Author Details

Research data management is recognized as an important concern for institutions. Various academic and research institutions today maintain different institutional repositories operating on different platforms to save and share research data. Researchers require a platform that ensures maximum accessibility, stability and reliability to share research data. Sharing data makes it possible to replicate studies, formulate new research questions, and generate new knowledge. One such platform used for sharing and preserving research data is “Figshare”. The purpose of this paper is to look at the journey of the Figshare platform and investigate the usefulness of this platform for sharing and preserving data. This paper provides an understanding of the platform for research institutions to employ for data management purposes. The research design of this article consists of non-empirical research majorly based on literature review and analysis. The literature analysis focused on the architecture, metadata handling capacities, interoperability, compatibility and services offered to researchers and research institutions by this platform. Focused literature searches were conducted across various electronic databases and this study tried to explore the solution that Figshare offers in supporting research data. Further, the article outlines the benefits of the Figshare repository and shows how this registry helps in the appropriate storage and sharing of research data. This article presents the potential of the Figshare platform that can be applied and used in different research disciplines for preserving and sharing research data.

Keywords

Data Management, Data Sharing, Figshare, Repository, Research Data.

Full Text

References

Amorim, R. C., Castro, J. A., Silva, J. R. D., and Ribeiro, C. (2015). A comparative study of platforms for research data management: interoperability, metadata capabilities and integration potential. In New contributions in information systems and technologies (pp. 101-111). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 16486-1_10

Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., and Tani, A. (2016). Are scientific data repositories coping with research data publishing? Data Science Journal, 15, 6. https://doi. org/10.5334/dsj-2016-006

Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059-1078. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.22634

Cho, J. (2017). A study on the sharing of research data in library and information science field. Journal of the Korean Society for information Management, 34(4), 59-79.

Cho, J. (2019). Subject analysis of LIS data archived in a Figshare using co-occurrence analysis. Online Information Review, 43(2), 256-264. https://doi. org/10.1108/OIR-12-2017-0369

David, P. A., and Bunn, J. A. (1988). The economics of gateway technologies and network evolution: Lessons from electricity supply history. Information Economics and Policy, 3(2), 165-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167- 6245(88)90024-8

Devarakonda, R., Palanisamy, G., Green, J. M., and Wilson, B. E. (2011). Data sharing and retrieval using OAI-PMH. Earth Science Informatics, 4(1), 1-5. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12145-010-0073-0

European Commission. (2020). Horizon 2020 open research data pilot and data management plan. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/ h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/openaccess- data-management/open-access_en.htm

Figshare API Documentation (n.d.). Available at: https:// docs.Figshare.com

Figshare for Institutions. (n.d.). Available at: https:// knowledge.Figshare.com/institutions

Figshare for Publishers. (n.d.). Available at: https:// knowledge.Figshare.com/publisher/workflows

Figshare help. (n.d.). Mission Statement & Core Beliefs. Available at: https://knowledge.Figshare.com/articles/ item/mission-statement-and-core-beliefs

Figshare. (n.d.). About us. Available at: https://Figshare. com/about

Hahnel, M. (2013). Open data: We need to share research results, even when they are wrong. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ higher-education-network /blog/2013/oct/08/openresearch- data-science-papers

Hahnel, M. (2015). The importance of Institutional APIs. In: Figshare blog. Available at: https://Figshare.com/ blog/The_importance_of_Institutional_APIs/155.

Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media+ Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603080

Kraker, P., Lex, E., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., and Peters, I. (2015). Research data explored II: The anatomy and reception of Figshare. arXiv preprint arXiv. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.1503.01298

Leach-Murray, S. (2016). Figshare-Get credit for your research: Figshare.com. Technical Services Quarterly, 33(1), 98-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2015.10 93855

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). OECD principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding. Available at: www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/38500813.pdf

Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., and Edwards, P. N. (2018). Re-integrating scholarly infrastructure: The ambiguous role of data sharing platforms. Big Data and Society, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756683

Reed, R. B. (2016). Figshare for Institutions. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(4), 376- 378. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.031 PMCid:PMC5079514

