Description: This dataset (Version 10) contains a collection of research papers along with various attributes and metadata. It is a comprehensive and diverse dataset that can be used for a wide range of research and analysis tasks. The dataset encompasses papers from different fields of study, including computer science, mathematics, physics, and more.

Fields in the Dataset: - id: A unique identifier for each paper. - title: The title of the research paper. - authors: The list of authors involved in the paper. - venue: The journal or venue where the paper was published. - year: The year when the paper was published. - n_citation: The number of citations received by the paper. - references: A list of paper IDs that are cited by the current paper. - abstract: The abstract of the paper.

Example: - "id": "013ea675-bb58-42f8-a423-f5534546b2b1", - "title": "Prediction of consensus binding mode geometries for related chemical series of positive allosteric modulators of adenosine and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors", - "authors": ["Leon A. Sakkal", "Kyle Z. Rajkowski", "Roger S. Armen"], - "venue": "Journal of Computational Chemistry", - "year": 2017, - "n_citation": 0, - "references": ["4f4f200c-0764-4fef-9718-b8bccf303dba", "aa699fbf-fabe-40e4-bd68-46eaf333f7b1"], - "abstract": "This paper studies ..."

Cite: https://www.aminer.cn/citation

Explore a rich research dataset with 5.2M papers and 36.6M citations! Unleash your data science skills for clustering, influence analysis, topic modeling, and more. Dive into the world of research networks.

The journals’ author guidelines and/or editorial policies were examined on whether they take a stance with regard to the availability of the underlying data of the submitted article. The mere explicated possibility of providing supplementary material along with the submitted article was not considered as a research data policy in the present study. Furthermore, the present article excluded source codes or algorithms from the scope of the paper and thus policies related to them are not included in the analysis of the present article.

For selection of journals within the field of neurosciences, Clarivate Analytics’ InCites Journal Citation Reports database was searched using categories of neurosciences and neuroimaging. From the results, journals with the 40 highest Impact Factor (for the year 2017) indicators were extracted for scrutiny of research data policies. Respectively, the selection journals within the field of physics was created by performing a similar search with the categories of physics, applied; physics, atomic, molecular & chemical; physics, condensed matter; physics, fluids & plasmas; physics, mathematical; physics, multidisciplinary; physics, nuclear and physics, particles & fields. From the results, journals with the 40 highest Impact Factor indicators were again extracted for scrutiny. Similarly, the 40 journals representing the field of operations research were extracted by using the search category of operations research and management.

Journal-specific data policies were sought from journal specific websites providing journal specific author guidelines or editorial policies. Within the present study, the examination of journal data policies was done in May 2019. The primary data source was journal-specific author guidelines. If journal guidelines explicitly linked to the publisher’s general policy with regard to research data, these were used in the analyses of the present article. If journal-specific research data policy, or lack of, was inconsistent with the publisher’s general policies, the journal-specific policies and guidelines were prioritized and used in the present article’s data. If journals’ author guidelines were not openly available online due to, e.g., accepting submissions on an invite-only basis, the journal was not included in the data of the present article. Also journals that exclusively publish review articles were excluded and replaced with the journal having the next highest Impact Factor indicator so that each set representing the three field of sciences consisted of 40 journals. The final data thus consisted of 120 journals in total.

‘Public deposition’ refers to a scenario where researcher deposits data to a public repository and thus gives the administrative role of the data to the receiving repository. ‘Scientific sharing’ refers to a scenario where researcher administers his or her data locally and by request provides it to interested reader. Note that none of the journals examined in the present article required that all data types underlying a submitted work should be deposited into a public data repositories. However, some journals required public deposition of data of specific types. Within the journal research data policies examined in the present article, these data types are well presented by the Springer Nature policy on “Availability of data, materials, code and protocols” (Springer Nature, 2018), that is, DNA and RNA data; protein sequences and DNA and RNA sequencing data; genetic polymorphisms data; linked phenotype and genotype data; gene expression microarray data; proteomics data; macromolecular structures and crystallographic data for small molecules. Furthermore, the registration of clinical trials in a public repository was also considered as a data type in this study. The term specific data types used in the custom coding framework of the present study thus refers to both life sciences data and public registration of clinical trials. These data types have community-endorsed public repositories where deposition was most often mandated within the journals’ research data policies.

The term ‘location’ refers to whether the journal’s data policy provides suggestions or requirements for the repositories or services used to share the underlying data of the submitted works. A mere general reference to ‘public repositories’ was not considered a location suggestion, but only references to individual repositories and services. The category of ‘immediate release of data’ examines whether the journals’ research data policy addresses the timing of publication of the underlying data of submitted works. Note that even though the journals may only encourage public deposition of the data, the editorial processes could be set up so that it leads to either publication of the research data or the research data metadata in conjunction to publishing of the submitted work.

To disseminate research, scholars once relied on university media services or journal press releases, but today any academic can turn to Twitter to share their published work with a broader audience. The possibility that scholars can push their research out, rather than hope that it is pulled in, holds the potential for scholars to draw wide attention to their research. In this manuscript, we examine whether there are systematic differences in the types of scholars who most benefit from this push model. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which there are gender differences in the dissemination of research via Twitter. We carry out our analyses by tracking tweet patterns for articles published in six journals across two fields (political science and communication), and we pair this Twitter data with demographic and educational data about the authors of the published articles, as well as article citation rates. We find considerable evidence that, overall, article citations are positively correlated with tweets about the article, and we find little evidence to suggest that author gender affects the transmission of research in this new media.

