Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30900066›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2019

Too many tags spoil the metadata: investigating the knowledge management of scientific research with semantic web technologies.

Samantha Kanza, Nicholas Gibbins, Jeremy G Frey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The AI for Scientific Discovery NetworkPatterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samantha KanzaUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. s.kanza@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9489
Nicholas GibbinsUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Jeremy G FreyUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/C008863/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/G026238/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/G036926/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/K003569/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council GR/R67729/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific research is increasingly characterised by the volume of documents and data that it produces, from experimental plans and raw data to reports and papers. Researchers frequently struggle to manage and curate these materials, both individually and collectively. Previous studies of Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs) in academia and industry have identified semantic web technologies as a means for organising scientific documents to improve current workflows and knowledge management practices. In this paper, we present a qualitative, user-centred study of researcher requirements and practices, based on a series of discipline-specific focus groups. We developed a prototype semantic ELN to serve as a discussion aid for these focus groups, and to help us explore the technical readiness of a range of semantic web technologies. While these technologies showed potential, existing tools for semantic annotation were not well-received by our focus groups, and need to be refined before they can be used to enhance current researcher practices. In addition, the seemingly simple notion of "tagging and searching" documents appears anything but; the researchers in our focus groups had extremely personal requirements for how they organise their work, so the successful incorporation of semantic web technologies into their practices must permit a significant degree of customisation and personalisation.

Indexed as

Document managementOntologiesScientific documentsSemantic tagging

Identifiers

PMID30900066
PMCPMC6427892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.