Literature Citations in the Internet Era
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
J. A. Evans's Report “Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship” (18 July, p. [395][1]) suggests that (i) the average age of citations to scientific papers dropped over the years as more electronic papers became accessible and (ii) the citations are concentrated on a smaller proportion of papers and journals. Such conclusions are not warranted by Evans's data. ![Figure][2] CREDIT: JUPITER IMAGES To measure the evolution of the average (or median) age of the references contained in papers, one has to look at all the references in all published papers and observe the evolution of their age over time. As we have shown using Thomson Reuters's Web of Science data for the period 1900 to 2004 (for a total of 500 million references in 25 million papers), the average (and median) age of all references began to decrease in 1945 but has increased steadily since the mid-1960s. This trend is visible in all sciences, including the social sciences and the humanities ([1][3], [2][4]). The median age of references in fields of science and engineering moved from 4.5 years in 1955 to more than 7 years in 2004, and in medical sciences it increased from 4.5 to 5.5 during the same period ([1][3]). In fact, Evans's conclusions only reflect a transient phenomenon related to recent access to online publications and to the fact that the method used does not take into account time delays between citation year and publication year. Our data also show that in disciplines in which online access has been available the longest (such as nuclear physics and astrophysics), the age of references declines for a number of years in the 1990s but then increases from 2000 to 2007, the last available year of our data set. We have also measured the concentration of citations (and journals) by three different methods, including the one used by Evans. All three measures clearly show that concentration is in fact declining for papers as well as for journals ([3][5]). Although many factors affect citation practices, two things are clear: Researchers are increasingly relying on older science, and citations are increasingly dispersed across a larger proportion of papers and journals. 1. 1.[↵][6]1. V. Lariviere, 2. E. Archambault, 3. Y. Gingras , J. Am. Soc. Information Sci. Technol. 59, 288 (2008). [OpenUrl][7][CrossRef][8] 2. 2.[↵][9]1. D. Tores-Salinas, 2. H.F. Moed 1. V. Lariviere, 2. E. Archambault, 3. Y. Gingras , in Proceedings of ISSI 2007, D. Tores-Salinas, H.F. Moed, Eds. (CSIC, Madrid, 2007), pp. 449-456. 3. 3.[↵][10]1. V. Lariviere, 2. Y. Gingras, 3. E. Archambault , “The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007” ( ). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1150473 [2]: pending:yes [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BAm.%2BSoc.%2BInformation%2BSci.%2BTechnol.%26rft.volume%253D59%26rft.spage%253D288%26rft.atitle%253DJ%2BAM%2BSOC%2BINFORMATION%2BSCI%2BTECHNOL%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252Fasi.20744%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/asi.20744&link_type=DOI [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,105 | 0,467 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,015 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».