Self-citation analysis data based on PubMed Central subset (2002-2005) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Created by Shubhanshu Mishra, Brent D. Fegley, Jana Diesner, and Vetle Torvik on April 5th, 2018 ## Introduction This is a dataset created as part of the publication titled: Mishra S, Fegley BD, Diesner J, Torvik VI (2018) Self-Citation is the Hallmark of Productive Authors, of Any Gender. PLOS ONE. It contains files for running the self citation analysis on articles published in PubMed Central between 2002 and 2005, collected in 2015. The dataset is distributed in the form of the following tab separated text files: * Training_data_2002_2005_pmc_pair_First.txt (1.2G) - Data for first authors * Training_data_2002_2005_pmc_pair_Last.txt (1.2G) - Data for last authors * Training_data_2002_2005_pmc_pair_Middle_2nd.txt (964M) - Data for middle 2nd authors * Training_data_2002_2005_pmc_pair_txt.header.txt - Header for the data * COLUMNS_DESC.txt file - Descriptions of all columns * model_text_files.tar.gz - Text files containing model coefficients and scores for model selection. * results_all_model.tar.gz - Model coefficient and result files in numpy format used for plotting purposes. v4.reviewer contains models for analysis done after reviewer comments. * README.txt file ## Dataset creation Our experiments relied on data from multiple sources including properitery data from Thompson Rueter's (now Clarivate Analytics) Web of Science collection of MEDLINE citations. Author's interested in reproducing our experiments should personally request from Clarivate Analytics for this data. However, we do make a similar but open dataset based on citations from PubMed Central which can be utilized to get similar results to those reported in our analysis. Furthermore, we have also freely shared our datasets which can be used along with the citation datasets from Clarivate Analytics, to re-create the datased used in our experiments. These datasets are listed below. If you wish to use any of those datasets please make sure you cite both the dataset as well as the paper introducing the dataset. * MEDLINE 2015 baseline: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/licensee/2015_stats/baseline_doc.html * Citation data from PubMed Central (original paper includes additional citations from Web of Science) * Author-ity 2009 dataset: - Dataset citation: Torvik, Vetle I.; Smalheiser, Neil R. (2018): Author-ity 2009 - PubMed author name disambiguated dataset. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-4222651_V1 - Paper citation: Torvik, V. I., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2009). Author name disambiguation in MEDLINE. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 3(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/1552303.1552304 - Paper citation: Torvik, V. I., Weeber, M., Swanson, D. R., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2004). A probabilistic similarity metric for Medline records: A model for author name disambiguation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20105 * Genni 2.0 + Ethnea for identifying author gender and ethnicity: - Dataset citation: Torvik, Vetle (2018): Genni + Ethnea for the Author-ity 2009 dataset. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-9087546_V1 - Paper citation: Smith, B. N., Singh, M., & Torvik, V. I. (2013). A search engine approach to estimating temporal changes in gender orientation of first names. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries - JCDL ’13. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467720 - Paper citation: Torvik VI, Agarwal S. Ethnea -- an instance-based ethnicity classifier based on geo-coded author names in a large-scale bibliographic database. International Symposium on Science of Science March 22-23, 2016 - Library of Congress, Washington DC, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/88927 * MapAffil for identifying article country of affiliation: - Dataset citation: Torvik, Vetle I. (2018): MapAffil 2016 dataset -- PubMed author affiliations mapped to cities and their geocodes worldwide. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-4354331_V1 - Paper citation: Torvik VI. MapAffil: A Bibliographic Tool for Mapping Author Affiliation Strings to Cities and Their Geocodes Worldwide. D-Lib magazine : the magazine of the Digital Library Forum. 2015;21(11-12):10.1045/november2015-torvik * IMPLICIT journal similarity: - Dataset citation: Torvik, Vetle (2018): Author-implicit journal, MeSH, title-word, and affiliation-word pairs based on Author-ity 2009. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-4742014_V1 * Novelty dataset for identify article level novelty: - Dataset citation: Mishra, Shubhanshu; Torvik, Vetle I. (2018): Conceptual novelty scores for PubMed articles. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-5060298_V1 - Paper citation: Mishra S, Torvik VI. Quantifying Conceptual Novelty in the Biomedical Literature. D-Lib magazine : The Magazine of the Digital Library Forum. 2016;22(9-10):10.1045/september2016-mishra - Code: https://github.com/napsternxg/Novelty * Expertise dataset for identifying author expertise on articles: * Source code provided at: https://github.com/napsternxg/PubMed_SelfCitationAnalysis Note: The dataset is based on a snapshot of PubMed (which includes Medline and PubMed-not-Medline records) taken in the first week of October, 2016. Check here for information to get PubMed/MEDLINE, and NLMs data Terms and Conditions Additional data related updates can be found at Torvik Research Group ## Acknowledgments This work was made possible in part with funding to VIT from NIH grant P01AG039347 and NSF grant 1348742. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ## License Self-citation analysis data based on PubMed Central subset (2002-2005) by Shubhanshu Mishra, Brent D. Fegley, Jana Diesner, and Vetle Torvik is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://github.com/napsternxg/PubMed_SelfCitationAnalysis.

This dataset is a compilation of processed data on citation and references for research papers including their author, institution and open access info for a selected sample of academics analysed using Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) data and CORE. The data for this dataset was collected during December 2019 to January 2020.Six countries (Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States) were the focus of the six questions which make up this dataset. There is one csv file per country and per question (36 files in total). More details about the creation of this dataset are available on the public ON-MERRIT D3.1 deliverable report.The dataset is a combination of two different data sources, one part is a dataset created on analysing promotion policies across the target countries, while the second part is a set of data points available to understand the publishing behaviour. To facilitate the analysis the dataset is organised in the following seven folders:PRTThe dataset with the file name "PRT_policies.csv" contains the related information as this was extracted from promotion, review and tenure (PRT) policies. Q1: What % of papers coming from a university are Open Access?- Dataset Name format: oa_status_countryname_papers.csv- Dataset Contents: Open Access (OA) status of all papers of all the universities listed in Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THEWUR) for the given country. A paper is marked OA if there is at least an OA link available. OA links are collected using the CORE Discovery API.- Important considerations about this dataset: - Papers with multiple authorship are preserved only once towards each of the distinct institutions their authors may belong to. - The service we used to recognise if a paper is OA, CORE Discovery, does not contain entries for all paperids in MAG. This implies that some of the records in the dataset extracted will not have either a true or false value for the _is_OA_ field. - Only those records marked as true for _is_OA_ field can be said to be OA. Others with false or no value for is_OA field are unknown status (i.e. not necessarily closed access).Q2: How are papers, published by the selected universities, distributed across the three scientific disciplines of our choice?- Dataset Name format: fsid_countryname_papers.csv- Dataset Contents: For the given country, all papers for all the universities listed in THEWUR with the information of fieldofstudy they belong to.- Important considerations about this dataset: * MAG can associate a paper to multiple fieldofstudyid. If a paper belongs to more than one of our fieldofstudyid, separate records were created for the paper with each of those _fieldofstudyid_s.- MAG assigns fieldofstudyid to every paper with a score. We preserve only those records whose score is more than 0.5 for any fieldofstudyid it belongs to.- Papers with multiple authorship are preserved only once towards each of the distinct institutions their authors may belong to. Papers with authorship from multiple universities are counted once towards each of the universities concerned.Q3: What is the gender distribution in authorship of papers published by the universities?- Dataset Name format: author_gender_countryname_papers.csv- Dataset Contents: All papers with their author names for all the universities listed in THEWUR.- Important considerations about this dataset :- When there are multiple collaborators(authors) for the same paper, this dataset makes sure that only the records for collaborators from within selected universities are preserved.- An external script was executed to determine the gender of the authors. The script is available here.Q4: Distribution of staff seniority (= number of years from their first publication until the last publication) in the given university.- Dataset Name format: author_ids_countryname_papers.csv- Dataset Contents: For a given country, all papers for authors with their publication year for all the universities listed in THEWUR.- Important considerations about this work :- When there are multiple collaborators(authors) for the same paper, this dataset makes sure that only the records for collaborators from within selected universities are preserved.- Calculating staff seniority can be achieved in various ways. The most straightforward option is to calculate it as _academic_age = MAX(year) - MIN(year) _for each authorid.Q5: Citation counts (incoming) for OA vs Non-OA papers published by the university.- Dataset Name format: cc_oa_countryname_papers.csv- Dataset Contents: OA status and OA links for all papers of all the universities listed in THEWUR and for each of those papers, count of incoming citations available in MAG.- Important considerations about this dataset :- CORE Discovery was used to establish the OA status of papers.- Papers with multiple authorship are preserved only once towards each of the distinct institutions their authors may belong to.- Only those records marked as true for _is_OA_ field can be said to be OA. Others with false or no value for is_OA field are unknown status (i.e. not necessarily closed access).Q6: Count of OA vs Non-OA references (outgoing) for all papers published by universities.- Dataset Name format: rc_oa_countryname_-papers.csv- Dataset Contents: Counts of all OA and unknown papers referenced by all papers published by all the universities listed in THEWUR.- Important considerations about this dataset :- CORE Discovery was used to establish the OA status of papers being referenced.- Papers with multiple authorship are preserved only once towards each of the distinct institutions their authors may belong to. Papers with authorship from multiple universities are counted once towards each of the universities concerned.Additional files:- _fieldsofstudy_mag_.csv: this file contains a dump of fieldsofstudy table of MAG mapping each of the ids to their actual field of study name.

