ArticleScientometrics2023
A diachronic perspective on citation latency in Wikipedia articles on CRISPR/Cas-9: an exploratory case study.
Article in Scientometrics, 2023. 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.
- Who are the "Heroes of CRISPR"? Public science communication on Wikipedia and the challenge of micro-notability.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper analyzes Wikipedia's representation of the Nobel Prize winning CRISPR/Cas9 technology, a method for gene editing. We propose and evaluate different heuristics to match publications from several publication corpora against Wikipedia's central article on CRISPR and against the complete Wikipedia revision history in order to retrieve further Wikipedia articles relevant to the topic and to analyze Wikipedia's referencing patterns. We explore to what extent the selection of referenced literature of Wikipedia's central article on CRISPR adheres to scientific standards and inner-scientific perspectives by assessing its overlap with (1) the Web of Science (WoS) database, (2) a WoS-based field-delineated corpus, (3) highly-cited publications within this corpus, and (4) publications referenced by field-specific reviews. We develop a diachronic perspective on citation latency and compare the delays with which publications are cited in relevant Wikipedia articles to the citation dynamics of these publications over time. Our results confirm that a combination of verbatim searches by title, DOI, and PMID is sufficient and cannot be improved significantly by more elaborate search heuristics. We show that Wikipedia references a substantial amount of publications that are recognized by experts and highly cited, but that Wikipedia also cites less visible literature, and, to a certain degree, even not strictly scientific literature. Delays in occurrence on Wikipedia compared to the publication years show (most pronounced in case of the central CRISPR article) a dependence on the dynamics of both the field and the editor's reaction to it in terms of activity.
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.