Cargando…
Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’
With Dimensions, Digital Science provides the research community a new approach on research related information, bringing formerly siloed content types such as grants, patents, clinical trials with publications and citations together, making it as openly available as possible (see app.dimensions.ai)...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2854-z |
_version_ | 1783354427688615936 |
---|---|
author | Herzog, Christian Lunn, Brian Kierkegaard |
author_facet | Herzog, Christian Lunn, Brian Kierkegaard |
author_sort | Herzog, Christian |
collection | PubMed |
description | With Dimensions, Digital Science provides the research community a new approach on research related information, bringing formerly siloed content types such as grants, patents, clinical trials with publications and citations together, making it as openly available as possible (see app.dimensions.ai). Due to the different content types, (controversial) journal based classifications were not an option since it would not allow to categorise grants etc. Hence Digital Science opted for applying a categorisation approach using machine learning and based on the content of the documents and well established classification systems for which a training set was available. The implementation at launch was a first step and requires to be improved—although we observe a reliability comparably to manual coding for grants, the implementation at launch comes with some shortcomings as observed by Bornmann (2018), mostly due to challenges with the training set coverage. To overcome the shortcomings of the initial categorization approach we implemented an improvement process with the research community and Lutz Bornmann’s analysis presented a great opportunity to provide more transparency and insights in the ongoing improvements. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6132978 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61329782018-09-18 Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ Herzog, Christian Lunn, Brian Kierkegaard Scientometrics Article With Dimensions, Digital Science provides the research community a new approach on research related information, bringing formerly siloed content types such as grants, patents, clinical trials with publications and citations together, making it as openly available as possible (see app.dimensions.ai). Due to the different content types, (controversial) journal based classifications were not an option since it would not allow to categorise grants etc. Hence Digital Science opted for applying a categorisation approach using machine learning and based on the content of the documents and well established classification systems for which a training set was available. The implementation at launch was a first step and requires to be improved—although we observe a reliability comparably to manual coding for grants, the implementation at launch comes with some shortcomings as observed by Bornmann (2018), mostly due to challenges with the training set coverage. To overcome the shortcomings of the initial categorization approach we implemented an improvement process with the research community and Lutz Bornmann’s analysis presented a great opportunity to provide more transparency and insights in the ongoing improvements. Springer International Publishing 2018-07-27 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6132978/ /pubmed/30237642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2854-z Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Herzog, Christian Lunn, Brian Kierkegaard Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
title | Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
title_full | Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
title_fullStr | Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
title_full_unstemmed | Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
title_short | Response to the letter ‘Field classification of publications in Dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
title_sort | response to the letter ‘field classification of publications in dimensions: a first case study testing its reliability and validity’ |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2854-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT herzogchristian responsetotheletterfieldclassificationofpublicationsindimensionsafirstcasestudytestingitsreliabilityandvalidity AT lunnbriankierkegaard responsetotheletterfieldclassificationofpublicationsindimensionsafirstcasestudytestingitsreliabilityandvalidity |