Background: Attribution to the original contributor upon reuse of published data is important both as a reward for data creators and to document the provenance of research findings. Previous studies have found that papers with publicly available datasets receive a higher number of citations than similar studies without available data. However, few previous analyses have had the statistical power to control for the many variables known to predict citation rate, which has led to uncertain estimates of the "citation benefit". Furthermore, little is known about patterns in data reuse over time and across datasets. Method and Results: Here, we look at citation rates while controlling for many known citation predictors, and investigate the variability of data reuse. In a multivariate regression on 10,555 studies that created gene expression microarray data, we found that studies that made data available in a public repository received 9% (95% confidence interval: 5% to 13%) more citations than similar studies for which the data was not made available. Date of publication, journal impact factor, open access status, number of authors, first and last author publication history, corresponding author country, institution citation history, and study topic were included as covariates. The citation benefit varied with date of dataset deposition: a citation benefit was most clear for papers published in 2004 and 2005, at about 30%. Authors published most papers using their own datasets within two years of their first publication on the dataset, whereas data reuse papers published by third-party investigators continued to accumulate for at least six years. To study patterns of data reuse directly, we compiled 9,724 instances of third party data reuse via mention of GEO or ArrayExpress accession numbers in the full text of papers. The level of third-party data use was high: for 100 datasets deposited in year 0, we estimated that 40 papers in PubMed reused a dataset by year 2, 100 by year 4, and more than 150 data reuse papers had been published by year 5. Data reuse was distributed across a broad base of datasets: a very conservative estimate found that 20% of the datasets deposited between 2003 and 2007 had been reused at least once by third parties. Conclusion: After accounting for other factors affecting citation rate, we find a robust citation benefit from open data, although a smaller one than previously reported. We conclude there is a direct effect of third-party data reuse that persists for years beyond the time when researchers have published most of the papers reusing their own data. Other factors that may also contribute to the citation benefit are considered.We further conclude that, at least for gene expression microarray data, a substantial fraction of archived datasets are reused, and that the intensity of dataset reuse has been steadily increasing since 2003.

CS Researchers H-index and Citation Analysis

A New Method to Evaluate Impact

About this dataset

This dataset provides information on the H-index and citations of computer science researchers. The H-index is a measure of a researcher's productivity and impact. The higher the H-index, the more productive and influential the researcher is. Citations are another way of measuring a researcher's impact. The more citations a researcher has, the more other researchers have cited their work. This dataset can be used to compare the productivity and impact of computer science researchers

How to use the dataset

To use this dataset, simply download it and import it into your favorite statistical software. Then, you can begin to analyze the data in order to answer any questions that you may have about computer science researchers and their impact

Research Ideas

• Evaluating the impact of computer science researchers
• Identifying areas of research that are highly cited
• Identifying computer science researchers with high h-index scores

Columns

File: data.csv | Column name | Description | |:------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Name | The name of the researcher. (String) | | Citations 2020 | The number of citations the researcher has in 2020. (Integer) | | Total_citation | The total number of citations the researcher has. (Integer) | | Citation_since_2016 | The number of citations the researcher has since 2016. (Integer) | | HomePage | The researcher's home page. (String) | | Area of Research | The researcher's area of research. (String) | | Google_Scholar | The researcher's Google Scholar page. (String) |

This dataset contains data collected during a study ("Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review") conducted by Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu), Nina Rizun, Magdalena Ciesielska (Gdańsk University of Technology), Charalampos Alexopoulos (University of the Aegean) and Andrea Miletič (University of Zagreb) It being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review" paper (pre-print is available in Open Access here -> https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10234) and in order for other researchers to use these data in their own work.

The protocol is intended for the Systematic Literature review on the topic of High-value Datasets with the aim to gather information on how the topic of High-value datasets (HVD) and their determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, incl. the indicators used in them, involved stakeholders, data-related aspects, and frameworks. The data in this dataset were collected in the result of the SLR over Scopus, Web of Science, and Digital Government Research library (DGRL) in 2023.

Methodology

To understand how HVD determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, all relevant literature covering this topic has been studied. To this end, the SLR was carried out to by searching digital libraries covered by Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Digital Government Research library (DGRL).

These databases were queried for keywords ("open data" OR "open government data") AND ("high-value data*" OR "high value data*"), which were applied to the article title, keywords, and abstract to limit the number of papers to those, where these objects were primary research objects rather than mentioned in the body, e.g., as a future work. After deduplication, 11 articles were found unique and were further checked for relevance. As a result, a total of 9 articles were further examined. Each study was independently examined by at least two authors.

To attain the objective of our study, we developed the protocol, where the information on each selected study was collected in four categories: (1) descriptive information, (2) approach- and research design- related information, (3) quality-related information, (4) HVD determination-related information.

