries (3.2%) were minimal. Research from the African (1.0%) and South-American continents (0.6%) was rarely published in these journals. These observations are not surprising, as they reflect global academic publishing. However, involving all continents into COVID-19 research is important as COVID-19 management strategies and societal and economic consequences differ extensively across the globe. We see an important role for medical journals in encouraging global voices through solicited articles, to ensure a weighted research and humanitarian response. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11192-020-03730-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Shir Aviv-Reuven; Ariel Rosenfeld;

    In recent months the COVID-19 (also known as SARS-CoV-2 and Coronavirus) pandemic has spread throughout the world. In parallel, extensive scholarly research regarding various aspects of the pandemic has been published. In this work, we analyse the changes in biomedical publishing patterns due to the pandemic. We study the changes in the volume of publications in both peer reviewed journals and preprint servers, average time to acceptance of papers submitted to biomedical journals, international (co-)authorship of these papers (expressed by diversity and volume), and the possible association between journal metrics and said changes. We study these possible changes using two approaches: a short-term analysis through which changes during the first six months of the outbreak are examined for both COVID-19 related papers and non-COVID-19 related papers; and a longitudinal approach through which changes are examined in comparison to the previous four years. Our results show that the pandemic has so far had a tremendous effect on all examined accounts of scholarly publications: A sharp increase in publication volume has been witnessed and it can be almost entirely attributed to the pandemic; a significantly faster mean time to acceptance for COVID-19 papers is apparent, and it has (partially) come at the expense of non-COVID-19 papers; and a significant reduction in international collaboration for COVID-19 papers has also been identified. As the pandemic continues to spread, these changes may cause a slow down in research in non-COVID-19 biomedical fields and bring about a lower rate of international collaboration. 26 pages, 9 figures, 11 tables

Advanced search in Research products
Research products
arrow_drop_down
Searching FieldsTerms
Any field
arrow_drop_down
includes
arrow_drop_down
Include:
The following results are related to Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage. Are you interested to view more results? Visit OpenAIRE - Explore.
37 Research products, page 1 of 4
  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Zhiqi Wang; Ronald Rousseau;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Belgium

    The Yule-Simpson paradox refers to the fact that outcomes of comparisons between groups are reversed when groups are combined. Using Essential Sciences Indicators, a part of InCites (Clarivate), data for countries, it is shown that although the Yule-Simpson phenomenon in citation analysis and research evaluation is not common, it isn't extremely rare either. The Yule-Simpson paradox is a phenomenon one should be aware of, otherwise one may encounter unforeseen surprises in scientometric studies. ispartof: SCIENTOMETRICS vol:126 issue:4 pages:3501-3511 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho; John S. Liu;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    Scholars all over the world have produced a large body of COVID-19 literature in an exceptionally short period after the outbreak of this rapidly-spreading virus. An analysis of the literature accumulated in the first 150 days hints that the rapid knowledge accumulation in its early-stage development was expedited through a wide variety of journal platforms, a sense and pressure of national urgency, and inspiration from journal editorials.

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . Other literature type . 2018
    Open Access
    Authors: 
    Giovanni Colavizza;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Country: Switzerland
    Project: SNSF | Understanding Citations i... (168489), SNSF | Linked Books: Reconstruct... (159961)

    The humanities are often characterized by sociologists as having a low mutual dependence among scholars and high task uncertainty. According to Fuchs' theory of scientific change, this leads over time to intellectual and social fragmentation, as new scholarship accumulates in the absence of shared unifying theories. We consider here a set of specialisms in the discipline of history and measure the connectivity properties of their bibliographic coupling networks over time, in order to assess whether fragmentation is indeed occurring. We construct networks using both reference overlap and textual similarity. It is shown that the connectivity of reference overlap networks is gradually and steadily declining over time, whilst that of textual similarity networks is stable. Author bibliographic coupling networks also show signs of a decline in connectivity, in the absence of an increasing propensity for collaborations. We speculate that, despite the gradual weakening of ties among historians as mapped by references, new scholarship might be continually integrated through shared vocabularies and narratives. This would support our belief that citations are but one kind of bibliometric data to consider --- perhaps even of secondary importance --- when studying the humanities, while text should play a more prominent role.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Wolfgang Glänzel; Lin Zhang;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    Proceeding from Moravcsik's paradigmatic ideas of how to build indigenous capability and sustainable science systems in developing countries, we attempted to further focus on the peculiarities of the twenty-first century and the new challenges of globalisation. In doing so, we selected three particular topics deemed relevant in this context: increase of international visibility and reception by the international community, international collaboration and the participation in research in emerging fields. We analysed these issues using the example of 16 developing countries and emerging economies. We found that several countries achieve an impressive citation impact with a considerable share of highly cited papers. The high impact proved to be associated with international collaboration. We also found two extreme situations in international collaboration, both of which might form challenges in building sustainable national science systems and research structures. Research activity in emerging research topics, finally, showed the presence of developing countries in highly topical research and their capability to contribute also to newest research trends.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Liang Meng; Haifeng Wang; Pengfei Han;
    Publisher: Springer International Publishing

    Intriguing unforced regularities in human behaviors have been reported in varied research domains, including scientometrics. In this study we examine the manuscript submission behavior of researchers, with a focus on its monthly pattern. With a large and reliable dataset which records the submission history of articles published on 10 multidisciplinary journals and 10 management journals over a five-year period (2013-2017), we observe a prominent turn-of-the-month submission effect for accepted papers in management journals but not multidisciplinary journals. This effect gets more pronounced in submissions to top-tier journals and when the first day of a month happens to be a Saturday or Sunday. Sense of ceremony is proposed as a likely explanation of this effect, since the first day of a month is a fundamental temporal landmark which has a 'fresh start effect' on researchers. To conclude, an original and interesting day-of-the-month effect in the academia is reported in this study, which calls for more research attention.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Jinseok Kim;
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Project: NSF | Collaborative Research: S... (1535370)

