Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008427999 = product of:
  0.058995992 = sum of:
    0.058995992 = sum of:
      0.026092423 = weight(_text_:science in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026092423 = score(doc=4008,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.03290357 = weight(_text_:29 in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03290357 = score(doc=4008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This study provides evidence of data set mentions and citations in multiple disciplines based on a content analysis of 600 publications in PLoS One. We find that data set mentions and citations varied greatly among disciplines in terms of how data sets were collected, referenced, and curated. While a majority of articles provided free access to data, formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles. In addition, data reuse took place in less than 30% of the publications that used data, suggesting that researchers are still inclined to create and use their own data sets, rather than reusing previously curated data. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how data sets are used in science and helps institutions and publishers make useful data policies.

Date

18.12.2017 16:29:01

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.32-46

0.001098222 = product of:
  0.0076875538 = sum of:
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.6, S.844-856