Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Research Knowledge Graphs: the Shifting Paradigm of Scholarly Information Representation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes the first conceptualisation of Research Knowledge Graphs as a five-category taxonomy of machine-actionable scholarly knowledge representations.

desk verdict A useful but under-specified taxonomy of research knowledge graphs; the 'first' claim overreaches and the categories are not derived from the stated dimensions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07285 v1 pith:JHWO7UAS submitted 2025-06-08 cs.IR

Matthäus Zloch , Danilo Dessì , Jennifer D'Souza , Leyla Jael Castro , Benjamin Zapilko , Saurav Karmakar , Brigitte Mathiak , Markus Stocker
show 3 more authors
Wolfgang Otto Sören Auer Stefan Dietze
This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords knowledgegraphsresearchscholarlyinformationrepresentationlinkeddataopensciencesemanticwebFAIRprinciplesextraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that Research Knowledge Graphs (RKGs) — graph-based, machine-actionable representations of research artifacts such as publications, datasets, methods, and software, together with their relations — can be brought under a single conceptual umbrella. It proposes the first categorisation of RKGs into five types: scholarly resource metadata, quality-controlled ground-truth data, graphs representing primary research data, community-expressed scholarly artifacts, and automatically generated graphs of scholarly artifact relations. The five types are contrasted along five dimensions: scale, schema, data growth, vocabulary reuse, and graph connectedness. A sympathetic reader cares because a shared taxonomy gives the research community a vocabulary to compare, select, and build such graphs, a step toward solving reproducibility and state-of-the-art discovery problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the five-category taxonomy summarised in Table 1, together with the five dimensions — scale, schema, data evolution, vocabulary, and connectedness — that distinguish the categories. Each category is anchored by concrete example systems, and the dimensions serve as the comparative instrument that lets the authors place disparate graphs (bibliographic metadata graphs, annotated corpora, tweet collections, community-edited description graphs, and NLP-extracted artifact graphs) on one map. This taxonomy is what carries the argument from "there exist many different research knowledge graphs" to "these graphs form a comprehensible landscape with characteristic strengths and use cases".

