Search

Appealing to external bibliographic systems is an inevitable stage when organizing in-house resources in research libraries and information services. On the one hand, data from external sources can be widely used when working with institutional repositories, e.g., at the stage of searching for data on the organization's papers, creating alerts for new entries or exporting data using appropriate formats to cut the time for bibliographic metadata processing. On the other hand, the most complete data from in-house databases can be used for data correction in external bibliographic systems to increase data accuracy in the organization's publication profiles and enhancing the visibility of bibliographic information for the scientific community. During this time of open science, the use of open access bibliographic systems is becoming more promising, especially in the light of expensiveness and other problems with access to commercial bibliographic products. The paper draws on a set of papers of one of the Russian Academy of Sciences organizations to demonstrate the facilities of open access bibliographic resources when working with institutional repository. We compare the previously used commercial systems Web of Science and Scopus with the open access Russian Science Citation Index, Dimensions, and Lens with regard to coverage of organizations' papers, as well as external databases' appropriateness for library technological processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometrics is a current topic in many libraries. It is often associated with many questions, which are also repeated from time to time. In this article, the two authors have identified the 10 most frequently asked questions and try to answer them in separate and independent sections. They address questions about data providers such as Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions, but also PubMed, ArXiv, EconBiz, as well as bibliometric indicators such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), CiteScore (CS), Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per paper (SNIP). However, spotlights will also be put on related topics such as Open Access and Altmetrics e. g. Altmetric.com, Plum Metric and Article-Level-Metric (ALM). The organizational embedding, the question of how culture-changing topics affect science management and libraries as well as the aspect that libraries should take on an expert function on these data-driven topics complete the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Endodontics is rapidly evolving with the emergence of various research publications. The present bibliometric study aimed to identify and analyze the trends of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in endodontics. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search using Scopus® and Web of Science databases was performed from January 2001 till August 2021. Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in English were retrieved. The following parameters were recorded and analyzed: Title, citation counts, authors, year of publication, institutions, countries, journals, type of article, source of articles, thematic categories, keywords, and source of fundings. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel software, Visualization of Similarities viewer software, and SPSS software with a significance level set at P = 0.05. Results: Among the 149 articles included, the top-cited article was cited 184 times with 27 of them receiving more than 50 citations. 17 authors have contributed at least four publications, and most of the papers were published in 2020 (n = 26). Furthermore, the number of articles published increased substantially over the two decades (P < 0.05), but the citation counts decreased considerably (P < 0.05). The International Medical University Malaysia and the University of Hong Kong published the most articles, while Brazil was the most prolific country. The Journal of Endodontics published the most articles (n = 46) and more than half of the articles were published in Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 journals. The bulk of articles were published dealing with clinical or radiographic outcomes. Conclusion: This study revealed significant information on the trends of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in endodontics providing a comprehensive understanding and direction of future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many papers used the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) as the data source. The work by Liu (2019, Scientometrics) revealed that only 48 % of such papers published in information science and library science journals during 2017–2018 specified which sub-datasets they used, and subsequently urged researchers to provide such information together with the corresponding coverage timespans to improve transparency and reproducibility. This work revisited this issue to reveal if the current condition has improved following Liu's recommendations. Using WOSCC, 934 bibliometric open-access papers published during 2020–2022 in non-information science and library science journals were evaluated. Of these 934 papers, 45.0 % specified the sub-datasets of WOSCC they used for data collection, and 4.8 % specified the coverage timespan(s) of corresponding sub-datasets or the overall dataset. There seemed to be no improvement in the specification of data source using WOSCC.

The article objective is to show the bibliographic activity development on information research support in the State Public Scientific Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SPSTL SB RAS). Namely, changes in the technology of creating information resources of own generation due to computers and software; to represent the product types created by employees during 1958–2021; to highlight topics of traditional bibliographic current and retrospective indexes, bibliographic and full-text databases. The paper presents quantitative characteristics of the generated electronic resources; shows the forms of bibliographic services: information selective dissemination, differentiated services for managers, electronic thematic exhibitions of literature based on the databases; gives a brief description of bibliometric research. The authors determine prospects to develop the number of SPSTL SB RAS information and bibliographic complex. They are growing the authoritative data files in bibliographic databases, expanding the repertoire of Open Access sources to select information for regional bibliographic resources, developing interactive forms of information services for scientists and specialists; participating the semantic web through linked data technology based on authoritative files as an object (predicate), improving the service capabilities of the information search system (access to full texts).