Test procedure Each study was independently examined by at least two authors, where after the in-depth examination of the full-text of the article, the structured protocol has been filled for each study. The structure of the survey is available in the supplementary file available (see Protocol_HVD_SLR.odt, Protocol_HVD_SLR.docx) The data collected for each study by two researchers were then synthesized in one final version by the third researcher.

Description of the data in this data set

Protocol_HVD_SLR provides the structure of the protocol Spreadsheets #1 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies. Spreadsheet#2 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases, i.e. before filtering out irrelevant studies

The information on each selected study was collected in four categories: (1) descriptive information, (2) approach- and research design- related information, (3) quality-related information, (4) HVD determination-related information

Descriptive information
1) Article number - a study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet 2) Complete reference - the complete source information to refer to the study 3) Year of publication - the year in which the study was published 4) Journal article / conference paper / book chapter - the type of the paper -{journal article, conference paper, book chapter} 5) DOI / Website- a link to the website where the study can be found 6) Number of citations - the number of citations of the article in Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science 7) Availability in OA - availability of an article in the Open Access 8) Keywords - keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors 9) Relevance for this study - what is the relevance level of the article for this study? {high / medium / low}

Approach- and research design-related information 10) Objective / RQ - the research objective / aim, established research questions 11) Research method (including unit of analysis) - the methods used to collect data, including the unit of analy-sis (country, organisation, specific unit that has been ana-lysed, e.g., the number of use-cases, scope of the SLR etc.) 12) Contributions - the contributions of the study 13) Method - whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach? 14) Availability of the underlying research data- whether there is a reference to the publicly available underly-ing research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data, or explanation why these data are not shared? 15) Period under investigation - period (or moment) in which the study was conducted 16) Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches - does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study?

Quality- and relevance- related information
17) Quality concerns - whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited infor-mation about the research methods used)? 18) Primary research object - is the HVD a primary research object in the study? (primary - the paper is focused around the HVD determination, sec-ondary - mentioned but not studied (e.g., as part of discus-sion, future work etc.))

HVD determination-related information
19) HVD definition and type of value - how is the HVD defined in the article and / or any other equivalent term? 20) HVD indicators - what are the indicators to identify HVD? How were they identified? (components & relationships, “input -> output") 21) A framework for HVD determination - is there a framework presented for HVD identification? What components does it consist of and what are the rela-tionships between these components? (detailed description) 22) Stakeholders and their roles - what stakeholders or actors does HVD determination in-volve? What are their roles? 23) Data - what data do HVD cover? 24) Level (if relevant) - what is the level of the HVD determination covered in the article? (e.g., city, regional, national, international)

Format of the file .xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .odt, .docx

Licenses or restrictions CC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

Data file for the second release of the Data Citation Corpus, produced by DataCite and Make Data Count as part of an ongoing grant project funded by the Wellcome Trust. Read more about the project.

The data file includes 5,256,114 data citation records in JSON and CSV formats. The JSON file is the version of record.

For convenience, the data is provided in batches of approximately 1 million records each. The publication date and batch number are included in the file name, ex: 2024-08-23-data-citation-corpus-01-v2.0.json.

The data citations in the file originate from DataCite Event Data and a project by Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) to identify mentions to datasets in the full text of articles.

Each data citation record is comprised of:

• A pair of identifiers: An identifier for the dataset (a DOI or an accession number) and the DOI of the publication (journal article or preprint) in which the dataset is cited

• Metadata for the cited dataset and for the citing publication

The data file includes the following fields:

Additional documentation about the citations and metadata in the file is available on the Make Data Count website.

The second release of the Data Citation Corpus data file reflects several changes made to add new citations, remove some records deemed out of scope for the corpus, update and enhance citation metadata, and improve the overall usability of the file. These changes are as follows:

Add and update Event Data citations:

• Add 179,885 new data citations created in DataCite Event Data between 01 June 2023 through 30 June 2024

Remove citation records deemed out of scope for the corpus:

• 273,567 records from DataCite Event Data with non-citation relationship types

• 28,334 citations to items in non-data repositories (clinical trials registries, stem cells, samples, and other non-data materials)

• 44,117 invalid citations where subj_id value was the same as the obj_id value or subj_id and obj_id are inverted, indicating a citation from a dataset to a publication

• 473,792 citations to invalid accession numbers from CZI data present in v1.1 as a result of false positives in the algorithm used to identify mentions

• 4,110,019 duplicate records from CZI data present in v1.1 where metadata is the same for obj_id, subj_id, repository_id, publisher_id, journal_id, accession_number, and source_id (the record with the most recent updated date was retained in all of these cases)

Metadata enhancements:

• Apply Field of Science subject terms to citation records originating from CZI, based on disciplinary area of data repository

• Initial cleanup of affiliation and funder organization names to remove personal email addresses and social media handles (additional cleanup and standardization in progress and will be included in future releases)

Data structure updates to improve usability and eliminate redundancies:

• Rename subj_id and obj_id fields to “dataset” and “publication” for clarity

• Remove accessionNumber and doi elements to eliminate redundancy with subj_id

• Remove relationTypeId fields as these are specific to Event Data only

Full details of the above changes, including scripts used to perform the above tasks, are available in GitHub.

While v2 addresses a number of cleanup and enhancement tasks, additional data issues may remain, and additional enhancements are being explored. These will be addressed in the course of subsequent data file releases.

Feedback on the data file can be submitted via GitHub. For general questions, email info@makedatacount.org.

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of top-cited scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions and a composite indicator (c-score). Separate data are shown for career-long and, separately, for single recent year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given and data on retracted papers (based on Retraction Watch database) as well as citations to/from retracted papers have been added in the most recent iteration. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 174 sub-fields according to the standard Science-Metrix classification. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists with at least 5 papers. Career-long data are updated to end-of-2023 and single recent year data pertain to citations received during calendar year 2023. The selection is based on the top 100,000 scientists by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above in the sub-field. This version (7) is based on the August 1, 2024 snapshot from Scopus, updated to end of citation year 2023. This work uses Scopus data. Calculations were performed using all Scopus author profiles as of August 1, 2024. If an author is not on the list it is simply because the composite indicator value was not high enough to appear on the list. It does not mean that the author does not do good work. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DATABASE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN AN ARCHIVAL FORM AND WILL NOT BE CHANGED. The published version reflects Scopus author profiles at the time of calculation. We thus advise authors to ensure that their Scopus profiles are accurate. REQUESTS FOR CORRECIONS OF THE SCOPUS DATA (INCLUDING CORRECTIONS IN AFFILIATIONS) SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO US. They should be sent directly to Scopus, preferably by use of the Scopus to ORCID feedback wizard (https://orcid.scopusfeedback.com/) so that the correct data can be used in any future annual updates of the citation indicator databases. The c-score focuses on impact (citations) rather than productivity (number of publications) and it also incorporates information on co-authorship and author positions (single, first, last author). If you have additional questions, see attached file on FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. Finally, we alert users that all citation metrics have limitations and their use should be tempered and judicious. For more reading, we refer to the Leiden manifesto: https://www.nature.com/articles/520429a