Ribes, D., and Finholt, T. A. (2009). The long now of infrastructure: Articulating tensions in development, 10(5); 375-398. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10822/557392 https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00199

Ruppert, E. (2015). Doing the transparent state: Open government data as performance indicators. Available at: https:// research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/13490/1/Ruppert2015.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316091265.006

Saeed, S., and Ali, P. M. (2019). Research data management and data sharing among research scholars of life sciences and social sciences. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 39(6). https://doi. org/10.14429/djlit.39.06.14997 25. Scherer, D., and Valen, D. (2019). Balancing multiple roles

of repositories: Developing a comprehensive repository at Carnegie Mellon University. Publications, 7(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020030

Singh, J. (2011). Figshare. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 2(2), 138-138. Available at: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A259818787/AONE? u=anon~185b59f1&sid=googleScholar&xid=05f40a83 https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.81919 PMid:21772785 PMCid:PMC3127351

Splawa-Neyman, P. (2018). Figshare. Available at: https//Figshare.com/blog/Figshare_as_a_data_repository/ 410

Thelwall, M. and Kousha, K. (2016). Figshare: A universal repository for academic resource sharing? Online Information Review, 40(3), 333-346. https://doi. org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0190

Misrepresentation of Citations: A Case Study of Google Scholar

Abstract Views :52 | PDF Views:4

Authors

Nadim Akhtar Khan ¹, Ajra Bhat ¹

Affiliations
1 Department of Library and Information Science, University of Kashmir, Srinagar – 190006, Jammu and Kashmir, IN

Source

Journal of Information and Knowledge (Formerly SRELS Journal of Information Management), Vol 60, No 6 (2023), Pagination: 381-388

Abstract

The current study aims to identify the misrepresented and actual citations in Google Scholar and rank the professionals according to their correct accreditations. The selected Google Scholar profiles were analysed to reveal the misrepresentation of the citation counts based on the wrong indexing of author names. A total of 30 top prolific author profiles from Library and Information Science professionals were selected for this study. The publication and biographical data were gathered from Google Scholar and compared with Web of Science and Scopus to avoid ambiguity. The findings reveal that misrepresenting citations to the author profiles due to the wrong indexing of author names leads to an increased citation count and affects the resultant author ranking.

Keywords

Google Scholar, Misrepresented Citations, LIS Professionals, Scopus, Web of Science.

Full Text

References

Adesanya, A. A. (2023). The Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal: Award of impact factor of the web of science for the first time in the year 2023. Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 30(3), 181–182. https://doi.org/10.4103/npmj. npmj_172_23 PMid:37675693

Adriaanse, L. S., and Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2011-0174

Anker, M. S., Hadzibegovic, S., Lena, A., and Haverkamp, W. (2019). The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. ESC Heart Failure, 6(6), 1291– 1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12583 PMid:31886636 PMCid:PMC6989289

Bilge, A., Shugerman, R. P., and Robertson, W. O. (1998). Misrepresentation of authorship by applicants to pediatrics training programs. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 73(5), 532– 533. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199805000-00022 PMid:9609867

Chu, J. S., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(41), Article e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118 PMid:34607941 PMCid:PMC8522281

Clarivate (2023). Web of Science platform. Available at: https:// clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/ research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscienceplatform/# benefits

Dogan, G., and Al, U. (2019). Is it possible to rank universities using fewer indicators? A study on five international university rankings. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM- 05-2018-0118

Elsevier (2023). Welcome to Scopus preview. Available at: https://www.scopus.com/home.uri

Ferguson, C. J., Brown, J. M., and Torres, A. V. (2018). Education or indoctrination? The accuracy of introductory psychology textbooks in covering controversial topics and urban legends about psychology. Current Psychology, 37, 574–582. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9539-7

Fourie, I., and Bakker, S. (2013). Value of a manageable research life cycle for LIS: A cancer library exploring the needs of clinicians and researchers as example. The Electronic Library, 31(5), 648–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-04- 2012-0034

Garfield, E., and Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Citation data: Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Science and Public Policy, 19(5), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/19.5.321

