ArticlePloS one2014
Measuring the value of research data: a citation analysis of oceanographic data sets.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Environmental Data Initiative: Connecting the past to the future through data reuse.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- How do properties of data, their curation, and their funding relate to reuse?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2022Article
- Traits of Complex Thinking: A Bibliometric Review of a Disruptive Construct in Education.Journal of Intelligence · 2022Article
- How research data deliver non-academic impacts: A secondary analysis of UK Research Excellence Framework impact case studies.PloS one · 2022Article
- Using the full-text content of academic articles to identify and evaluate algorithm entities in the domain of natural language processing.Journal of informetrics · 2020Article
- Make scientific data FAIR.Nature · 2019Article
- Patterns of database citation in articles and patents indicate long-term scientific and industry value of biological data resources.F1000Research · 2016Article
- Article
- Sizing the Problem of Improving Discovery and Access to NIH-Funded Data: A Preliminary Study.PloS one · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluation of scientific research is becoming increasingly reliant on publication-based bibliometric indicators, which may result in the devaluation of other scientific activities--such as data curation--that do not necessarily result in the production of scientific publications. This issue may undermine the movement to openly share and cite data sets in scientific publications because researchers are unlikely to devote the effort necessary to curate their research data if they are unlikely to receive credit for doing so. This analysis attempts to demonstrate the bibliometric impact of properly curated and openly accessible data sets by attempting to generate citation counts for three data sets archived at the National Oceanographic Data Center. My findings suggest that all three data sets are highly cited, with estimated citation counts in most cases higher than 99% of all the journal articles published in Oceanography during the same years. I also find that methods of citing and referring to these data sets in scientific publications are highly inconsistent, despite the fact that a formal citation format is suggested for each data set. These findings have important implications for developing a data citation format, encouraging researchers to properly curate their research data, and evaluating the bibliometric impact of individuals and institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.