Adding software to package management systems can increase their citation by 280%
暂无分享,去创建一个
Dave Clements | Vahid Jalili | Jeremy Goecks | Björn Grüning | Daniel J. Blankenberg | Daniel Blankenberg | J. Goecks | B. Grüning | V. Jalili | Dave Clements | Jeremy Goecks
[1] Ludo Waltman,et al. Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[2] Qianqian Wang,et al. Assessing the impact of software on science: A bootstrapped learning of software entities in full-text papers , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[3] Juan Gorraiz,et al. Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus , 2016, J. Informetrics.
[4] Anton Nekrutenko,et al. Dissemination of scientific software with Galaxy ToolShed , 2014, Genome Biology.
[5] Changsheng Li,et al. On Modeling and Predicting Individual Paper Citation Count over Time , 2016, IJCAI.
[6] Karim R. Lakhani,et al. Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science , 2016, Manag. Sci..
[7] Daniel S. Katz,et al. Software citation principles , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..
[8] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants , 2006, Scientometrics.
[9] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar , 2014, Scientometrics.
[10] Renan Valieris,et al. Bioconda: sustainable and comprehensive software distribution for the life sciences , 2018, Nature Methods.
[11] Xiaomei Bai,et al. Predicting the citations of scholarly paper , 2019, J. Informetrics.
[12] Anne-Wil Harzing,et al. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.
[13] Michael Golosovsky,et al. Runaway events dominate the heavy tail of citation distributions , 2012, ArXiv.
[14] Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al. Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment , 2018, Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators.
[15] Carl T. Bergstrom,et al. The Science of Science , 2018, Science.
[16] James P. Bagrow,et al. Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams , 2014, Royal Society Open Science.
[17] Santo Fortunato,et al. Impact Factor : tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact , 2014 .
[18] ANTHONY F. J. VAN RAAN,et al. Sleeping Beauties in science , 2004, Scientometrics.
[19] Kevin W. Boyack,et al. Toward predicting research proposal success , 2018, Scientometrics.
[20] Ludo Waltman,et al. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[21] Ludo Waltman,et al. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic , 2020, Quantitative Science Studies.
[22] Raphael Gottardo,et al. Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with Bioconductor , 2015, Nature Methods.
[23] Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent,et al. A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus , 2015, J. Informetrics.
[24] Pierre Alliez,et al. Attributing and Referencing (Research) Software: Best Practices and Outlook From Inria , 2019, Computing in Science & Engineering.
[25] Chao Long,et al. Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[26] Albert-László Barabási,et al. Modeling and Predicting Popularity Dynamics via Reinforced Poisson Processes , 2014, AAAI.
[27] Mike Thelwall,et al. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories , 2018, J. Informetrics.
[28] Kayvan Kousha,et al. Web of Science and Scopus language coverage , 2019, Scientometrics.
[29] Qing Ke,et al. Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[30] James Howison,et al. Software in the scientific literature: Problems with seeing, finding, and using software mentioned in the biology literature , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[31] Mike Thelwall,et al. The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for modelling and regression , 2016, J. Informetrics.
[32] Richard Van Noorden,et al. Metrics: A profusion of measures. , 2010, Nature.
[33] Lei Wang,et al. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science , 2006, Biomedical digital libraries.
[34] Albert-László Barabási,et al. Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.
[35] Harry Eugene Stanley,et al. Reputation and impact in academic careers , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[36] R. Merton. The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. , 1968, Science.
[37] Johan Bollen,et al. Quantifying perceived impact of scientific publications , 2016, J. Informetrics.
[38] Erin E Leahey,et al. Sociological Innovation through Subfield Integration , 2014 .
[39] Amber Williams,et al. Sleeping Beauties of Science. , 2015, Scientific American.
[40] Ning Ma,et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.
[41] David T Cooke,et al. Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from the TSSMN Prospective Randomized Trial. , 2020, The Annals of thoracic surgery.
[42] Nees Jan van Eck,et al. Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[43] Jeremy C Wyatt,et al. Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency , 2018, PloS one.
[44] R. L. Thorndike. Who belongs in the family? , 1953 .
[45] Peder Olesen Larsen,et al. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index , 2010, Scientometrics.
[46] Adèle Paul-Hus,et al. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.