REVIEW 2 cited by
OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship
read the original abstract
OpenCitations is an infrastructure organization for open scholarship dedicated to the publication of open citation data as Linked Open Data using Semantic Web technologies, thereby providing a disruptive alternative to traditional proprietary citation indexes. Open citation data are valuable for bibliometric analysis, increasing the reproducibility of large-scale analyses by enabling publication of the source data. Following brief introductions to the development and benefits of open scholarship and to Semantic Web technologies, this paper describes OpenCitations and its datasets, tools, services and activities. These include the OpenCitations Data Model; the SPAR (Semantic Publishing and Referencing) Ontologies; OpenCitations' open software of generic applicability for searching, browsing and providing REST APIs over RDF triplestores; Open Citation Identifiers (OCIs) and the OpenCitations OCI Resolution Service; the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC), a database of open downloadable bibliographic and citation data made available in RDF under a Creative Commons public domain dedication; and the OpenCitations Indexes of open citation data, of which the first and largest is COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref Open DOI-to-DOI Citations, which currently contains over 445 million bibliographic citations and is receiving considerable usage by the scholarly community.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research
A single-person, methodologically untested media rating site (MBFC) is commonly mischaracterized as an independent fact-checking organization in ~3.5–7.4% of misinformation papers, and this audit argues it should not ...
-
Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research
Media Bias/Fact Check fails academic rigor standards and should not be used in research because it presents political outcomes as neutral facts about media quality.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.