CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Unified Nanopublication Model for Effective and User-Friendly Access to the Elements of Scientific Publishing

Bucur, Cristina-Iulia, Kuhn, Tobias, Ceolin, Davide·2020·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_7

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nanopublications, i.e., a fine-grained, machine-interpretable, semantic and interlinked representation for article information, provenance and assertions, are presented as an RDF graph.

    “To provide simplification and standardization, nanopublications [128], i.e., a fine-grained, machine-interpretable, semantic and interlinked representation for article information (sections, text, figures, tables, formula, footnote and review comments), provenance and assertions is presented as an RDF graph.”

    From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [128]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Alberts, B.: Impact factor distortions. Science 340, 787 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240319 · DOI
  2. Angrosh, M., Cranefield, S., Stanger, N.: Contextual information retrieval in research articles: semantic publishing tools for the research community. Semant. Web 5, 261–293 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-130097 · DOI
  3. Bezerra, C., Freitas, F., Santana, F.: Evaluating ontologies with competency questions. In: 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT). 3, 284–285 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.199 · DOI
  4. Bucur, C.I.: Linkflows: enabling a web of linked semantic publishing workflows. In: Gangemi, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11155, pp. 262–271. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98192-5_45 · DOI
  5. Bucur, C.I., Kuhn, T., Ceolin, D.: Peer reviewing revisited: assessing research with interlinked semantic comments. In: In K-CAP 2019: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, pp. 179–187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3360901.3364434 · DOI
  6. Clark, T.: Next generation scientific publishing and the web of data. Semant. Web 5, 257–259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-140139 · DOI
  7. Dong, P., Loh, M., Mondry, A.: The “impact factor" revisited. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2, 1–8 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-2-7 · DOI
  8. Garfield, E.: Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 161, 979–980 (1999)
  9. Garfield, E.: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295, 90–93 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Groth, P., Gibson, A., Velterop, J.: The anatomy of a nanopublication. Inf. Serv. Use 30, 51–56 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2010-0613 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Iorio, A.D., Peroni, S., Vitali, F., Zingoni, J.: Semantic lenses to bring digital and semantic publishing together. In: Proceeding of 4th International Conference Linked Science@ISWC, vol. 128, pp. 12–23 (2014)
  12. Jacob, B., Ortiz, J.: Data.world: a platform for global-scale semantic publishing. In: Proceedings of the ISWC posters & demonstrations and industry tracks co-located with 16th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) (2017)
  13. Kuhn, T.: nanopub-java: a java library for nanopublications. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Linked Science (LISC 2015), vol. 1572, pp. 19–25 (2015)
  14. Kuhn, T., Barbano, P.E., Nagy, M.L., Krauthammer, M.: Broadening the scope of nanopublications. In: Cimiano, P., Corcho, O., Presutti, V., Hollink, L., Rudolph, S. (eds.) ESWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7882, pp. 487–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_33 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kuhn, T., Dumontier, M.: Trusty URIs: verifiable, immutable, and permanent digital artifacts for linked data. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8465, pp. 395–410. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_27 · DOI
  16. Kuhn, T., Dumontier, M.: Making digital artifacts on the web verifiable and reliable. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 27, 2390–2400 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2015.2419657 · DOI
  17. Kuhn, T., Dumontier, M.: Genuine semantic publishing. Data Sci. 1, 139–154 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-170010 · DOI
  18. Kuhn, T., Willighagen, E., Evelo, C., Queralt-Rosinach, N., Centeno, E., Furlong, L.I.: Reliable granular references to changing linked data. In: d’Amato, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10587, pp. 436–451. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_26 · DOI
  19. Lippi, G., et al.: Scientific publishing in the “predatory” era. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. (CCLM) 56(5), 683–684 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-1079 · DOI
  20. Mirri, S., et al.: Towards accessible graphs in html-based scientific articles. In: 4th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 1067–1072 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/CCNC.2017.7983287 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Opthof, T.: Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc. Res. 33, 1–7 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6363(96)00215-5 · DOI
  22. Peroni, S.: Automating semantic publishing. Data Sci. 1, 155–173 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-170012 · DOI
  23. Peroni, S., Shotton, D.: The SPAR ontologies. In: Vrandečić, D., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11137, pp. 119–136. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00668-6_8 · DOI
  24. Peroni, S., et al.: Research articles in simplified html: a web-first formatfor html-based scholarly articles. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 3, e132 (2017). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.132 · DOI
  25. Priem, J.: Beyond the paper. Nat. 495, 437–440 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/495437a · DOI
  26. Saha, S., Saint, S., Christakis, D.A.: Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? JMLA 91, 42–46 (2003)
  27. Sateli, B., Witte, R.: From papers to triples: an open source workflow for semantic publishing experiments. In: González-Beltrán, A., Osborne, F., Peroni, S. (eds.) SAVE-SD 2016. LNCS, vol. 9792, pp. 39–44. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53637-8_5 · DOI
  28. Shotton, D.: Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learn. Publ. 22, 85–94 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1087/2009202 · DOI
  29. Shotton, D.: The five stars of online journal articles-a framework for article evaluation. D-Lib Mag. 18, 457–458 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2012-shotton · DOI
  30. Shotton, D., Portwin, K., Klyne, G., Miles, A.: Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5(4), e1000361 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000361 · DOI
  31. Sikos, L.F.: Knowledge representation with semantic web standards. Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning, pp. 11–49. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5_2 · DOI
  32. Stern, B.M., O’Shea, E.K.: A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biol. 17(2), 683–684 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116 · DOI
  33. Wang, P., Rath, M., Deike, M., Qiang, W.: Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. In: IConference 2016 Proceedings (2016) https://doi.org/10.9776/16315 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bucur, C.-I., Kuhn, T., & Ceolin, D.
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2020
Pages
104-119
ISSN
  • 0302-9743
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-61244-3_7
Cited by
8
References
4
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review