Notes from the "Fun With Citations" Session

No direct quote for this meme.


These are general notes summarizing comments from audience members and speakers for this session:

  • Taking pdfs extracting text and semantically marking them up, hyperlinking reference lists to their source articles.
  • Mendeley
  • Citations have no meaning the way we use them now.
  • Most papers aren’t cited, long tail graph (zitiny  ziphian curve graph?)
  • Citation Graph, collaborative filtering,.
  • Citations need context. How will that happen? Need to know why something was cited (ie. Disagreement).
  • We don’t disagree with papers, we disagree with claims made in papers. Why can’t a citation point at a place in the article?
  • Question: Is reference extraction beyond the scope of any non-commercial company? Mendeley is a company.
  •                Answer: There’s no single source of open bibliographic data.
  • Sage, SocialSciences,Crossref, webofscience, google scholar, etc – how useful are these sites. They provide metrics and recommendations, but not much more than going directly to the journal.
  • Social Networking in article recommendations, connect content to people, conversations around papers, systems don’t encourage conversations, people don’t want to participate.
  • Criticism of Mendeley: algorithms shoudl be open, academics should be able to define their own algorithms
  • Mendeley's plan is to extract reference data and make it publicly available and machine readable.
  • Criticism: academics need an open bibliographic data set.
  • Need to explain type of citation: positive vs. negative citations, valence terms, sentiment analysis/machine vs. human curated
  • Ontologies don't capture all reasons someone is citing something (ie. "Cited because I work for this journal." "Cited because Darwin will make you think I'm smart." "Cited because teacher required five citations.")
  • References are separated into their own section, removing them from the text. Unlike links, which are immediate.
  • Peer Review: example of a reviewer rejecting a paper because it didn't cite his own paper.
  • People need to make use of the REL attribute in HREF tags.
  • Citations can be used in a tribal sens, citing people in our camp and excluding others.
  • Description of citations as "frozen footprints in the snow"
  • Why do we need 1,000 citation styles?
  • Librarian: Questions about citations styles from students are constant and frustrating.
  • Orchid: cross-company effort to standardize citations.
  • Let people write citations however they want, but add an identifying number.
  • Mendeley is developing an open-source citation style editor.













Folksonomies: todo scio11 #scio11 science communication citations references citation management

open bibliographic data (0.902243 (neutral:0.000000)), citations (0.745257 (positive:0.119947)), citation style editor (0.609674 (positive:0.254481)), long tail graph (0.604532 (neutral:0.000000)), ziphian curve graph (0.604303 (neutral:0.000000)), negative citations (0.546831 (negative:-0.299549)), citations styles (0.522935 (negative:-0.645108)), Citation Graph (0.501709 (neutral:0.000000)), citation point (0.482183 (neutral:0.000000)), citation styles (0.450599 (negative:-0.437761)), Mendeley (0.439727 (neutral:0.000000)), general notes (0.426552 (positive:0.484200)), audience members (0.426365 (positive:0.484200)), reference lists (0.425806 (neutral:0.000000)), source articles (0.424465 (neutral:0.000000)), valence terms (0.402918 (neutral:0.000000)), collaborative filtering (0.402121 (neutral:0.000000)), Social Networking (0.401162 (neutral:0.000000)), REL attribute (0.401005 (neutral:0.000000)), single source (0.399998 (neutral:0.000000)), reference extraction (0.399948 (negative:-0.269220)), non-commercial company (0.398995 (negative:-0.269220)), HREF tags (0.398250 (neutral:0.000000)), tribal sens (0.392530 (neutral:0.000000)), google scholar (0.392007 (neutral:0.000000)), reference data (0.390060 (positive:0.533658)), article recommendations (0.388062 (neutral:0.000000)), direct quote (0.388026 (negative:-0.513979)), cross-company effort (0.387066 (neutral:0.000000)), Peer Review (0.382742 (neutral:0.000000))

Mendeley:Person (0.915291 (positive:0.189856)), collaborative filtering:FieldTerminology (0.478174 (neutral:0.000000)), Sage:Company (0.469419 (positive:0.392557)), data set:FieldTerminology (0.453895 (neutral:0.000000)), Social Networking:FieldTerminology (0.436764 (neutral:0.000000)), Darwin:OperatingSystem (0.436740 (positive:0.668923)), google:Company (0.436662 (neutral:0.000000)), machine readable:FieldTerminology (0.422922 (positive:0.533658)), editor:JobTitle (0.414294 (positive:0.254481))

Citation (0.967643): dbpedia | freebase
Reference (0.708006): dbpedia | freebase
Bibliography (0.631183): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Style guide (0.459247): dbpedia | freebase
Parenthetical referencing (0.441030): dbpedia | freebase
Want (0.425331): dbpedia | freebase
American Chemical Society (0.424813): website | dbpedia | freebase | yago

 Having fun with Citations
Proceedings of Meetings and Symposia>Conference Session:  Dye, Fenner, Hoyt (January 15, 2011), Having fun with Citations, Science Online 2011, Sigma Xi Conference Center, Retrieved on 2011-01-17
  • Source Material []
  • Folksonomies: scio11 #scio11 citations references citation management