BackgroundAn understanding of the resources which engineering students use to write their academic papers provides information about student behaviour as well as the effectiveness of information literacy programs designed for engineering students. One of the most informative sources of information which can be used to determine the nature of the material that students use is the bibliography at the end of the students’ papers. While reference list analysis has been utilised in other disciplines, few studies have focussed on engineering students or used the results to improve the effectiveness of information literacy programs. Gadd, Baldwin and Norris (2010) found that civil engineering students undertaking a finalyear research project cited journal articles more than other types of material, followed by books and reports, with web sites ranked fourth. Several studies, however, have shown that in their first year at least, most students prefer to use Internet search engines (Ellis & Salisbury, 2004; Wilkes & Gurney, 2009).PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to find out exactly what resources undergraduate students studying civil engineering at La Trobe University were using, and in particular, the extent to which students were utilising the scholarly resources paid for by the library. A secondary purpose of the research was to ascertain whether information literacy sessions delivered to those students had any influence on the resources used, and to investigate ways in which the information literacy component of the unit can be improved to encourage students to make better use of the resources purchased by the Library to support their research.DESIGN/METHODThe study examined student bibliographies for three civil engineering group projects at the Bendigo Campus of La Trobe University over a two-year period, including two first-year units (CIV1EP – Engineering Practice) and one-second year unit (CIV2GR – Engineering Group Research). All units included a mandatory library session at the start of the project where student groups were required to meet with the relevant faculty librarian for guidance. In each case, the Faculty Librarian highlighted specific resources relevant to the topic, including books, e-books, video recordings, websites and internet documents. The students were also shown tips for searching the Library catalogue, Google Scholar, LibSearch (the LTU Library’s research and discovery tool) and ProQuest Central. Subject-specific databases for civil engineering and science were also referred to. After the final reports for each project had been submitted and assessed, the Faculty Librarian contacted the lecturer responsible for the unit, requesting copies of the student bibliographies for each group. References for each bibliography were then entered into EndNote. The Faculty Librarian grouped them according to various facets, including the name of the unit and the group within the unit; the material type of the item being referenced; and whether the item required a Library subscription to access it. A total of 58 references were collated for the 2010 CIV1EP unit; 237 references for the 2010 CIV2GR unit; and 225 references for the 2011 CIV1EP unit.INTERIM FINDINGSThe initial findings showed that student bibliographies for the three group projects were primarily made up of freely available internet resources which required no library subscription. For the 2010 CIV1EP unit, all 58 resources used were freely available on the Internet. For the 2011 CIV1EP unit, 28 of the 225 resources used (12.44%) required a Library subscription or purchase for access, while the second-year students (CIV2GR) used a greater variety of resources, with 71 of the 237 resources used (29.96%) requiring a Library subscription or purchase for access. The results suggest that the library sessions had little or no influence on the 2010 CIV1EP group, but the sessions may have assisted students in the 2011 CIV1EP and 2010 CIV2GR groups to find books, journal articles and conference papers, which were all represented in their bibliographiesFURTHER RESEARCHThe next step in the research is to investigate ways to increase the representation of scholarly references (found by resources other than Google) in student bibliographies. It is anticipated that such a change would lead to an overall improvement in the quality of the student papers. One way of achieving this would be to make it mandatory for students to include a specified number of journal articles, conference papers, or scholarly books in their bibliographies. It is also anticipated that embedding La Trobe University’s Inquiry/Research Quiz (IRQ) using a constructively aligned approach will further enhance the students’ research skills and increase their ability to find suitable scholarly material which relates to their topic. This has already been done successfully (Salisbury, Yager, & Kirkman, 2012)CONCLUSIONS & CHALLENGESThe study shows that most students rely heavily on the free Internet for information. Students don’t naturally use Library databases or scholarly resources such as Google Scholar to find information, without encouragement from their teachers, tutors and/or librarians. It is acknowledged that the use of scholarly resources doesn’t automatically lead to a high quality paper. Resources must be used appropriately and students also need to have the skills to identify and synthesise key findings in the existing literature and relate these to their own paper. Ideally, students should be able to see the benefit of using scholarly resources in their papers, and continue to seek these out even when it’s not a specific assessment requirement, though it can’t be assumed that this will be the outcome.REFERENCESEllis, J., & Salisbury, F. (2004). Information literacy milestones: building upon the prior knowledge of first-year students. Australian Library Journal, 53(4), 383-396.Gadd, E., Baldwin, A., & Norris, M. (2010). The citation behaviour of civil engineering students. Journal of Information Literacy, 4(2), 37-49.Salisbury, F., Yager, Z., & Kirkman, L. (2012). Embedding Inquiry/Research: Moving from a minimalist model to constructive alignment. Paper presented at the 15th International First Year in Higher Education Conference, Brisbane. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers12/Papers/11A.pdfWilkes, J., & Gurney, L. J. (2009). Perceptions and applications of information literacy by first year applied science students. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 40(3), 159-171.

Reference Data Management Market Outlook

As per our latest research, the global reference data management market size reached USD 3.7 billion in 2024, and it is expected to grow at a robust CAGR of 12.2% during the forecast period. By 2033, the market is forecasted to attain approximately USD 10.5 billion, driven by the increasing need for efficient data governance, regulatory compliance, and risk management across diverse industries. The rapid digital transformation and the proliferation of data-intensive operations in sectors such as BFSI, healthcare, and IT & telecom are key factors fueling this growth trajectory.

One of the primary growth factors propelling the reference data management market is the exponential rise in data volumes generated by organizations globally. As companies continue to digitize their operations, the complexity and heterogeneity of enterprise data have surged, making it imperative to have robust reference data management solutions in place. These systems help businesses maintain data consistency, accuracy, and integrity across various platforms and departments. Furthermore, the increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions has made data management more scalable and accessible, allowing organizations to handle large datasets efficiently and at reduced costs. The integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning into reference data management platforms further enhances their capabilities, enabling automated data validation, anomaly detection, and streamlined data workflows.

