» Articles » PMID: 32040488

Science Through Wikipedia: A Novel Representation of Open Knowledge Through Co-citation Networks

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2020 Feb 11
PMID 32040488
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of "Medicine" and "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology" papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals.

Citing Articles

Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.

Smith D, McKinnell J, Young J J Med Libr Assoc. 2024; 112(2):88-94.

PMID: 39119167 PMC: 11305477. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1730.


Wikipedia as a tool for contemporary history of science: A case study on CRISPR.

Benjakob O, Guley O, Sevin J, Blondel L, Augustoni A, Collet M PLoS One. 2023; 18(9):e0290827.

PMID: 37703244 PMC: 10499201. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290827.


Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?.

Arroyo-Machado W, Torres-Salinas D Front Res Metr Anal. 2023; 8:1188131.

PMID: 37560353 PMC: 10407088. DOI: 10.3389/frma.2023.1188131.


A diachronic perspective on citation latency in Wikipedia articles on CRISPR/Cas-9: an exploratory case study.

Schmidt M, Kircheis W, Simons A, Potthast M, Stein B Scientometrics. 2023; 128(6):3649-3673.

PMID: 37228830 PMC: 10183088. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04703-8.


Social Media: Flattening Hierarchies for Women and Black, Indigenous, People Of Color (BIPOC) to Enter the Room Where It Happens.

Titanji B, Abdul-Mutakabbir J, Christophers B, Flores L, Marcelin J, Swartz T Clin Infect Dis. 2022; 74(Suppl_3):S222-S228.

PMID: 35568478 PMC: 9107375. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac047.


References
1.
Leydesdorff L, Carley S, Rafols I . Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics. 2013; 94(2):589-593. PMC: 3547244. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0784-8. View

2.
Bould M, Hladkowicz E, Pigford A, Ufholz L, Postonogova T, Shin E . References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature. BMJ. 2014; 348:g1585. PMC: 3944683. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g1585. View

3.
Piwowar H . Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature. 2013; 493(7431):159. DOI: 10.1038/493159a. View

4.
Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Bettencourt L, Chute R, Rodriguez M . Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS One. 2009; 4(3):e4803. PMC: 2652715. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004803. View

5.
Seglen P . Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997; 314(7079):498-502. PMC: 2126010. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497. View