Identifying and correcting invalid citations due to DOI errors in Crossref data

This work aims to identify classes of DOI mistakes by analysing the open bibliographic metadata available in Crossref, highlighting which publishers were responsible for such mistakes and how many of these incorrect DOIs could be corrected through automatic processes. By using a list of invalid cited DOIs gathered by OpenCitations while processing the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI) in the past two years, we retrieved the citations in the January 2021 Crossref dump to such invalid DOIs. We processed these citations by keeping track of their validity and the publishers responsible for uploading the related citation data in Crossref. Finally, we identified patterns of factual errors in the invalid DOIs and the regular expressions needed to catch and correct them. The outcomes of this research show that only a few publishers were responsible for and/or affected by the majority of invalid citations. We extended the taxonomy of DOI name errors proposed in past studies and defined more elaborated regular expressions that can clean a higher number of mistakes in invalid DOIs than prior approaches. The data gathered in our study can enable investigating possible reasons for DOI mistakes from a qualitative point of view, helping publishers identify the problems underlying their production of invalid citation data. Also, the DOI cleaning mechanism we present could be integrated into the existing process (e.g. in COCI) to add citations by automatically correcting a wrong DOI. This study was run strictly following Open Science principles, and, as such, our research outcomes are fully reproducible

Identifying and correcting invalid citations due to DOI errors in Crossref data

This work aims to identify classes of DOI mistakes by analysing the open bibliographic metadata available in Crossref, highlighting which publishers were responsible for such mistakes and how many of these incorrect DOIs could be corrected through automatic processes. By using a list of invalid cited DOIs gathered by OpenCitations while processing the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI) in the past two years, we retrieved the citations in the January 2021 Crossref dump to such invalid DOIs. We processed these citations by keeping track of their validity and the publishers responsible for uploading the related citation data in Crossref. Finally, we identified patterns of factual errors in the invalid DOIs and the regular expressions needed to catch and correct them. The outcomes of this research show that only a few publishers were responsible for and/or affected by the majority of invalid citations. We extended the taxonomy of DOI name errors proposed in past studies and defined more elaborated regular expressions that can clean a higher number of mistakes in invalid DOIs than prior approaches. The data gathered in our study can enable investigating possible reasons for DOI mistakes from a qualitative point of view, helping publishers identify the problems underlying their production of invalid citation data. Also, the DOI cleaning mechanism we present could be integrated into the existing process (e.g. in COCI) to add citations by automatically correcting a wrong DOI. This study was run strictly following Open Science principles, and, as such, our research outcomes are fully reproducible

Identifying and correcting invalid citations due to DOI errors in Crossref data

This work aims to identify classes of DOI mistakes by analysing the open bibliographic metadata available in Crossref, highlighting which publishers were responsible for such mistakes and how many of these incorrect DOIs could be corrected through automatic processes. By using a list of invalid cited DOIs gathered by OpenCitations while processing the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI) in the past two years, we retrieved the citations in the January 2021 Crossref dump to such invalid DOIs. We processed these citations by keeping track of their validity and the publishers responsible for uploading the related citation data in Crossref. Finally, we identified patterns of factual errors in the invalid DOIs and the regular expressions needed to catch and correct them. The outcomes of this research show that only a few publishers were responsible for and/or affected by the majority of invalid citations. We extended the taxonomy of DOI name errors proposed in past studies and defined more elaborated regular expressions that can clean a higher number of mistakes in invalid DOIs than prior approaches. The data gathered in our study can enable investigating possible reasons for DOI mistakes from a qualitative point of view, helping publishers identify the problems underlying their production of invalid citation data. Also, the DOI cleaning mechanism we present could be integrated into the existing process (e.g. in COCI) to add citations by automatically correcting a wrong DOI. This study was run strictly following Open Science principles, and, as such, our research outcomes are fully reproducible

Наукометрія та управління науковою діяльністю: вкотре про світове та українське

Метою цієї роботи є короткий огляд проблеми використання в Україні наукометричних показників для оцінювання результатів наукової діяльності. Обговорено особливості вживання ключових наукометричних термінів у нормативних документах. Наведено низку прикладів, що ілюструють неоднозначність застосування окремих індикаторів для порівняння авторів, колективів, установ та наукових журналів. Автори звертають увагу на те, що в національній системі оцінювання результатів наукової діяльності потрібно знайти баланс між експертною оцінкою та впровадженням кількісних методів оцінювання, а також наголошують на неприйнятності маніпуляцій наукометричними термінами і поняттями.The main purpose of the paper is to perform a short review on the problem of implementation of scientometric indicators for research evaluation in the context of Ukraine. Peculiarities of usage of key scientometric terms in normative documents are examined. A number of case studies are given to illustrate the ambiguity of application of particular indicators in order to rate authors, research groups, institutions or scientific journals. The importance of balance between expert evaluation and quantitative analysis in the national system of research evaluation is highlighted, and the inadmissibility of any manipulations of scientometrical terms and notions is underscored

Наукометрія та управління науковою діяльністю: вкотре про світове та українське

The main purpose of the paper is to perform a short review on the problem of implementation of scientometric indicators for research evaluation in the context of Ukraine. Peculiarities of usage of key scientometric terms in normative documents are examined. A number of case studies are given to illustrate the ambiguity of application of particular indicators in order to rate authors, research groups, institutions or scientific journals. The importance of balance between expert evaluation and quantitative analysis in the national system of research evaluation is highlighted, and the inadmissibility of any manipulations of scientometrical terms and notions is underscored

Наукометрія та управління науковою діяльністю: вкотре про світове та українське

The main purpose of the paper is to perform a short review on the problem of implementation of scientometric indicators for research evaluation in the context of Ukraine. Peculiarities of usage of key scientometric terms in normative documents are examined. A number of case studies are given to illustrate the ambiguity of application of particular indicators in order to rate authors, research groups, institutions or scientific journals. The importance of balance between expert evaluation and quantitative analysis in the national system of research evaluation is highlighted, and the inadmissibility of any manipulations of scientometrical terms and notions is underscored