ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022
Understanding progress in software citation: a study of software citation in the CORD-19 corpus.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Special issue on software citation, indexing, and discoverability.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate progress toward improved software citation by examining current software citation practices. We first introduce our machine learning based data pipeline that extracts software mentions from the CORD-19 corpus, a regularly updated collection of more than 280,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19 and related historical coronaviruses. We then closely examine a stratified sample of extracted software mentions from recent CORD-19 publications to understand the status of software citation. We also searched online for the mentioned software projects and their citation requests. We evaluate both practices of referencing software in publications and making software citable in comparison with earlier findings and recent advocacy recommendations. We found increased mentions of software versions, increased open source practices, and improved software accessibility. Yet, we also found a continuation of high numbers of informal mentions that did not sufficiently credit software authors. Existing software citation requests were diverse but did not match with software citation advocacy recommendations nor were they frequently followed by researchers authoring papers. Finally, we discuss implications for software citation advocacy and standard making efforts seeking to improve the situation. Our results show the diversity of software citation practices and how they differ from advocacy recommendations, provide a baseline for assessing the progress of software citation implementation, and enrich the understanding of existing challenges.
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.