Computer Science

Scientific journal publishers have over the past twenty-five years rapidly converted to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20%, but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in eighteen Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27% (agriculture) to 7% (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries, which dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.

Recent reproducibility case studies have raised concerns showing that much of the deposited research has not been reproducible. One of their conclusions was that the way data repositories store research data and code cannot fully facilitate reproducibility due to the absence of a runtime environment needed for the code execution. New specialized reproducibility tools provide cloud-based computational environments for code encapsulation, thus enabling research portability and reproducibility. However, they do not often enable research discoverability, standardized data citation, or long-term archival like data repositories do. This paper addresses the shortcomings of data repositories and reproducibility tools and how they could be overcome to improve the current lack of computational reproducibility in published and archived research outputs.

Algorithmic classifications of research publications can be used to study many different aspects of the science system, such as the organization of science into fields, the growth of fields, interdisciplinarity, and emerging topics. How to label the classes in these classifications is a problem that has not been thoroughly addressed in the literature. In this study we evaluate different approaches to label the classes in algorithmically constructed classifications of research publications. We focus on two important choices: the choice of (1) different bibliographic fields and (2) different approaches to weight the relevance of terms. To evaluate the different choices, we created two baselines: one based on the Medical Subject Headings in MEDLINE and another based on the Science-Metrix journal classification. We tested to what extent different approaches yield the desired labels for the classes in the two baselines. Based on our results we recommend extracting terms from titles and keywords to label classes at high levels of granularity (e.g. topics). At low levels of granularity (e.g. disciplines) we recommend extracting terms from journal names and author addresses. We recommend the use of a new approach, term frequency to specificity ratio, to calculate the relevance of terms.

Within academia, mature researchers tend to be more senior, but do they also tend to write higher impact articles? This article assesses long-term publishing (16+ years) United States (US) researchers, contrasting them with shorter-term publishing researchers (1, 6 or 10 years). A long-term US researcher is operationalised as having a first Scopus-indexed journal article in exactly 2001 and one in 2016-2019, with US main affiliations in their first and last articles. Researchers publishing in large teams (11+ authors) were excluded. The average field and year normalised citation impact of long- and shorter-term US researchers' journal articles decreases over time relative to the national average, with especially large falls to the last articles published that may be at least partly due to a decline in self-citations. In many cases researchers start by publishing above US average citation impact research and end by publishing below US average citation impact research. Thus, research managers should not assume that senior researchers will usually write the highest impact papers.

Today, ranking systems in universities have been considered by the academic community, and there is a tight competition between world universities to achieve higher ranks. In the meantime, the ranking of university websites is also in the spotlight, and the Webometric research center announces the ranks of university websites twice a year. Examining university rankings indicators and the Webometric ranks of the university indicates that some of these indicators, directly and indirectly, affect each other. On the other hand, a preliminary study of Webometric indicators shows that some Search Engine Optimization (SEO) indicators can affect Webometric ranks. The purpose of this research is to show how far the SEO metrics can affect the website rank of the university. To do this, after extracting 38 points of the significant SEO metrics of the extracted universities using various tools, data analysis was conducted along with applying association rules on the data. The results of the research show that some of the SEO metrics, such as the number of backlinks, Alexa Rank, and Page Rank have a direct and significant impact on the website rank of universities, and in this regard, interesting rules have been extracted.

Percentiles are statistics pointing to the standing of a paper's citation impact relative to other papers in a given citation distribution. Percentile Ranks (PRs) often play an important role in evaluating the impact of scholars, institutions, and lines of study. Because PRs are so important for the assessment of scholarly impact, and because citation practices differ greatly across time and fields, various percentile approaches have been proposed to time- and field-normalize citations. Unfortunately, current popular methods often face significant problems in time- and field-normalization, including when papers are assigned to multiple fields or have been published by more than one unit (e.g., researchers or countries). They also face problems for estimating citation counts (CCs) for pre-defined PRs (e.g., the 90th PR). We offer a series of guidelines and procedures that, we argue, address these problems and others and provide a superior means to make the use of percentile methods more accurate and informative. In particular, we introduce two approaches, CP-IN and CP-EX, that should be preferred in bibliometric studies because they consider the complete citation distribution. Both approaches are based on cumulative frequencies in percentages (CPs). The paper further shows how bar graphs and beamplots can present PRs in a more meaningful and accurate manner.

With the rapid development of AI technologies, thousands of AI papers are being published each year. Many of these papers have released sample code to facilitate follow-up researchers. This paper presents an explorative study of over 1700 code repositories of AI papers hosted on GitHub. We find that these repositories are often poorly written, lack of documents, lack of maintenance, and hard to configure the underlying runtime environment. Thus, many code repositories become inactive and abandoned. Such a situation makes follow-up researchers hard to reproduce the results or do further research. In addition, these hard-to-reuse code makes a gap between academia and industry. Based on the findings, we give some recommendations on how to improve the quality of code repositories of AI papers.

Scholarly article impact reflects the significance of academic output recognised by academic peers, and it often plays a crucial role in assessing the scientific achievements of researchers, teams, institutions and countries. It is also used for addressing various needs in the academic and scientific arena, such as recruitment decisions, promotions, and funding allocations. This article provides a comprehensive review of recent progresses related to article impact assessment and prediction. The~review starts by sharing some insight into the article impact research and outlines current research status. Some core methods and recent progress are presented to outline how article impact metrics and prediction have evolved to consider integrating multiple networks. Key techniques, including statistical analysis, machine learning, data mining and network science, are discussed. In particular, we highlight important applications of each technique in article impact research. Subsequently, we discuss the open issues and challenges of article impact research. At the same time, this review points out some important research directions, including article impact evaluation by considering Conflict of Interest, time and location information, various distributions of scholarly entities, and rising stars.

In recent years, new indicators known as altmetrics have been introduced to measure the impact of scientific activity. These indicators are obtained through the mentions realised from different social media, existing several aggregators of these data that collect several of them in the same database, being this http URL the most popular. However, in spite of the popularization of these metrics, several limitations in their use have been manifested. For this reason, rhe objective of this work is twofold: (1) to show the possibilities of altimetric techniques applied to the Spanish social sciences in general and sociology in particular; (2) to critically analyse the results to observe the limitations of these indicators; (3) to check whether they can really add useful information that can be used to describe a scientific field and (4) to see the reasons why altmetrics cannot be applied in these fields.

Demonstrating the practical value of public research has been an important subject in science policy. Here we present a detailed study on the evolution of the citation linkage between life science related patents and biomedical research over a 37-year period. Our analysis relies on a newly-created dataset that systematically links millions of non-patent references to biomedical papers. We find a large disparity in the volume of science linkage among technology sectors, with biotechnology and drug patents dominating it. The linkage has been growing exponentially over a long period of time, doubling every 2.9 years. The U.S. has been the largest producer of cited science for years, receiving nearly half of the citations. More than half of citations goes to universities. We use a new paper-level indicator to quantify to what extent a paper is basic research or clinical medicine. We find that the cited papers are likely to be basic research, yet a significant portion of papers cited in patents that are related to FDA-approved drugs are clinical research. The U.S. National Institute of Health continues to be an important funder of cited science. For the majority of companies, more than half of citations in their patents are authored by public research. Taken together, these results indicate a continuous linkage of public science to private sector inventions.