ArticlePloS one2020
Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards multiple ontologies in science mapping. A tribute to Loet Leydesdorff.Scientometrics · 2025Article
- Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- A diachronic perspective on citation latency in Wikipedia articles on CRISPR/Cas-9: an exploratory case study.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Article
- Social Media: Flattening Hierarchies for Women and Black, Indigenous, People Of Color (BIPOC) to Enter the Room Where It Happens.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- A scholarly network of AI research with an information science focus: Global North and Global South perspectives.PloS one · 2022Article
- Crowdsourcing biocuration: The Community Assessment of Community Annotation with Ontologies (CACAO).PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Measuring the quality of scientific references in Wikipedia: an analysis of more than 115M citations to over 800 000 scientific articles.The FEBS journal · 2021Article
- How the Field of Infectious Diseases Can Leverage Digital Strategy and Social Media Use During a Pandemic.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of "Medicine" and "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology" papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals.
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.