Regulatory compliance and risk mitigation are also significant drivers for the reference data management market. Industries such as banking, financial services, and insurance (BFSI) are subject to stringent regulatory requirements that mandate accurate and up-to-date data management. Failure to comply can result in hefty fines and reputational damage. As a result, organizations are investing heavily in reference data management solutions to ensure compliance with standards such as GDPR, Basel III, and HIPAA. These platforms provide comprehensive audit trails, data lineage, and policy enforcement capabilities, which are crucial for meeting regulatory expectations. Additionally, the growing emphasis on data governance and the need to minimize operational risks associated with poor data quality are encouraging enterprises to adopt advanced data management strategies.

The surge in cloud adoption across industries is reshaping the reference data management landscape. Cloud-based reference data management solutions offer flexibility, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, making them highly attractive to organizations of all sizes. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in particular, are leveraging cloud deployments to overcome the limitations of traditional on-premises systems, such as high upfront costs and maintenance overheads. Cloud platforms also facilitate real-time data sharing and collaboration, which is essential for organizations operating in multiple geographies. Furthermore, the integration of reference data management with other enterprise applications, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) and customer relationship management (CRM), is streamlining business processes and enhancing decision-making capabilities.

From a regional perspective, North America currently dominates the reference data management market, accounting for the largest share in 2024. This is attributed to the region's advanced IT infrastructure, high digital adoption rates, and the presence of major industry players. Europe follows closely, driven by stringent data protection regulations and a strong focus on data governance. The Asia Pacific region is witnessing the fastest growth, propelled by rapid industrialization, increasing cloud adoption, and the digital transformation initiatives of emerging economies such as China and India. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are also experiencing steady growth, albeit at a slower pace, as organizations in these regions gradually recognize the importance of effective data management practices.

In the evolving landscape of data management, Production Data Management is becoming increasingly vital for organizations striving to maintain competitive advantage. This approach focuses on the effective handling and utilization of pr

This is a database snapshot of the iCite web service (provided here as a single zipped CSV file, or compressed, tarred JSON files). In addition, citation links in the NIH Open Citation Collection are provided as a two-column CSV table in open_citation_collection.zip. iCite provides bibliometrics and metadata on publications indexed in PubMed, organized into three modules:

Influence: Delivers metrics of scientific influence, field-adjusted and benchmarked to NIH publications as the baseline.

Translation: Measures how Human, Animal, or Molecular/Cellular Biology-oriented each paper is; tracks and predicts citation by clinical articles

Open Cites: Disseminates link-level, public-domain citation data from the NIH Open Citation Collection

Definitions for individual data fields:

pmid: PubMed Identifier, an article ID as assigned in PubMed by the National Library of Medicine

doi: Digital Object Identifier, if available

year: Year the article was published

title: Title of the article

authors: List of author names

journal: Journal name (ISO abbreviation)

is_research_article: Flag indicating whether the Publication Type tags for this article are consistent with that of a primary research article

relative_citation_ratio: Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)--OPA's metric of scientific influence. Field-adjusted, time-adjusted and benchmarked against NIH-funded papers. The median RCR for NIH funded papers in any field is 1.0. An RCR of 2.0 means a paper is receiving twice as many citations per year than the median NIH funded paper in its field and year, while an RCR of 0.5 means that it is receiving half as many citations per year. Calculation details are documented in Hutchins et al., PLoS Biol. 2016;14(9):e1002541.

provisional: RCRs for papers published in the previous two years are flagged as "provisional", to reflect that citation metrics for newer articles are not necessarily as stable as they are for older articles. Provisional RCRs are provided for papers published previous year, if they have received with 5 citations or more, despite being, in many cases, less than a year old. All papers published the year before the previous year receive provisional RCRs. The current year is considered to be the NIH Fiscal Year which starts in October. For example, in July 2019 (NIH Fiscal Year 2019), papers from 2018 receive provisional RCRs if they have 5 citations or more, and all papers from 2017 receive provisional RCRs. In October 2019, at the start of NIH Fiscal Year 2020, papers from 2019 receive provisional RCRs if they have 5 citations or more and all papers from 2018 receive provisional RCRs.

citation_count: Number of unique articles that have cited this one

citations_per_year: Citations per year that this article has received since its publication. If this appeared as a preprint and a published article, the year from the published version is used as the primary publication date. This is the numerator for the Relative Citation Ratio.

field_citation_rate: Measure of the intrinsic citation rate of this paper's field, estimated using its co-citation network.

expected_citations_per_year: Citations per year that NIH-funded articles, with the same Field Citation Rate and published in the same year as this paper, receive. This is the denominator for the Relative Citation Ratio.

nih_percentile: Percentile rank of this paper's RCR compared to all NIH publications. For example, 95% indicates that this paper's RCR is higher than 95% of all NIH funded publications.

human: Fraction of MeSH terms that are in the Human category (out of this article's MeSH terms that fall into the Human, Animal, or Molecular/Cellular Biology categories)

animal: Fraction of MeSH terms that are in the Animal category (out of this article's MeSH terms that fall into the Human, Animal, or Molecular/Cellular Biology categories)

molecular_cellular: Fraction of MeSH terms that are in the Molecular/Cellular Biology category (out of this article's MeSH terms that fall into the Human, Animal, or Molecular/Cellular Biology categories)

x_coord: X coordinate of the article on the Triangle of Biomedicine

y_coord: Y Coordinate of the article on the Triangle of Biomedicine

is_clinical: Flag indicating that this paper meets the definition of a clinical article.

cited_by_clin: PMIDs of clinical articles that this article has been cited by.

apt: Approximate Potential to Translate is a machine learning-based estimate of the likelihood that this publication will be cited in later clinical trials or guidelines. Calculation details are documented in Hutchins et al., PLoS Biol. 2019;17(10):e3000416.

cited_by: PMIDs of articles that have cited this one.

references: PMIDs of articles in this article's reference list.

Large CSV files are zipped using zip version 4.5, which is more recent than the default unzip command line utility in some common Linux distributions. These files can be unzipped with tools that support version 4.5 or later such as 7zip.

Comments and questions can be addressed to iCite@mail.nih.gov

This dataset contains data collected during a study "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems" conducted by Martin Lnenicka (University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic), Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu, Estonia), Mariusz Luterek (University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland), Petar Milic (University of Pristina - Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia), Daniel Rudmark (Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden), Sebastian Neumaier (St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences, Austria), Karlo Kević (University of Zagreb, Croatia), Anneke Zuiderwijk (Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands), Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar (University of Granada, Granada, Spain).

