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)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Herzog, Christian, Lunn, Brian Kierkegaard
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