Goe, L. C., Herrera, A. M., and Mower, W. R. (1998). Misrepresentation of research citations among medical school faculty applicants. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 73(11), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199811000- 00017 PMid:9834702

Gurudevan, S. V., & Mower, W. R. (1996). Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicantsGurudevan & Mower. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 27(3), 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196- 0644(96)70268-8

Han, H., Zha, H., and Giles, C. L. (2005). Name disambiguation in author citations using a k-way spectral clustering method. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. https://doi.org/10.1145/1065385.1065462

Harzing, A. W. K., and van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73. https:// doi.org/10.3354/esep00076

Harzing, A. W., and Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and crossdisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Kostoff, R. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 27–43. https:// doi.org/10.1007/bf02458392

Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., and Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Jama, 302(10), 1092–1096. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.2009.1307 PMid:19738094

Lee, D., Kang, J., Mitra, P., Giles, C. L., and On, B. W. (2007). Are your citations clean? Communications of the ACM, 50(12), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/1323688.1323690

Levine‐Clark, M., and Gil, E. (2009). A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33(5), 986–996.https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911001954

Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., and Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of web of science®, scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 196–217. https://doi. org/10.1080/15424065.2010.505518

Martin-Martin, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., and López- Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

Meho, L. I., and Yang, K. (2006). A new era in citation and bibliometric analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. arXiv Preprint cs/0612132. Available at: https:// arxiv.org/abs/cs/0612132

Mingers, J., and Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85(2), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0

Mohammed, S., Morgan, A., and Nyantakyi, E. (2020). On the influence of uncited publications on a researcher’sh-index. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1791–1799.https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-020-03356-1

Nightingale, J. M., and Marshall, G. (2013). Reprint of Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(5), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nepr.2013.02.005 PMid:23566748

O’Leary, D. (2008). On the relationship between citations and appearances on “top 25” download lists in the International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2008.02.001

Paice, E. (2001). How to write a peer review. Hospital Medicine, 62(3), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.12968/ hosp.2001.62.3.2392 PMid:11291469

Pavlovic, V., Weissgerber, T., Stanisavljevic, D., Pekmezovic, T., Milicevic, O., Lazovic, J. M., Cirkovic, A., Savic, M., Rajovic, N., Piperac, P., Djuric, N., Madzarevic, P., Dimitrijevic, A., Randjelovic, S., Nestorovic, E., Akinyombo, R., Pavlovic, A., Ghamrawi, R., Garovic, V., Milic, N. (2021). How accurate are citations of frequently cited papers in biomedical literature? Clinical Science, 135(5), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20201573 PMid:33599711 PMCid:PMC8048031

Prins, A. A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., and Wouters, P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 264– 270. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv049

Sater, L., Schwartz, J. S., Coupland, S., Young, M., and Nguyen, L. H. (2015). Nationwide study of publication misrepresentation in applicants to residency. Medical Education, 49(6), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/ medu.12729 PMid:25989408

Schroeder, R. (2007). Pointing users toward citation searching: Using Google Scholar and Web of Science. Libraries and the Academy, 7(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1353/ pla.2007.0022

Strotmann, A., and Zhao, D. (2012). Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in authorbased citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1820–1833. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22695

Tahamtan, I., and Bornmann, L. (2019). What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics, 121, 1635–1684. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-019-03243-4

Teixeira, M. C., Thomaz, S. M., Michelan, T. S., Mormul, R. P., Meurer, T., Fasolli, J. V. B., and Silveira, M. J. (2013). Incorrect citations give unfair credit to review authors in ecology journals. PLoS One, 8(12), Article e81871. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081871 PMid:24349143 PMCid:PMC3859513 PMid:24349143 PMCid:PMC3859513

Tokmachev, A. M. (2023). Hidden scales in statistics of citation indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 17(1), Article 101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101356

Zhang, Y., Hu, L., Liao, S., Wang, Y., Ji, X., Liu, X., Huang, F., and Zhu, J. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of publications on enthesitis in spondyloarthritis in 2012–2021 based on web of science core collection databases. Rheumatology International, 43(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00296-022-05227-9 PMid:36464747

Username
Password
Remember me