What would settle it

Find a set of diverse RKG systems and have independent researchers assign each to the five categories; if the assignment shows low agreement, or if a substantial graph does not fit any category or fits several with equal plausibility, the classification's usefulness collapses. A less formal but telling check is whether the five dimensions in Table 1 predict anything observers care about, such as maintenance cost, update latency, or suitability for a downstream task; if the categories correlate with nothing beyond the examples they were read off from, the taxonomy is descriptive rather than explanatory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the apparently chaotic landscape of research-oriented knowledge graphs is structured: each in-use RKG can be characterised along five qualitative dimensions — scale, schema stability, data dynamics, vocabulary focus, and connectedness — and on that basis falls into one of five categories. The categories range from curated metadata graphs maintained by publishers and libraries, through small high-quality ground-truth corpora used for information-extraction evaluation, to graphs of primary research data, community-maintained graphs of scholarly statements, and large automatically generated graphs of relations among research artifacts such as software and claims. The paper also maps the construction methodologies — manual, rule-based, and deep-learning-based extraction — onto this landscape and argues that the RKG paradigm, built on persistent identifiers, standard vocabularies, and FAIR principles, is a credible replacement for the article-centric paradigm of scholarly communication.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the five chosen dimensions and the five category boundaries are the right way to slice the RKG landscape; the paper presents them as grounded in observations of existing systems but gives no systematic survey protocol, formal membership criteria, or validation that the categories are exhaustive and non-overlapping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a shared taxonomy, researchers and infrastructure builders can state which kind of RKG they need for a task (e.g., ground-truth data for evaluation versus a large auto-generated graph for search) and compare systems on the same dimensions.
  • Because RKGs use persistent identifiers and standard vocabularies, different graphs can be queried and interlinked, so a user can move from a publication's metadata to the methods and data it used.
  • Representing methods, tasks, datasets, and performance in one graph gives researchers and reviewers a direct way to check state-of-the-art claims and reproducibility, mitigating the reproducibility crisis the paper cites.
  • RKGs can serve as a verifiable source of up-to-date factual grounding for large language models, compensating for their static knowledge and hallucination tendencies.
  • Construction approaches — manual, rule-based, and deep-learning pipelines — are complementary; the paper's characterisation lets practitioners combine them deliberately for a given graph's purpose.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The taxonomy is presented as qualitative and observational; a natural next step the authors do not take is to turn the five dimensions into measurable indicators and validate the category boundaries with a systematic corpus study or inter-annotator agreement test.
  • Category boundaries may blur in practice: hybrid systems (e.g., a community-curated graph that also applies automatic extraction, or an auto-generated graph manually validated at scale) suggest that a continuous five-dimensional profile may ultimately be more faithful than assigning each RKG to a single category.
  • If the taxonomy catches on, it could double as a design checklist and a reporting requirement: papers introducing a new RKG could state their position on each dimension, making interoperability claims and reuse expectations explicit.
  • The paper implies but does not pursue a connection to evaluation benchmarks: ground-truth category 2 graphs could be used to quantify the error rate of auto-generated graphs in category 5, turning the taxonomy into a quality-assurance instrument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Research Knowledge Graphs (RKGs) provide a machine-actionable representation of scholarly artifacts and their relations, and it claims to deliver the first conceptualisation of the RKG vision. It introduces a taxonomy of five RKG categories—scholarly resource metadata, quality-controlled ground truth data, primary research data, community-expressed scholarly artifacts, and automatically generated graphs of artifact relations—characterized along five dimensions (scale, schema, data, vocabulary, connectedness) in Table 1. The paper then surveys RKG construction methods (manual, rule-based, deep learning-based), discusses applications for reproducibility, research management, integration, citability, and large language models, and concludes with a forward-looking outlook. The central contribution is the taxonomy itself, together with a catalog of example systems and construction methodologies.

Significance. If the proposed taxonomy were well-founded, it would give the scholarly KG community a useful shared vocabulary for comparing systems and guiding new designs. The paper covers a broad set of systems and connects RKGs to important themes such as FAIR principles, reproducibility, and LLM grounding, which is valuable for an emerging area. However, the central taxonomy as presented is underdetermined by the stated dimensions and lacks an explicit derivation procedure, so the claimed conceptualisation is not yet checkable or reusable by others. The paper is more successful as an informal survey than as a rigorous classification scheme, and the taxonomy needs substantial methodological work before it can support the paper's central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1] The five dimensions in Table 1 (scale, schema, data, vocabulary, connectedness) do not uniquely determine the five categories. Category 2 is defined in the text by human annotation and inter-annotator agreement, category 4 by community contribution and consensus validation, and the boundary between category 1 and category 5 effectively rests on whether the graph stores bibliographic metadata or extracted artifact relations. None of these criteria appears in Table 1. Consequently, the taxonomy is not falsifiable: an arbitrary RKG could be assigned post hoc by invoking an unlisted criterion, and the stated dimensions cannot be used to reproduce the classification. The authors should either extend the dimension set to include the criteria actually used (e.g., content type, annotation provenance, curation mechanism) or provide explicit assignment rules that map the five dimensions to categories.
  2. [Section 2, introductory paragraph] The paper states that the dimensions are 'grounded in observations of existing RKG implementations,' but it provides no systematic selection of systems, no inclusion or exclusion criteria, no procedure for scoring each dimension, and no validation of the category assignments (e.g., inter-annotator agreement between independent coders). For a contribution that claims to be the 'first conceptualisation' of RKGs, the derivation procedure should be made explicit and repeatable. Without such a protocol, the taxonomy is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result, and the community cannot tell whether the five categories would emerge from a different, equally reasonable set of examples.
  3. [Table 1] The qualitative dimension values such as 'medium,' 'small,' 'varies,' 'high,' and 'local' are undefined. There are no quantitative anchors or explicit definitions, so two researchers applying the taxonomy to the same RKG could reasonably assign different values and hence place the system in different categories. The authors should provide operational definitions or thresholds for each dimension (for example, concrete triple counts, rates of schema change, or vocabulary reuse rates) to make the classification reproducible.
  4. [Section 2, categories 2 and 4] The category boundaries appear to overlap in ways that the five dimensions cannot detect. For instance, SoMeSci is described as a gold-standard corpus (category 2), but it is also an automatically enriched and manually validated RKG; TweetsKB is placed in category 3 although its construction relies on automated NLP pipelines; ORKG is placed in category 4 but also contains substantial machine-generated structure. The paper does not discuss how borderline cases are resolved or whether the categories are intended to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. This ambiguity weakens the central classification claim and should be addressed explicitly, ideally with a decision tree or worked examples of assignment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 4] The text reads 'Resource Descriptor Framework'; the correct acronym expansion is 'Resource Description Framework.'
  2. [Section 2, category 1] The string 'SpringerNature' should be 'Springer Nature' with a space, as in the corresponding footnote.
  3. [Section 4, heading] The heading 'Research Management, F AIRness, and Consensus' contains a formatting artifact; 'FAIRness' should be a single word.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced in the introduction but the caption and surrounding text do not explain the five categories or the construction methods it depicts; a brief walk-through of the figure would help readers connect it to Table 1 and Section 3.
  5. [Table 1] The row labels for the categories are long sentence fragments; consider giving each category a short mnemonic label and placing the full description in the body text to improve readability.
  6. [General] Several footnotes (e.g., for OpenAlex, OpenCitations, WikiCite/Scholia) are URL-only; verifying that all footnotes resolve and adding access dates would improve the paper's usefulness as a survey.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RKG taxonomy is a conceptual survey, not a derivation from fitted inputs or self-cited results.

