Would you like to do this kind of innovative use on the corpus of scientific articles? Yeah, you can't without specific partnerships, because that corpus is spread between various publishers and locked behind paywalls. (Who have not contributed a dime towards actually doing the research in question.)
So if you're an academic, please stop working with closed-access venues; and if you're a citizen demand the right to access and redistribute the results of publicly-funded research.
You can get a huge number of full-text articles via PubMed/NCBI now. Basically everything funded by the US (and several other) governments needs to end up in PubMed Central within ~12 months of publication.
As for the closed-access venues, it's a thorny chicken-and-egg problem. The top journals (Nature/Science/Cell) carry a tremendous cachet; having one on your CV makes you 2-5x more likely to get a tenure-track job/interview. This makes it very hard to opt-out.
> Nicholson: With scite, we’re working to introduce Smart Citations. These citations provide the context for each citation and its meaning. For example, we want to know whether the citation provides supporting or contradicting evidence – not just the metrics of how many times it has been previously cited, viewed, or downloaded. This allows people to look at a study and quickly determine if it has been supported or contradicted.
> Nicholson: We decided to do this because Wikipedia is often the first and only stop for many people trying to understand something better. We found that most cited articles (58%) are uncited or untested by subsequent studies, while the remainder show wide variability in contradicting or supporting evidence (2- 40%). This sounds bad, but is actually not too different from all scientific articles in general. Indeed, scientific articles on Wikipedia receive more supporting citations than the scientific literature as a whole.
8 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] threadSo if you're an academic, please stop working with closed-access venues; and if you're a citizen demand the right to access and redistribute the results of publicly-funded research.
please write my grant officer and explain to him why my publication costs to the grant just doubled.
As for the closed-access venues, it's a thorny chicken-and-egg problem. The top journals (Nature/Science/Cell) carry a tremendous cachet; having one on your CV makes you 2-5x more likely to get a tenure-track job/interview. This makes it very hard to opt-out.
> Nicholson: We decided to do this because Wikipedia is often the first and only stop for many people trying to understand something better. We found that most cited articles (58%) are uncited or untested by subsequent studies, while the remainder show wide variability in contradicting or supporting evidence (2- 40%). This sounds bad, but is actually not too different from all scientific articles in general. Indeed, scientific articles on Wikipedia receive more supporting citations than the scientific literature as a whole.