The need for open scientific knowledge graphs is ever increasing. While there are large repositories of open access articles and free publication indexes, there are still few free knowledge graphs exposing citation networks, and often their coverage is partial. Consequently, most evaluation processes based on citation counts rely on commercial citation databases. Things are changing thanks to the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC, https://i4oc.org) and the Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA, https://i4oa.org), whose goal is to campaign for scholarly publishers to open the reference lists and the other metadata of their articles. This paper investigates the growth of the open bibliographic metadata and open citations in two scientific knowledge graphs, OpenCitations' COCI and Crossref, with an experiment on the Italian National Scientific Qualification (NSQ), the National process for University Professor qualification which uses data from commercial indexes. We simulated the procedure by only using such open data and explored similarities and differences with the official results. The outcomes of the experiment show that the amount of open bibliographic metadata and open citation data currently available in the two scientific knowledge graphs adopted is not yet enough for obtaining results similar to those provided using commercial databases.
翻译:开放科学知识图表的需求在不断增加,虽然有大量公开存取文章和自由出版指数的储存库,但仍然很少自由知识图表,它们暴露了引用网络,而且其覆盖范围往往不广,因此,大多数基于引用量的评价过程都依赖商业引用数据库,由于公开引用倡议(I4OC, https://i4oc.org)和公开摘要倡议(I4OA, https://i4oaa.org),情况正在发生变化,公开摘要倡议的目标是为学术出版商开展运动,以打开参考清单及其文章的其他元数据,本文调查公开书目元数据和公开引用两种科学知识图表(OpenCitations' COCI和Crosref)的成长和公开引用情况,同时试用意大利国家科学资格(NSQ),即使用商业索引数据的国家大学教授资格进程。我们只是利用这种公开数据模拟程序,并探索与官方结果的相似和不同之处。实验结果显示,目前两个科学知识数据库(Open-Centific set)中提供的公开书目元和公开引用数据的数量还不足以获得这些商业数据。