full rationale

The paper is a conceptual and survey-oriented contribution rather than a derivation. Its central claim is a five-category taxonomy of Research Knowledge Graphs, introduced in Section 2 and summarized in Table 1, described as grounded in observations of existing RKG implementations. The taxonomy is presented as an organizing framework for the community, not as a formal consequence of assumptions, equations, or fitted parameters. There is no parameter fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work to force the chosen categorization, and no ansatz smuggled in through citations. The categories are not defined in terms of the very systems they are used to classify. Although several illustrative systems (ORKG, SoftwareKG, TweetsKB, ClaimsKG, GESIS KG, CS-KG) are authored or co-authored by the present paper's authors, the taxonomy is also applied to externally developed systems such as OpenAlex, OpenCitations, SciGraph, SoMeSci, and TDMSci, and the classification does not reduce to the cited works. The skeptic's observation that the five dimensions in Table 1 do not uniquely determine category membership is a legitimate critique of the taxonomy's operationalization and falsifiability, but it is not a demonstration of circularity. Under the hard rule that circularity requires a quotable reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs, no such step exists in this manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or invented entities. It rests on the domain assumption that graph-based, PID-linked representations are the right approach, and on two ad hoc taxonomy assumptions: that the five dimensions are the right axes and that the five categories cleanly partition the RKG landscape. Neither is justified with a systematic methodology.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption RDF triples or property graphs, persistent identifiers, and shared vocabularies are appropriate and beneficial for representing scholarly knowledge.
    The paper's entire framing assumes Semantic Web technologies are the right foundation for machine-actionable scholarly information; this is stated in Section 1 and used throughout, but not argued against alternatives such as relational databases.
  • ad hoc to paper The five dimensions (scale, schema, data, vocabulary, connectedness) are the relevant axes for characterizing RKGs.
    Section 2 introduces these dimensions as 'grounded in observations' but provides no formal derivation, survey protocol, or validation that they are complete or non-redundant.
  • ad hoc to paper The five categories are mutually exclusive and jointly cover the space of RKGs.
    Table 1 assigns systems to categories without a scoring rule or inter-annotator agreement; overlap is acknowledged informally (e.g., ground-truth data can be stored in any RKG), which undermines exclusivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Research Knowledge Graphs: the Shifting Paradigm of Scholarly Information Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHWO7UAS

