Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: a Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage Via Citations
New sources of citation data have recently become available. Although these have been compared to the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates citations found by these data sources to English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study.
A Realistic Guide to Making Data Available Alongside Code to Improve Reproducibility
Data makes science possible. Sharing data improves visibility, and makes the research process transparent. This increases trust in the work, and allows for independent reproduction of results. However, a large proportion of data from published research is often only available to the original authors. Despite the obvious benefits of sharing data, and scientists' advocating for the importance of sharing data, most advice on sharing data discusses its broader benefits, rather than the practical considerations of sharing. This paper provides practical, actionable advice on how to actually share data alongside research. The key message is sharing data falls on a continuum, and entering it should come with minimal barriers.
Re-run, Repeat, Reproduce, Reuse, Replicate: Transforming Code into Scientific Contributions
Scientific code is not production software. Scientific code participates in the evaluation of a scientific hypothesis. This imposes specific constraints on the code that are often overlooked in practice.
The Citation Advantage of Linking Publications to Research Data
Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong recent uptake of data availability statements, but it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, and if there is an added value in providing them.
An Index to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Leadership
The h-index has gained wide acceptance as a bibliometric indicator of individual scientific achievement. In this paper, J. E. Hirsch proposes an alternative to replacing the h-index with a better index, the h-alpha-index, to address at least some of its deficiencies.
The Scientific Prize Network Predicts Who Pushes the Boundaries of Science
Using comprehensive new data on prizes and prizewinners worldwide and across disciplines, this study examines the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network.
Prestige Drives Epistemic Inequality in the Diffusion of Scientific Ideas
The role of faculty hiring networks in shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the importance of where in the network an idea originates: research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions.
Peer Review and Citation Data in Predicting University Rankings, a Large-Scale Analysis
When citation-based indicators are applied at the institutional or departmental level, rather than at the level of individual papers, surprisingly large correlations with peer review judgments can be observed.
We call for bringing sanity back into scientific judgment exercises. Despite all number crunching, many judgments - be it about scientific output, scientists, or research institutions - will neither be unambiguous, uncontroversial, or testable by external standards nor can they be otherwise validated or objectified.
An Empirical Study of the per Capita Yield of Science Nobel Prizes: Is the US Era Coming to an End?
For the USA, the entire history of science Noble prizes is described on a per capita basis to an astonishing accuracy by a single large productivity boost decaying at a continuously accelerating rate since its peak in 1972.
Dimensions: Re-Discovering the Ecosystem of Scientific Information
Study aims to provide a detailed description of the free version of Dimensions (the new bibliographic database produced by Digital Science). An analysis of its coverage is carried out (comparing it Scopus and Google Scholar) in order to determine whether the bibliometric indicators offered by Dimensions have an order of magnitude significant enough to be used.
Talent vs Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure
Article underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others. Policy hypotheses are addressed to show the most efficient strategies for public funding of research in order to improve meritocracy, diversity and innovation.
A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of the Adverse Effects of the Journal Impact Factor
The Journal Impact Factor is, by far, the most discussed bibliometric indicator. Since its introduction over 40 years ago, it has had enormous effects on the scientific ecosystem. This paper by Cassidy R. Sugimoto provides a brief history of the indicator and highlights well-known limitations.