Computer Science

Credit allocation in the mainstream bibliometrics is fundamentally flawed and the popular indicators have been misleading science for decades. Originally a simple technical mistake has become an integral part of our culture and is very difficult to correct. Although the problem has been raised in scientific articles, it seems mostly unknown to wider audience.

For-profit editors such as Elsevier and Springer have been subject to sustained criticism from academics and university libraries, including calls to boycott, and discontinued subscriptions. Mathematicians have played a particularly active role in this critique, and have endeavored to imagine new publication practices and create new journals. This motivates the monitoring of the share of articles published by different editors. I used data from MathSciNet over the period 2000-2017, and focused on the 100 journals with highest citations per article. Within this category, the share of articles published by Elsevier and Springer has steadily increased over this period, from about a third to almost half of the total.

Ontologies of research areas have been proven to be useful in many application for analysing and making sense of scholarly data. In this chapter, we present the Computer Science Ontology (CSO), which is the largest ontology of research areas in the field of Computer Science, and discuss a number of applications that build on CSO, to support high-level tasks, such as topic classification, metadata extraction, and recommendation of books.

The last decade has seen two significant phenomena emerge in research communication: the rise of open access (OA) publishing, and evidence of online sharing in the form of altmetrics. There has been limited examination of the effect of OA on online sharing for journal articles, and little for books. This paper examines the altmetrics of a set of 32,222 books (of which 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 chapters (of which 7% are OA) indexed by the scholarly database Dimensions in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Both OA books and chapters have significantly higher use on social networks, higher coverage in the mass media and blogs, and evidence of higher rates of social impact in policy documents. OA chapters have higher rates of coverage on Wikipedia than their non-OA equivalents, and are more likely to be shared on Mendeley. Even within the Humanities and Social Sciences, disciplinary differences in altmetric activity are evident. The effect is confirmed for chapters, although sampling issues prevent the strong conclusion that OA facilitates extra attention at whole book level, the apparent OA altmetrics advantage suggests that the move towards OA is increasing social sharing and broader impact.

This editorial presents the various forms of open access, discusses their pros and cons from the perspective of the Journal of Object Technology and its editors in chiefs, and illustrates how JOT implements a platinum open access model. The regular reader will also notice that this editorial features a new template for the journal that will be used from now on.

There are many factors that affect the probability of being uncited during the first years after publication. In this study, we analyze three of these factors for journals, conference proceedings and book series: the field (in 316 subject categories of the Scopus database), the access modality (open access vs. paywalled), and the visibility of the source (through the percentile of the average impact in the subject category). We quantify the effect of these factors on the probability of being uncited. This probability is measured through the percentage of uncited documents in the serial sources of the Scopus database at about two years after publication. As a main result, we do not find any strong correlation between open access and uncitedness. Within the group of most cited journals (Q1 and top 10%), open access journals generally have somewhat lower uncited rates. However, in the intermediate quartiles (Q2 and Q3) almost no differences are observed, while for Q4 the uncited rate is again somewhat lower in the case of the OA group. This is important because it provides new evidence in the debate about open access citation advantage.

The implementation of policies promoting the adoption of an Open Science culture must be accompanied by indicators that allow monitoring the penetration of such policies and their potential effects on research publishing and sharing practices. This study presents indicators of Open Access (OA) penetration at the institutional level for universities worldwide. By combining data from Web of Science, Unpaywall and the Leiden Ranking disambiguation of institutions, we track OA coverage of universities' output for 963 institutions. This paper presents the methodological challenges, conceptual discrepancies and limitations and discusses further steps needed to move forward the discussion on fostering Open Access and Open Science practices and policies.

Despite improved digital access to scholarly knowledge in recent decades, scholarly communication remains exclusively document-based. In this form, scholarly knowledge is hard to process automatically. In this paper, we present the first steps towards a knowledge graph based infrastructure that acquires scholarly knowledge in machine actionable form thus enabling new possibilities for scholarly knowledge curation, publication and processing. The primary contribution is to present, evaluate and discuss multi-modal scholarly knowledge acquisition, combining crowdsourced and automated techniques. We present the results of the first user evaluation of the infrastructure with the participants of a recent international conference. Results suggest that users were intrigued by the novelty of the proposed infrastructure and by the possibilities for innovative scholarly knowledge processing it could enable.

The need for scholarly open data is ever increasing. While there are large repositories of open access articles and free publication indexes, there are still a few examples of free citation networks and their coverage is partial. One of the results is that most of the evaluation processes based on citation counts rely on commercial citation databases. Things are changing under the pressure of the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), whose goal is to campaign for scholarly publishers to make their citations as totally open. This paper investigates the growth of open citations with an experiment on the Italian Scientific Habilitation, the National process for University Professor qualification which instead uses data from commercial indexes. We simulated the procedure by only using open data and explored similarities and differences with the official results. The outcomes of the experiment show that the amount of open citation data currently available is not yet enough for obtaining similar results.

The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.