Background: Researchers performing high-quality systematic reviews search across multiple databases to identify relevant evidence. However, the same publication is often retrieved from several databases. Identifying and removing such duplicates ("deduplication") can be extremely time-consuming, but failure to remove these citations can lead to the wrongful inclusion of duplicate data. Many existing tools are not sensitive enough, lack interoperability with other tools, are not freely accessible, or are difficult to use without programming knowledge. Here, we report the performance of our Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD), a novel tool to perform automated deduplication of systematic searches for biomedical reviews. Methods: We evaluated ASySD's performance on 5 unseen biomedical systematic search datasets of various sizes (1845–79,880 citations). We compared the performance of ASySD with EndNote's automated deduplication option and with the Systematic Review Assistant Deduplication Module (SRA-DM). Results: ASySD identified more duplicates than either SRA-DM or EndNote, with a sensitivity in different datasets of 0.95 to 0.99. The false-positive rate was comparable to human performance, with a specificity of > 0.99. The tool took less than 1 h to identify and remove duplicates within each dataset. Conclusions: For duplicate removal in biomedical systematic reviews, ASySD is a highly sensitive, reliable, and time-saving tool. It is open source and freely available online as both an R package and a user-friendly web application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of Arctic science in 1980–2020 is analyzed. The sources of raw information are the bibliographic databases of the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and the grant databases of the National Science Foundation of the United States and the Russian Science Foundation. The subject domains in the spotlight are worldwide scientific output indicators, indicators of countries and groups of countries, and of leading organizations; theme-based structures of the studies; scientific cooperation and citation rate indicators; and the number of Arctic projects launched annually by the science foundations of Russia and the United States. The Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus are compared according to the main parameters of Arctic science. The main topics of the Arctic projects launched in the United States and Russia in 2022 are identified with the help of grant abstracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This data note describes a unique two-step methodology to construct six linked datasets covering the sequencing of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Homo sapiens, and Sus scrofa genomes. The datasets were used as evidence in a project that investigated the history of genomic science. To design the datasets, we first retrieved all sequence submission data from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), including accession numbers associated with each of our three species. Second, we used these accession numbers to construct queries to retrieve peer-reviewed scientific publications that first described these sequence submissions in the scientific literature. For each species, this resulted in two associated datasets: 1) A .csv file documenting the PMID of each article describing new sequences, all paper authors, all institutional affiliations of each author, countries of institution, year of first submission to the ENA (when available), and the year of article publication, and 2) A .csv file documenting all institutions submitting to the ENA, number of nucleotides sequenced and years of submission to the database. We utilised these datasets to understand how institutional collaboration shaped sequencing efforts, and to systematically identify important institutions and changes in the structure of research communities throughout the history of genomics and across our three target species. This data note, therefore, should aid researchers who would like to use these data for future analyses by making the methodology that underpins it transparent. Further, by detailing our methodology, researchers may be able to utilise our approach to construct similar datasets in the future.

This data note describes a unique two-step methodology to construct six linked datasets covering the sequencing of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Homo sapiens, and Sus scrofa genomes. The datasets were used as evidence in a project that investigated the history of genomic science. To design the datasets, we first retrieved all sequence submission data from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), including accession numbers associated with each of our three species. Second, we used these accession numbers to construct queries to retrieve peer-reviewed scientific publications that first described these sequence submissions in the scientific literature. For each species, this resulted in two associated datasets: 1) A .csv file documenting the PMID of each article describing new sequences, all paper authors, all institutional affiliations of each author, countries of institution, year of first submission to the ENA (when available), and the year of article publication, and 2) A .csv file documenting all institutions submitting to the ENA, number of nucleotides sequenced and years of submission to the database. We utilised these datasets to understand how institutional collaboration shaped sequencing efforts, and to systematically identify important institutions and changes in the structure of research communities throughout the history of genomics and across our three target species. This data note, therefore, should aid researchers who would like to use these data for future analyses by making the methodology that underpins it transparent. Further, by detailing our methodology, researchers may be able to utilise our approach to construct similar datasets in the future.

The study aimed at investigating the level of knowledge and awareness of reference management software among teaching faculties at the University of Zambia. With an increased emphasis on research and publications in higher education institutions, using these tools can significantly improve the efficiency and accuracy of the citation process. Despite the availability of these tools, the academic community at the University of Zambia has not fully embraced their use. The study aimed to understand why this may be the case and provide recommendations for increasing the adoption of these tools. Survey method was used. This is a research method in which a structured questionnaire is used to collect data from a sample of participants. In this case, the survey was emailed to teaching faculties at the University of Zambia, including lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors. Findings of the study showed that most faculty members don't use RMS despite awareness of its existence. Mendeley was the most used by the minority who indicated using RMS. Barriers as well as low usage of RMS revealed inadequate training. It was recommended that the library department conduct frequent trainings to provide the needed skills, knowledge and information to UNZA teachers in different faculties on the use of RMS. To better utilise the RMS, the training should go beyond referencing to using other advantaged features such flexible formatting, access to many file formats for export and import as well as sharing collections of references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transparent reporting of animal studies is key to ensure reproducibility. The primary guideline for reporting animal studies is the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). We aimed to evaluate the compliance to the updated ARRIVE guidelines (version 2.0, date 2020) in animal studies published in journals indexed by the Turkish Academic Network and Information Centre (ULAKBIM TR Index). This was a retrospective analysis of reporting quality of animal studies published in journals listed in ULAKBIM TR Index between January 2010 and August 2021. The percentage of articles that fully reported each" of the ARRIVE Essential 10: Compliance Questionnaire was calculated, and effects of journal- and article-related factors were evaluated. Totally, 235 articles published in 89 journals were included into the analysis. The mean percentage of fully reported items was 59.1%±10.9%, the least reported items being those related with bias--"blinding", "allocation to study groups", "assessment of statistical assumptions", "excluded animals", and "sample size calculation" (0.9%-10.6%). The journal's publisher, frequency, language, being indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, and the ratio of animal studies had no significant effect on this percentage (p>0.05). However, journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines had significantly higher compliance (62.1%±10.1% vs. 58.2%±11.0% for supporters and non-supporters, respectively; p=0.017, 95%CI -7.0 to -0.7). Articles published after 2015 had higher compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines than those published previously (60.9%±10.4% vs. 57.9%±11.1%, respectively; p=0.037, 95%CI -5.8 to -0.2). Although progress has been made, compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines is still low in animal studies published in journals listed in ULAKBIM TR Index--Turkey's scientific journal database that covers over 800 peer-review journals. In order to increase the reporting quality and reproducibility of animal studies, it is imperative to raise awareness among researchers and journals, and to enforce the ARRIVE guidelines in editorial policy of journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]