@misc{pith2026250607285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Research Knowledge Graphs: the Shifting Paradigm of Scholarly Information Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHWO7UAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07285}
}
read the original abstract

Sharing and reusing research artifacts, such as datasets, publications, or methods is a fundamental part of scientific activity, where heterogeneity of resources and metadata and the common practice of capturing information in unstructured publications pose crucial challenges. Reproducibility of research and finding state-of-the-art methods or data have become increasingly challenging. In this context, the concept of Research Knowledge Graphs (RKGs) has emerged, aiming at providing an easy to use and machine-actionable representation of research artifacts and their relations. That is facilitated through the use of established principles for data representation, the consistent adoption of globally unique persistent identifiers and the reuse and linking of vocabularies and data. This paper provides the first conceptualisation of the RKG vision, a categorisation of in-use RKGs together with a description of RKG building blocks and principles. We also survey real-world RKG implementations differing with respect to scale, schema, data, used vocabulary, and reliability of the contained data. We also characterise different RKG construction methodologies and provide a forward-looking perspective on the diverse applications, opportunities, and challenges associated with the RKG vision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The figure illustrates examples of scholarly artifacts, methodologies to build RKGs, the five categories described in this paper, and examples of well-known services built on top. To address these challenges, the research community has begun to design and develop Knowledge Graphs (KGs), i.e., networks of machine-readable, semanti￾cally rich, interlinked descriptions of entities and their relationships, usually expre… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    NAACL HLT 2019 p

    Alsentzer, E., Murphy, J.R., Boag, W., Weng, W.H., Jin, D., Naumann, T., Red- mond, W., McDermott, M.B.: Publicly available clinical bert embeddings. NAACL HLT 2019 p. 72 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Angeli, G., Premkumar, M.J.J., Manning, C.D.: Leveraging linguistic structure for open domain information extraction. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 344–354 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis44(3), 516–529 (2020)

    Auer, S., Oelen, A., Haris, M., Stocker, M., D’Souza, J., Farfar, K.E., Vogt, L., Prinz, M., Wiens, V., Jaradeh, M.Y.: Improving access to scientific literature with knowledge graphs. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis44(3), 516–529 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Knowledge- Based Systems 260, 110098 (2023)

    Balloccu, G., Boratto, L., Fenu, G., Marras, M.: Reinforcement recommendation reasoning through knowledge graphs for explanation path quality. Knowledge- Based Systems 260, 110098 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    In: EMNLP (2019)

    Beltagy, I., Lo, K., Cohan, A.: Scibert: Pretrained language model for scientific text. In: EMNLP (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Nucleic acids research32(suppl_1), D267–D270 (2004)

    Bodenreider, O.: The unified medical language system (umls): integrating biomed- ical terminology. Nucleic acids research32(suppl_1), D267–D270 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    https://doi.org/10.15488/13072, https://www.repo.uni- hannover.de/handle/123456789/13177

    Boubakri, Z.: The orkg r package and its use in data science (Nov 2022). https://doi.org/10.15488/13072, https://www.repo.uni- hannover.de/handle/123456789/13177

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Knowledge-Based Systems258, 109945 (2022)

    Dessì, D., Osborne, F., Recupero, D.R., Buscaldi, D., Motta, E.: Scicero: A deep learning and nlp approach for generating scientific knowledge graphs in the com- puter science domain. Knowledge-Based Systems258, 109945 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    In: International Semantic Web Conference

    Dessì, D., Osborne, F., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Buscaldi, D., Motta, E.: Cs-kg: A large-scale knowledge graph of research entities and claims in computer science. In: International Semantic Web Conference. pp. 678–696. Springer (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    In: Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., Vidal, M.E., Hitzler, P., Troncy, R., Hollink, L., Tordai, A., Alam, M

    Fafalios, P., Iosifidis, V., Ntoutsi, E., Dietze, S.: TweetsKB: A Public and Large- Scale RDF Corpus of Annotated Tweets. In: Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., Vidal, M.E., Hitzler, P., Troncy, R., Hollink, L., Tordai, A., Alam, M. (eds.) The Semantic Web. pp. 177–190. Springer Intern...