    Author name ambiguity in a digital library may affect the findings of research that mines authorship data of the library. This study evaluates author name disambiguation in DBLP, a widely used but insufficiently evaluated digital library for its disambiguation performance. In doing so, this study takes a triangulation approach that author name disambiguation for a digital library can be better evaluated when its performance is assessed on multiple labeled datasets with comparison to baselines. Tested on three types of labeled data containing 5,000 ~ 700K disambiguated names and 6M pairs of disambiguated names, DBLP is shown to assign author names quite accurately to distinct authors, resulting in pairwise precision, recall, and F1 measures around 0.90 or above overall. DBLP's author name disambiguation performs well even on large ambiguous name blocks but deficiently on distinguishing authors with the same names. When compared to other disambiguation algorithms, DBLP's disambiguation performance is quite competitive, possibly due to its hybrid disambiguation approach combining algorithmic disambiguation and manual error correction. A discussion follows on strengths and weaknesses of labeled datasets used in this study for future efforts to evaluate author name disambiguation on a digital library scale. Scientometrics (2018)

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Alberto Martín-Martín; Enrique Orduña-Malea; Emilio Delgado López-Cózar;
    Publisher: Springer
    Country: Spain

    This article describes a procedure to generate a snapshot of the structure of a specific scientific community and their outputs based on the information available in Google Scholar Citations (GSC). We call this method MADAP (Multifaceted Analysis of Disciplines through Academic Profiles). The international community of researchers working in Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics, and Altmetrics was selected as a case study. The records of the top 1,000 most cited documents by these authors according to GSC were manually processed to fill any missing information and deduplicate fields like the journal titles and book publishers. The results suggest that it is feasible to use GSC and the MADAP method to produce an accurate depiction of the community of researchers working in Bibliometrics (both specialists and occasional researchers) and their publication habits (main publication venues such as journals and book publishers). Additionally, the wide document coverage of Google Scholar (specially books and book chapters) enables more comprehensive analyses of the documents published in a specific discipline than were previously possible with other citation indexes, finally shedding light on what until now had been a blind spot in most citation analyses. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4 Research funded by Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (FPU2013/05863). Universitat Politècnica de València (PAID-10-14).

  • Publication . Article . Preprint . Other literature type . 2016
    Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Alberto Martín-Martín; Enrique Orduña-Malea; Juan Manuel Ayllon; Emilio Delgado López-Cózar;
    Publisher: Springer
    Country: Spain

    A study released by the Google Scholar team found an apparently increasing fraction of citations to old articles from studies published in the last 24 years (1990-2013). To demonstrate this finding we conducted a complementary study using a different data source (Journal Citation Reports), metric (aggregate cited half-life), time spam (2003-2013), and set of categories (53 Social Science subject categories and 167 Science subject categories). Although the results obtained confirm and reinforce the previous findings, the possible causes of this phenomenon keep unclear. We finally hypothesize that first page results syndrome in conjunction with the fact that Google Scholar favours the most cited documents are suggesting the growing trend of citing old documents is partly caused by Google Scholar. Comment: 12 pages, 2 tables

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Stan Benjamens; Vincent E de Meijer; Robert A. Pol; Martijn P D Haring;
    Publisher: Springer International Publishing
    Country: Netherlands

    The COVID-19 pandemic has vast global consequences. Yet, effective mitigation strategies and economic and medical outfall differ extensively across the globe. It is currently unclear how well researchers from all continents are represented in the unsolicited and solicited publications. A literature review was performed in SCOPUS on COVID-19 oriented publications in the four most impactful medical journals. These included the British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. We identified 809 eligible publications out of identified 924 records. The vast majority of publications on COVID-19, in the four can be considered European (47.7%) or North-American (37.3%) research. Chinese reports were relatively common (8.8%); however, reports from other Asian countries (3.2%) were minimal. Research from the African (1.0%) and South-American continents (0.6%) was rarely published in these journals. These observations are not surprising, as they reflect global academic publishing. However, involving all continents into COVID-19 research is important as COVID-19 management strategies and societal and economic consequences differ extensively across the globe. We see an important role for medical journals in encouraging global voices through solicited articles, to ensure a weighted research and humanitarian response. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11192-020-03730-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Shir Aviv-Reuven; Ariel Rosenfeld;

    In recent months the COVID-19 (also known as SARS-CoV-2 and Coronavirus) pandemic has spread throughout the world. In parallel, extensive scholarly research regarding various aspects of the pandemic has been published. In this work, we analyse the changes in biomedical publishing patterns due to the pandemic. We study the changes in the volume of publications in both peer reviewed journals and preprint servers, average time to acceptance of papers submitted to biomedical journals, international (co-)authorship of these papers (expressed by diversity and volume), and the possible association between journal metrics and said changes. We study these possible changes using two approaches: a short-term analysis through which changes during the first six months of the outbreak are examined for both COVID-19 related papers and non-COVID-19 related papers; and a longitudinal approach through which changes are examined in comparison to the previous four years. Our results show that the pandemic has so far had a tremendous effect on all examined accounts of scholarly publications: A sharp increase in publication volume has been witnessed and it can be almost entirely attributed to the pandemic; a significantly faster mean time to acceptance for COVID-19 papers is apparent, and it has (partially) come at the expense of non-COVID-19 papers; and a significant reduction in international collaboration for COVID-19 papers has also been identified. As the pandemic continues to spread, these changes may cause a slow down in research in non-COVID-19 biomedical fields and bring about a lower rate of international collaboration. 26 pages, 9 figures, 11 tables