As there is a lack of understanding of the elements that constitute different types of value-adding public data ecosystems and how these elements form and shape the development of these ecosystems over time, which can lead to misguided efforts to develop future public data ecosystems, the aim of the study is: (1) to explore how public data ecosystems have developed over time and (2) to identify the value-adding elements and formative characteristics of public data ecosystems. Using an exploratory retrospective analysis and a deductive approach, we systematically review 148 studies published between 1994 and 2023. Based on the results, this study presents a typology of public data ecosystems and develops a conceptual model of elements and formative characteristics that contribute most to value-adding public data ecosystems, and develops a conceptual model of the evolutionary generation of public data ecosystems represented by six generations called Evolutionary Model of Public Data Ecosystems (EMPDE). Finally, three avenues for a future research agenda are proposed.

This dataset is being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems ", Telematics and Informatics*, and its Systematic Literature Review component that informs the study.

Description of the data in this data set

PublicDataEcosystem_SLR provides the structure of the protocol

Spreadsheet#1 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases and filtering out irrelevant studies

Spreadsheets #2 provides the protocol structure.

Spreadsheets #3 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies.

The information on each selected study was collected in four categories:(1) descriptive information,(2) approach- and research design- related information,(3) quality-related information,(4) HVD determination-related information

Descriptive Information

Article number

A study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet

Complete reference

The complete source information to refer to the study (in APA style), including the author(s) of the study, the year in which it was published, the study's title and other source information.

Year of publication

The year in which the study was published.

Journal article / conference paper / book chapter

The type of the paper, i.e., journal article, conference paper, or book chapter.

Journal / conference / book

Journal article, conference, where the paper is published.

DOI / Website

A link to the website where the study can be found.

Number of words

A number of words of the study.

Number of citations in Scopus and WoS

The number of citations of the paper in Scopus and WoS digital libraries.

Availability in Open Access

Availability of a study in the Open Access or Free / Full Access.

Keywords

Keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors (in the paper).

Relevance for our study (high / medium / low)

What is the relevance level of the paper for our study

Approach- and research design-related information

Approach- and research design-related information

Objective / Aim / Goal / Purpose & Research Questions

The research objective and established RQs.

Research method (including unit of analysis)

The methods used to collect data in the study, including the unit of analysis that refers to the country, organisation, or other specific unit that has been analysed such as the number of use-cases or policy documents, number and scope of the SLR etc.

Study’s contributions

The study’s contribution as defined by the authors

Qualitative / quantitative / mixed method

Whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach?

Availability of the underlying research data

Whether the paper has a reference to the public availability of the underlying research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data etc., or explains why these data are not openly shared?

Period under investigation

Period (or moment) in which the study was conducted (e.g., January 2021-March 2022)

Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, specify them

Does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, what theory / concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study? (e.g., mentioned to explain a certain phenomenon, used as a framework for analysis, tested theory, theory mentioned in the future research section).

Quality-related information

Quality concerns

Whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited information about the research methods used)?

Public Data Ecosystem-related information

Public data ecosystem definition

How is the public data ecosystem defined in the paper and any other equivalent term, mostly infrastructure. If an alternative term is used, how is the public data ecosystem called in the paper?

Public data ecosystem evolution / development

Does the paper define the evolution of the public data ecosystem? If yes, how is it defined and what factors affect it?

What constitutes a public data ecosystem?

What constitutes a public data ecosystem (components & relationships) - their "FORM / OUTPUT" presented in the paper (general description with more detailed answers to further additional questions).

Components and relationships

What components does the public data ecosystem consist of and what are the relationships between these components? Alternative names for components - element, construct, concept, item, helix, dimension etc. (detailed description).

Stakeholders

What stakeholders (e.g., governments, citizens, businesses, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve?

Actors and their roles

What actors does the public data ecosystem involve? What are their roles?

Data (data types, data dynamism, data categories etc.)

What data do the public data ecosystem cover (is intended / designed for)? Refer to all data-related aspects, including but not limited to data types, data dynamism (static data, dynamic, real-time data, stream), prevailing data categories / domains / topics etc.

Processes / activities / dimensions, data lifecycle phases

What processes, activities, dimensions and data lifecycle phases (e.g., locate, acquire, download, reuse, transform, etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve or refer to?

Level (if relevant)

What is the level of the public data ecosystem covered in the paper? (e.g., city, municipal, regional, national (=country), supranational, international).

Other elements or relationships (if any)

What other elements or relationships does the public data ecosystem consist of?

Additional comments

Additional comments (e.g., what other topics affected the public data ecosystems and their elements, what is expected to affect the public data ecosystems in the future, what were important topics by which the period was characterised etc.).

New papers

Does the study refer to any other potentially relevant papers?

Additional references to potentially relevant papers that were found in the analysed paper (snowballing).

Format of the file.xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .docx

Licenses or restrictionsCC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

Data file for the third release of the Data Citation Corpus, produced by DataCite and Make Data Count as part of an ongoing grant project funded by the Wellcome Trust. Read more about the project.

The data file includes 5,322,388 data citation records in JSON and CSV formats. The JSON file is the version of record.

For convenience, the data is provided in batches of approximately 1 million records each. The publication date and batch number are included in the file name, ex: 2025-02-01-data-citation-corpus-01-v3.0.json.

The data citations in the file originate from the following sources:

DataCite Event Data

A project by Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) to identify mentions to datasets in the full text of articles

Data citations identified Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP)

Each data citation record is comprised of:

A pair of identifiers: An identifier for the dataset (a DOI or an accession number) and the DOI of the publication (journal article or preprint) in which the dataset is cited

Metadata for the cited dataset and for the citing publication

The data file includes the following fields:

Field

Description

Required?

id

Internal identifier for the citation

Yes

created

Date of item's incorporation into the corpus

Yes

updated

Date of item's most recent update in corpus

Yes

repository

Repository where cited data is stored

No

publisher

Publisher for the article citing the data

No

journal

Journal for the article citing the data

No

title

Title of cited data

No

publication

DOI of article where data is cited

Yes

dataset

DOI or accession number of cited data

Yes

publishedDate

Date when citing article was published

No

source

Source where citation was harvested

Yes

subjects

Subject information for cited data

No

affiliations

Affiliation information for creator of cited data

No

funders

Funding information for cited data

No

Additional documentation about the citations and metadata in the file is available on the Make Data Count website.

Notes on v3.0:

The third release of the Data Citation Corpus data file reflects a few changes made to add new citations, including those from a new data source (ASAP), update and enhance citation metadata, and improve the overall usability of the file. These changes are as follows:

Add and update Event Data citations:

Add 65,524 new data citations created in DataCite Event Data between August 2024 and December 2024

Add ASAP citations:

Add 750 new data citations provided by Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP), identified through processes to evaluate compliance with ASAP’s for open science practices, which involve a partnership with DataSeer and internal curation (described here).