    2018

  3. [11]

    In: The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26–30, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 18

    Färber, M.: The microsoft academic knowledge graph: A linked data source with 8 billion triples of scholarly data. In: The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26–30, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 18. pp. 113–129. Sp...

    2019

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recom- mender Systems

    Ferrari Dacrema, M., Cremonesi, P., Jannach, D.: Are we really mak- ing much progress? a worrying analysis of recent neural recommenda- tion approaches. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recom- mender Systems. p. 101–109. RecSys ’19, Association for Computing Ma- c...

    2019

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM Conference on Hy- pertext and Social Media

    Gangopadhyay, S., Schellhammer, S., Hafid, S., Dessi, D., Koß, C., Todorov, K., Dietze, S., Jabeen, H.: Investigating characteristics, biases and evolution of fact- checked claims on the web. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM Conference on Hy- pertext and Social Media. pp. 246–2...

    2024

  6. [14]

    ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH) 3(1), 1–23 (2021)

    Gu, Y., Tinn, R., Cheng, H., Lucas, M., Usuyama, N., Liu, X., Naumann, T., Gao, J., Poon, H.: Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH) 3(1), 1–23 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume

    Hou, Y., Jochim, C., Gleize, M., Bonin, F., Ganguly, D.: TDMSci: A specialized corpus for scientific literature entity tagging of tasks datasets and metrics. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main V...

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Cap- ture

    Jaradeh, M.Y., Oelen, A., Farfar, K.E., Prinz, M., D’Souza, J., Kismi- hók, G., Stocker, M., Auer, S.: Open research knowledge graph: Next generation infrastructure for semantic scholarly knowledge. In: Pro- ceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Cap- ture....

    2019

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT

    Kenton, J.D.M.W.C., Toutanova, L.K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. pp. 4171–4186 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Bioinformatics 28(23), 3158–3160 (2012)

    Kilicoglu, H., Shin, D., Fiszman, M., Rosemblat, G., Rindflesch, T.C.: Semmeddb: a pubmed-scale repository of biomedical semantic predications. Bioinformatics 28(23), 3158–3160 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Bioinformatics 36(4), 1234–1240 (2020)

    Lee, J., Yoon, W., Kim, S., Kim, D., Kim, S., So, C.H., Kang, J.: Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics 36(4), 1234–1240 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Ocean & Coastal Management 242, 106679 (2023)

    Liu, C., Zhang, X., Xu, Y., Xiang, B., Gan, L., Shu, Y.: Knowl- edge graph for maritime pollution regulations based on deep learn- ing methods. Ocean & Coastal Management 242, 106679 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106679, https://www.sciencedi...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Computational Lin- guistics 41(4), 701–707 (2015)

    Manning, C.D.: Computational linguistics and deep learning. Computational Lin- guistics 41(4), 701–707 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstra- tions

    Manning, C.D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J.R., Bethard, S., McClosky, D.: The stanford corenlp natural language processing toolkit. In: Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstra- tions. pp. 55–60 (2014) Researc...

