The importance of open bibliographic repositories is widely accepted by the scientific community. For evaluation processes, however, there is still some skepticism: even if large repositories of open access articles and free publication indexes exist and are continuously growing, assessment procedures still rely on proprietary databases, mainly due to the richness of the data available in these proprietary databases and the services provided by the companies they are offered by. This paper investigates the status of open bibliographic data of three of the most used open resources, namely Microsoft Academic Graph, Crossref and OpenAIRE, evaluating their potentialities as substitutes of proprietary databases for academic evaluation processes. We focused on the Italian National Scientific Qualification (NSQ), the Italian process for University Professor qualification, which uses data from commercial indexes, and investigated similarities and differences between research areas, disciplines and application roles. The main conclusion is that open datasets are ready to be used for some disciplines, among which mathematics, natural sciences, economics and statistics, even if there is still room for improvement; but there is still a large gap to fill in others - like history, philosophy, pedagogy and psychology - and a stronger effort is required from researchers and institutions.
翻译:开放书目库的重要性为科学界所广泛接受。但是,对于评估进程,仍然存在着一些怀疑:即使有大量公开存取文章和自由出版指数的储存库存在并不断增长,评估程序仍然依赖专有数据库,这主要是因为这些专有数据库中的数据丰富,以及由它们所提供的公司提供的服务丰富。本文调查了三种最常用公开资源即微软学术图、十字ref和OpenAIRE的公开书目数据状况,评价它们作为学术评价进程的专有数据库的替代物的潜力。我们侧重于意大利国家科学资格(NSQ),意大利大学教授资格程序,该程序使用商业索引的数据,调查研究领域、学科和应用作用之间的异同之处。主要结论是,开放数据集已经准备好用于某些学科,包括数学、自然科学、经济学和统计,即使仍有改进的余地;但在其他学科,如历史、哲学、教育学和心理学方面,仍有很大的差距有待填补,需要研究人员和机构作出更大的努力。