Citations with provenance from ASAP are identified as “asap” in the source field

Metadata enhancements:

Reconcile and normalize organization names for affiliations and funders in a subset of records with the Research Organization Registry (ROR)

Add ror_name and ror_id subfields for affiliations and funders in JSON files. Unreconciled affiliation and funder strings are identified with values of null

Add new columns affiliationsROR and fundersROR in CSV files. Unreconciled affiliation and funder strings are identified with values of NONE NONE (this is to ensure consistency in number and order of values in cases where some strings have been reconciled and others have not)

Normalize DOI formats for articles and papers as full URLs

Additional details about the above changes, including scripts used to perform the above tasks, are available in GitHub.

Additional enhancements to the corpus are ongoing and will be addressed in the course of subsequent releases. Users are invited to submit feedback via GitHub. For general questions, email info@makedatacount.org.

Abstract: This is a qualitative bibliographic research that sought to identify the state of art regarding the theory of data citation in the scientific production conducted in Latin America. To this end, expressions were established in Portuguese, English, and Spanish about the referred theme which were used to explore the following databases, repositories, and searchers: Biblioteca Digital Brasileira de Teses e Dissertações, Oasisbr, La referencia, Redalyc, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, CAPES Journal Portal, Google Scholar, SciELO and Brapci (Reference Database of Journal Articles in Information Science). After the analysis of the retrieved works, only those papers that discussed the topic of citation of research data were considered in depth, in order to contribute to the reflection on a theory of data citation, totaling 19 papers. It is concluded that there is a significant absence of works in Latin America concerning the theory of citation of data; at the same time, works have been identified, although not referring to a theory itself, offering significant contributions to the topic of citation of research data and that can serve as a basis for the development of papers on the theory of data citation. It was also found that Brazil stood out in the production of papers on citation of research data, and of the 19 papers analyzed in this research, 17 were Brazilian productions.

Reference Data Management Platform Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global Reference Data Management Platform market size reached USD 4.2 billion in 2024, reflecting robust growth in recent years. The market is projected to expand at a CAGR of 13.1% from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated USD 12.5 billion by the end of the forecast period. This impressive trajectory is primarily driven by the increasing need for accurate and consistent data across complex enterprise environments, regulatory compliance requirements, and the accelerating adoption of digital transformation initiatives worldwide.

One of the primary growth factors fueling the Reference Data Management Platform market is the exponential rise in data volumes generated by organizations, particularly in highly regulated sectors such as BFSI, healthcare, and telecommunications. As enterprises expand their digital footprints, the demand for unified, accurate, and consistent reference data becomes critical for ensuring operational efficiency and informed decision-making. The proliferation of data sources and the growing complexity of IT environments have underscored the importance of robust reference data management solutions, which help organizations maintain data integrity, reduce redundancies, and minimize operational risks. Moreover, the increasing reliance on analytics and business intelligence tools further amplifies the necessity for high-quality, standardized reference data, thereby driving market growth.

Another significant growth driver is the tightening regulatory landscape, especially within sectors such as finance and healthcare. Regulatory bodies across regions are imposing stringent data governance and compliance mandates, compelling organizations to invest in advanced reference data management platforms. These platforms enable enterprises to establish comprehensive data governance frameworks, streamline compliance processes, and ensure adherence to industry standards such as GDPR, HIPAA, and Basel III. The growing emphasis on data transparency, auditability, and traceability is prompting organizations to adopt solutions that offer centralized control, automated data validation, and real-time monitoring. As a result, vendors are increasingly focusing on enhancing the compliance and governance capabilities of their offerings to cater to evolving regulatory requirements.

The rapid adoption of cloud-based solutions and the increasing trend towards digital transformation are also playing a pivotal role in shaping the Reference Data Management Platform market. Cloud deployment offers organizations the flexibility to scale operations, reduce infrastructure costs, and ensure seamless data access across geographically dispersed locations. The shift towards remote and hybrid work models has further accelerated the adoption of cloud-native reference data management platforms, enabling enterprises to maintain business continuity and agility. Additionally, advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning are being integrated into these platforms to automate data classification, enhance data quality, and provide predictive insights, thereby unlocking new growth opportunities for market participants.

Regionally, North America continues to dominate the Reference Data Management Platform market, accounting for the largest share in 2024, followed by Europe and Asia Pacific. The presence of major technology providers, early adoption of advanced data management solutions, and stringent regulatory frameworks in the United States and Canada are key factors contributing to the region's leadership. Europe is witnessing significant growth, driven by the increasing focus on data privacy and compliance, particularly in the financial services sector. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is emerging as a lucrative market, supported by rapid digitalization, expanding IT infrastructure, and growing awareness about the benefits of effective data management practices among enterprises in countries such as China, India, and Japan.

Structured Data Management Software plays a crucial role in the efficient handling and organization of reference data across various industries. As organizations increasingly rely on data-driven strategies, the need for structured data management becomes paramount. This so

COVID-19++ is a citation-aware COVID-19 dataset for the analysis of research dynamics. In addition to primary COVID-19 related articles and preprints from 2020, it includes citations and the metadata of first-order cited work. All publications are annotated with MeSH terms, either from the ground truth, or via ConceptMapper, if no ground truth was available.

The data is organized in CSV files

• Paper metadata (paper_id, publdate, title, data_source): paper.csv

• Annotation data, mapping paper_id to MeSH terms: annotation.csv

• Authorship data, mapping paper_id to author, optionally with ORCID: authorship.csv

• Paired DOIs of citing and cited papers: references.csv

The column data source within the paper metadata has the value KE (for metadata from ZB MED KE), PP (for preprints) or CR (for cited resources from CrossRef)

This work was supported by BMBF within the programme ``Quantitative Wissenschaftsforschung'' under grant numbers 01PU17013A, 01PU17013B, 01PU17013C.

While stakeholders in scholarly communication generally agree on the importance of data citation, there is not consensus on where those citations should be placed within the publication – particularly when the publication is citing original data. Recently, CrossRef and the Digital Curation Center (DCC) have recommended as a best practice that original data citations appear in the works cited sections of the article. In some fields, such as the life sciences, this contrasts with the common practice of only listing data identifier(s) within the article body (intratextually). We inquired whether data citation practice has been changing in light of the guidance from CrossRef and the DCC. We examined data citation practices from 2011 to 2014 in a corpus of 1,125 articles associated with original data in the Dryad Digital Repository. The percentage of articles that include no reference to the original data has declined each year, from 31% in 2011 to 15% in 2014. The percentage of articles that include data identifiers intratextually has grown from 69% to 83%, while the percentage that cite data in the works cited section has grown from 5% to 8%. If the proportions continue to grow at the current rate of 19-20% annually, the proportion of articles with data citations in the works cited section will not exceed 90% until 2030.