Kraker Peter, Kittel Christopher, Enkhbayar Asuraa
2016
The goal of Open Knowledge Maps is to create a visual interface to the world’s scientific knowledge. The base for this visual interface consists of so-called knowledge maps, which enable the exploration of existing knowledge and the discovery of new knowledge. Our open source knowledge mapping software applies a mixture of summarization techniques and similarity measures on article metadata, which are iteratively chained together. After processing, the representation is saved in a database for use in a web visualization. In the future, we want to create a space for collective knowledge mapping that brings together individuals and communities involved in exploration and discovery. We want to enable people to guide each other in their discovery by collaboratively annotating and modifying the automatically created maps.
Kraker Peter, Dennerlein Sebastian, Dörler, D, Ferus, A, Gutounig Robert, Heigl, F., Kaier, C., Rieck Katharina, Šimukovic, E., Vignoli Michela
2016
Between April 2015 and June 2016, members of the Open Access Network Aus- tria (OANA) working group “Open Access and Scholarly Communication” met in Vienna to discuss a fundamental reform of the scholarly communication system.By scholarly communication we mean the processes of producing, reviewing, organising, disseminating and preserving scholarly knowledge1. Scholarly communication does not only concern researchers, but also society at large, especially students, educators, policy makers, public administrators, funders, librarians, journalists, practitioners, publishers, public and private organisations, and interested citizens.
Kraker Peter, Peters Isabella, Lex Elisabeth, Gumpenberger Christian , Gorraiz Juan
2016
In this study, we explore the citedness of research data, its distribution overtime and its relation to the availability of a digital object identifier (DOI) in the ThomsonReuters database Data Citation Index (DCI). We investigate if cited research data ‘‘im-pacts’’ the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationshipbetween the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social mediaplatforms. Three tools are used to collect altmetrics scores, namely PlumX, ImpactStory,and Altmetric.com, and the corresponding results are compared. We found that out of thethree altmetrics tools, PlumX has the best coverage. Our experiments revealed thatresearch data remain mostly uncited (about 85 %), although there has been an increase inciting data sets published since 2008. The percentage of the number of cited research datawith a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories are responsible for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research datawith altmetrics ‘‘foot-prints’’ is even lower (4–9 %) but shows a higher coverage ofresearch data from the last decade. In our study, we also found no correlation between thenumber of citations and the total number of altmetrics scores. Yet, certain data types (i.e.survey, aggregate data, and sequence data) are more often cited and also receive higheraltmetrics scores. Additionally, we performed citation and altmetric analyses of allresearch data published between 2011 and 2013 in four different disciplines covered by theDCI. In general, these results correspond very well with the ones obtained for research datacited at least twice and also show low numbers in citations and in altmetrics. Finally, weobserved that there are disciplinary differences in the availability and extent of altmetricsscores.