Introducing Reproducibility to Citation Analysis: a Case Study in the Earth Sciences

S. Teplitzky, Wynn Tranfield, Mea Warren, Philip White
{"title":"Introducing Reproducibility to Citation Analysis: a Case Study in the Earth Sciences","authors":"S. Teplitzky, Wynn Tranfield, Mea Warren, Philip White","doi":"10.7191/JESLIB.2021.1194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives:\n\nReplicate methods from a 2019 study of Earth Science researcher citation practices.\n\nCalculate programmatically whether researchers in Earth Science rely on a smaller subset of literature than estimated by the 80/20 rule.\n\nDetermine whether these reproducible citation analysis methods can be used to analyze open access uptake.\n\nMethods: Replicated methods of a prior citation study provide an updated transparent, reproducible citation analysis protocol that can be replicated with Jupyter Notebooks.\n\nResults: This study replicated the prior citation study’s conclusions, and also adapted the author’s methods to analyze the citation practices of Earth Scientists at four institutions. We found that 80% of the citations could be accounted for by only 7.88% of journals, a key metric to help identify a core collection of titles in this discipline. We then demonstrated programmatically that 36% of these cited references were available as open access.\n\nConclusions: Jupyter Notebooks are a viable platform for disseminating replicable processes for citation analysis. A completely open methodology is emerging and we consider this a step forward. Adherence to the 80/20 rule aligned with institutional research output, but citation preferences are evident. Reproducible citation analysis methods may be used to analyze open access uptake, however, results are inconclusive. It is difficult to determine whether an article was open access at the time of citation, or became open access after an embargo.","PeriodicalId":90214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of escience librarianship","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of escience librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7191/JESLIB.2021.1194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: Replicate methods from a 2019 study of Earth Science researcher citation practices. Calculate programmatically whether researchers in Earth Science rely on a smaller subset of literature than estimated by the 80/20 rule. Determine whether these reproducible citation analysis methods can be used to analyze open access uptake. Methods: Replicated methods of a prior citation study provide an updated transparent, reproducible citation analysis protocol that can be replicated with Jupyter Notebooks. Results: This study replicated the prior citation study’s conclusions, and also adapted the author’s methods to analyze the citation practices of Earth Scientists at four institutions. We found that 80% of the citations could be accounted for by only 7.88% of journals, a key metric to help identify a core collection of titles in this discipline. We then demonstrated programmatically that 36% of these cited references were available as open access. Conclusions: Jupyter Notebooks are a viable platform for disseminating replicable processes for citation analysis. A completely open methodology is emerging and we consider this a step forward. Adherence to the 80/20 rule aligned with institutional research output, but citation preferences are evident. Reproducible citation analysis methods may be used to analyze open access uptake, however, results are inconclusive. It is difficult to determine whether an article was open access at the time of citation, or became open access after an embargo.
引文分析的可重复性:以地球科学为例
目的:复制2019年地球科学研究人员引文实践研究的方法。通过编程计算地球科学的研究人员是否依赖比80/20规则估计的更小的文献子集。确定这些可重复引用分析方法是否可用于分析开放获取吸收。方法:先前引文研究的复制方法提供了一个更新的透明、可重复的引文分析协议,可以用Jupyter Notebooks复制。结果:本研究复制了先前引文研究的结论,并采用作者的方法分析了四个机构的地球科学家的引文实践。我们发现,80%的引文只能由7.88%的期刊占据,这是帮助确定该学科核心标题集的关键指标。然后,我们通过编程证明,这些引用的引用中有36%是开放访问的。结论:Jupyter Notebooks是一个传播可复制引用分析过程的可行平台。一种完全开放的方法正在出现,我们认为这是向前迈出的一步。遵守80/20规则与机构研究成果一致,但引文偏好是明显的。可重复引用分析方法可用于分析开放获取的吸收,然而,结果是不确定的。很难确定一篇文章在被引用时是开放获取的,还是在禁运后成为开放获取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信