    2014

  15. [23]

    IEEE Access 11, 22468–22489 (2023)

    Meloni, A., Angioni, S., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., Recupero, D.R., Motta, E.: Inte- grating conversational agents and knowledge graphs within the scholarly domain. IEEE Access 11, 22468–22489 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    OpenAI: Chatgpt (mar 14 version) (2024), https://chat.openai.com/, large lan- guage model developed by OpenAI

    2024

  17. [25]

    In: Bouamor, H., Pino, J., Bali, K

    Otto, W., Zloch, M., Gan, L., Karmakar, S., Dietze, S.: GSAP-NER: A novel task, corpus, and baseline for scholarly entity extraction focused on machine learning models and datasets. In: Bouamor, H., Pino, J., Bali, K. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Publications7(2), 38 (2019)

    Penev, L., Dimitrova, M., Senderov, V., Zhelezov, G., Georgiev, T., Stoev, P., Simov, K.: Openbiodiv: A knowledge graph for literature-extracted linked open data in biodiversity science. Publications7(2), 38 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task

    Peng, Y., Yan, S., Lu, Z.: Transfer learning in biomedical natural language process- ing: An evaluation of bert and elmo on ten benchmarking datasets. In: Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task. pp. 58–65 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    International Journal on Digital Libraries18(3), 173–190 (2017)

    Pertsas, V., Constantopoulos, P.: Scholarly ontology: modelling scholarly practices. International Journal on Digital Libraries18(3), 173–190 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    In: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries

    Pertsas, V., Constantopoulos, P.: Ontology-driven information extraction from re- search publications. In: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. pp. 241–253. Springer (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022)

    Priem, J., Piwowar, H., Orr, R.: Openalex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    International Journal on Digital Libraries23(1), 91–110 (2022)

    Salatino, A., Osborne, F., Motta, E.: Cso classifier 3.0: a scalable unsupervised method for classifying documents in terms of research topics. International Journal on Digital Libraries23(1), 91–110 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management

    Schindler, D., Bensmann, F., Dietze, S., Krüger, F.: Somesci- a 5 star open data gold standard knowledge graph of software mentions in scientific articles. In: Pro- ceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management. p. 4574–4583. CIKM ...

    2021

  25. [33]

    PeerJ Computer Science 8 (2022)

    Schindler, D., Bensmann, F., Dietze, S., Krüger, F.: The role of software in science: a knowledge graph-based analysis of software mentions in pubmed central. PeerJ Computer Science 8 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    In: Harth, A., Kirrane, S., Ngonga Ngomo, A.C., Paulheim, H., Rula, A., Gentile, A.L., Haase, P., Cochez, M

    Schindler, D., Zapilko, B., Krüger, F.: Investigating Software Usage in the Social Sciences: A Knowledge Graph Approach. In: Harth, A., Kirrane, S., Ngonga Ngomo, A.C., Paulheim, H., Rula, A., Gentile, A.L., Haase, P., Cochez, M. (eds.) The Semantic Web. pp. 271–286. Lecture N...

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Journal of biomedical semantics9(1), 5 (2018)

    Senderov, V., Simov, K., Franz, N., Stoev, P., Catapano, T., Agosti, D., Sautter, G., Morris, R.A., Penev, L.: Openbiodiv-o: ontology of the openbiodiv knowledge management system. Journal of biomedical semantics9(1), 5 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    In: The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26–30, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 18

    Tchechmedjiev, A., Fafalios, P., Boland, K., Gasquet, M., Zloch, M., Zapilko, B., Dietze, S., Todorov, K.: Claimskg: A knowledge graph of fact-checked claims. In: The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, October 26–30, 2019...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Datenbank-Spektrum 19, 95–106 (2019)

    Vidal, M.E., Endris, K.M., Jazashoori, S., Sakor, A., Rivas, A.: Transform- ing heterogeneous data into knowledge for personalized treatments—a use case. Datenbank-Spektrum 19, 95–106 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Wadden, D., Wennberg, U., Luan, Y., Hajishirzi, H.: Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th In- ternational Joint Conference on Natur...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Scien- tific data 3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E., et al.: The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scien- tific data 3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    2016

  32. [324]

    Zloch, D

    Springer (2019) 16 M. Zloch, D. Dessì, J. D’Souza, L. Castro, B. Zapilko, S. Karmakar et al

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.