arXiv subjects

Paul Donner

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Donner.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

Towards a valid bibliometric measure of epistemic breadth of researchers

The concept of epistemic breadth of the work of a researcher refers to the scope of their knowledge claims, as reflected in published research reports. Studies of epistemic breadth have been hampered by the lack of a validated measure of the concept. Here we introduce a knowledge space approach to the measurement of epistemic breadth and propose to use the semantic similarity network of an author's publication record to operationalize a measure. In this approach, each paper has its own location in a common abstract vector space based on its content. Proximity in knowledge space corresponds to thematic similarity of publications. Candidate measures of epistemic breadth derived from aggregate similarity values of researchers' bodies of work are tested against external validation data of researchers known to have made a major change in research topic and against self-citation data. We find that some candidate measures co-vary well with known epistemic breadth of researchers in the empirical data and can serve as valid indicators of the concept.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

Reference Coverage Analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus

OpenAlex is a promising open source of scholarly metadata, and competitor to established proprietary sources, such as the Web of Science and Scopus. As OpenAlex provides its data freely and openly, it permits researchers to perform bibliometric studies that can be reproduced in the community without licensing barriers. However, as OpenAlex is a rapidly evolving source and the data contained within is expanding and also quickly changing, the question naturally arises as to the trustworthiness of its data. In this report, we will study the reference coverage and selected metadata within each database and compare them with each other to help address this open question in bibliometrics. In our large-scale study, we demonstrate that, when restricted to a cleaned dataset of 16.8 million recent publications shared by all three databases, OpenAlex has average source reference numbers and internal coverage rates comparable to both Web of Science and Scopus. We further analyse the metadata in OpenAlex, the Web of Science and Scopus by journal, finding a similarity in the distribution of source reference counts in the Web of Science and Scopus as compared to OpenAlex. We also demonstrate that the comparison of other core metadata covered by OpenAlex shows mixed results when broken down by journal, capturing more ORCID identifiers, fewer abstracts and a similar number of Open Access status indicators per article when compared to both the Web of Science and Scopus.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2023

Data inaccuracy quantification and uncertainty propagation for bibliometric indicators

This study introduces an approach to estimate the uncertainty in bibliometric indicator values that is caused by data errors. This approach utilizes Bayesian regression models, estimated from empirical data samples, which are used to predict error-free data. Through direct Monte Carlo simulation - drawing many replicates of predicted data from the estimated regression models for the same input data - probability distributions for indicator values can be obtained, which provide the information on their uncertainty due to data errors. It is demonstrated how uncertainty in base quantities, such as the number of publications of a unit of certain document types and the number of citations of a publication, can be propagated along a measurement model into final indicator values. Synthetic examples are used to illustrate the method and real bibliometric research evaluation data is used to show its application in practice. Though in this contribution we just use two out of a larger number of known bibliometric error categories and therefore can account for only some part of the total uncertainty due to inaccuracies, the latter example reveals that average values of citation impact scores of publications of research groups need to be used very cautiously as they often have large margins of error resulting from data inaccuracies.

cs.DL↗