Law Reviews, Open Metadata and RSS Feeds

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW

Legal Information Management Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1017/S1472669622000305

Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher

{"title":"Law Reviews, Open Metadata and RSS Feeds","authors":"Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher","doi":"10.1017/S1472669622000305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Most scientific publications have their metadata available as freely accessible and machine-readable information at CrossRef. However, student-edited law reviews have not followed suit with this practice. Consequently, a large part of legal research remains in a blind spot for scientometric analyses and tools. The present paper, by Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher, investigates whether the law reviews’ RSS feeds could serve as equivalent sources for open scholarly metadata. The suitability of RSS feeds from 51 student-edited law reviews (as indexed in Web of Science's Social Science Citation Index) was assessed with regards to three fictitious meta-scientific applications – namely (1) a ‘latest paper’-tool that lists the law reviews’ newest publications with links, abstracts and dates, (2) an author database and (3) a calculation of the mutual citation counts among different law reviews. This paper finds that only 21 law reviews offer functional RSS feeds, and while they were suitable for a basic ‘latest papers’-tool, due to their low metadata quality they cannot aid in generating an author database or in counting the mutual citations among law reviews. The result suggests that law reviews would be advised to adopt digital object identifiers (DOIs) and start depositing openly accessible metadata, for otherwise their scholarly impact and visibility will further decline.","PeriodicalId":42162,"journal":{"name":"Legal Information Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Information Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669622000305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Most scientific publications have their metadata available as freely accessible and machine-readable information at CrossRef. However, student-edited law reviews have not followed suit with this practice. Consequently, a large part of legal research remains in a blind spot for scientometric analyses and tools. The present paper, by Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher, investigates whether the law reviews’ RSS feeds could serve as equivalent sources for open scholarly metadata. The suitability of RSS feeds from 51 student-edited law reviews (as indexed in Web of Science's Social Science Citation Index) was assessed with regards to three fictitious meta-scientific applications – namely (1) a ‘latest paper’-tool that lists the law reviews’ newest publications with links, abstracts and dates, (2) an author database and (3) a calculation of the mutual citation counts among different law reviews. This paper finds that only 21 law reviews offer functional RSS feeds, and while they were suitable for a basic ‘latest papers’-tool, due to their low metadata quality they cannot aid in generating an author database or in counting the mutual citations among law reviews. The result suggests that law reviews would be advised to adopt digital object identifiers (DOIs) and start depositing openly accessible metadata, for otherwise their scholarly impact and visibility will further decline.

查看原文本刊更多论文

法律评论、开放元数据和RSS源

摘要大多数科学出版物的元数据都可以在CrossRef上作为免费访问和机器可读的信息获得。然而，学生编辑的法律评论并没有效仿这种做法。因此，法律研究的很大一部分仍然处于科学计量分析和工具的盲点。本论文由Andreas Nishikawa Pacher撰写，研究了法律评论的RSS订阅源是否可以作为开放学术元数据的等效来源。根据三个虚构的元科学应用程序评估了51篇学生编辑的法律评论（如科学网的社会科学引文索引所示）的RSS源的适用性，即（1）“最新论文”工具，该工具列出了法律评论的最新出版物，并附有链接、摘要和日期，（2）作者数据库和（3）不同法律评论之间相互引用计数的计算。本文发现，只有21篇法律评论提供了功能性的RSS提要，虽然它们适合作为基本的“最新论文”工具，但由于元数据质量低，它们无法帮助生成作者数据库或统计法律评论之间的相互引用。结果表明，法律审查将被建议采用数字对象标识符（DOI），并开始存放公开可访问的元数据，否则其学术影响力和知名度将进一步下降。

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

Legal Information Management LAW-

自引率

25.00%

发文量