The case for the Humanities Citation Index (HuCI): a citation index by the humanities, for the humanities

Citation indexes are by now part of the research infrastructure in use by most scientists: a necessary tool in order to cope with the increasing amounts of scientific literature being published. Commercial citation indexes are designed for the sciences and have uneven coverage and unsatisfactory characteristics for humanities scholars, while no comprehensive citation index is published by a public organization. We argue that an open citation index for the humanities is desirable, for four reasons: it would greatly improve and accelerate the retrieval of sources, it would offer a way to interlink collections across repositories (such as archives and libraries), it would foster the adoption of metadata standards and best practices by all stakeholders (including publishers) and it would contribute research data to fields such as bibliometrics and science studies. We also suggest that the citation index should be informed by a set of requirements relevant to the humanities. We discuss four: source coverage must be comprehensive, including books and citations to primary sources; there needs to be chronological depth, as scholarship in the humanities remains relevant over time; the index should be collection-driven, leveraging the accumulated thematic collections of specialized research libraries; and it should be rich in context in order to allow for the qualification of each citation, for example by providing citation excerpts. We detail the fit-for-purpose research infrastructure which can make the humanities citation index a reality. Ultimately, we argue that a citation index for the humanities can be created by humanists, via a collaborative, distributed and open effort.

[1]  Andreas Dengel,et al.  Linked Open Citation Database: Enabling Libraries to Contribute to an Open and Interconnected Citation Graph , 2018, JCDL.

[2]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[3]  P. Shannon,et al.  Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. , 2003, Genome research.

[4]  Giovanni Bergamin,et al.  New ways of creating and sharing bibliographic information: an experiment of using the Wikibase Data Model for UNIMARC data , 2018 .

[5]  Björn Hellqvist,et al.  Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Giovanni Colavizza,et al.  Citation Mining of Humanities Journals: The Progress to Date and the Challenges Ahead , 2019, Journal of European Periodical Studies.

[7]  Philipp Mayr,et al.  EXCITE – A Toolchain to Extract, Match and Publish Open Literature References , 2019, 2019 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL).

[8]  Emanuel Kulczycki,et al.  Journal article publishing in the social sciences and humanities: a comparison of Web of Science coverage for five European countries , 2020 .

[9]  Charlene Kellsey,et al.  Citation Analysis for Collection Development: A Comparative Study of Eight Humanities Fields1 , 2005, The Library Quarterly.

[10]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  grlc Makes GitHub Taste Like Linked Data APIs , 2016, SALAD@ESWC.

[11]  Niklas Elmqvist,et al.  CiteWiz: A Tool for the Visualization of Scientific Citation Networks , 2007, Inf. Vis..

[12]  Mihai Surdeanu,et al.  Science Citation Knowledge Extractor , 2018, Front. Res. Metr. Anal..

[13]  Richard Heinzkill,et al.  Characteristics of References in Selected Scholarly English Literary Journals , 1980, The Library Quarterly.

[14]  Jordi Ardanuy,et al.  Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Björn Hammarfelt Beyond coverage : Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities , 2016 .

[16]  Paul Wouters,et al.  Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  David Ellis,et al.  A behavioural model for information retrieval system design , 1989, J. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Sue Stone,et al.  Humanities scholars: Information Needs and Uses , 1982, J. Documentation.

[19]  Angelo Di Iorio,et al.  Exploring Scholarly Papers Through Citations , 2015, DocEng.

[20]  Walter Scheidel Continuity and Change in Classical Scholarship , 1997 .

[21]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  A Document-inspired Way for Tracking Changes of RDF Data , 2016, Drift-a-LOD@EKAW.

[23]  Frédéric Kaplan,et al.  The references of references: a method to enrich humanities library catalogs with citation data , 2017, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[24]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[25]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis's study revisited , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Fabio Vitali,et al.  One Year of the OpenCitations Corpus - Releasing RDF-Based Scholarly Citation Data into the Public Domain , 2017, SEMWEB.

[27]  Roy Tennant,et al.  A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty‐first century , 2004 .

[28]  Silvio Peroni,et al.  Enabling text search on SPARQL endpoints through OSCAR , 2019, Data Sci..

[29]  M. Miller,et al.  Citations, contexts, and humanistic discourse: Toward automatic extraction and classification , 2014, Lit. Linguistic Comput..

[30]  Nees Jan van Eck,et al.  Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic , 2020, Quantitative Science Studies.

[31]  Matteo Romanello,et al.  Using Linked Open Data to Bootstrap a Knowledge Base of Classical Texts , 2017, WHiSe@ISWC.

[32]  Robert Bossy,et al.  Interoperability of corpus processing workflow engines: the case of AlvisNLP/ML in OpenMinTeD , 2016 .

[33]  Stephen E. Wiberley,et al.  Humanities Literatures and Their Users , 2017 .

[34]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[35]  Anton J. Nederhof,et al.  Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review , 2006, Scientometrics.

[36]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  The Getty End-User Online Searching Project in the Humanities: Report No. 6: Overview and Conclusions , 1996 .

[37]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations , 2021, Scientometrics.

[38]  Silvio Peroni,et al.  Creating Restful APIs over SPARQL endpoints with RAMOSE , 2020, ArXiv.

[39]  Helen R. Tibbo,et al.  Abstracting, Information Retrieval and the Humanities: Providing Access to Historical Literature , 1993 .

[40]  Antoine Isaac,et al.  Cultural heritage metadata aggregation using web technologies: IIIF, Sitemaps and Schema.org , 2018, International Journal on Digital Libraries.

[41]  D. Garijo,et al.  OBA: An Ontology-Based Framework for Creating REST APIs for Knowledge Graphs , 2020, SEMWEB.

[42]  S. Wiberley,et al.  Patterns of Information Seeking in the Humanities , 1989 .

[43]  Angelo Di Iorio,et al.  Exploiting Coordinated Views for Scholarly Reading and Analysis , 2019, DMSVIVA.

[44]  Frédéric Kaplan,et al.  Linked Books: Towards a collaborative citation index for the Arts and Humanities , 2018, DH.

[45]  Egon L. Willighagen,et al.  Scholia, Scientometrics and Wikidata , 2017, ESWC.

[46]  Rebecca Watson-Boone The Information Needs and Habits of Humanities Scholars. , 1994 .

[47]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , 2009, Scientometrics.

[48]  Andreas Thor,et al.  Introducing CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer): A program for reference publication year spectroscopy with cited references standardization , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[49]  Enrico Daga,et al.  BASIL: A Cloud Platform for Sharing and Reusing SPARQL Queries as Web APIs , 2015, International Semantic Web Conference.

[50]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.

[51]  Panos Constantopoulos,et al.  Understanding the Information Requirements of Arts and Humanities Scholarship , 2010, Int. J. Digit. Curation.

[52]  Paul Mulholland,et al.  Facade-X: an opinionated approach to SPARQL anything , 2021, Studies on the Semantic Web.

[53]  A. J. M. Linmans,et al.  Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link , 2010, Scientometrics.

[54]  Sarah de Rijcke,et al.  An Open Knowledge Base for the Netherlands: Report of a Community Workshop , 2021 .

[55]  Martina Stockhause,et al.  The TRUST Principles for digital repositories , 2020, Scientific Data.

[56]  Emanuel Kulczycki,et al.  Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries , 2018, Scientometrics.

[57]  Dalia Guerreiro,et al.  Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[58]  Yu-Wei Chang,et al.  Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[59]  Michael F. Winter,et al.  : The Footnote: A Curious History , 1999 .

[60]  Diana Hicks,et al.  The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences , 1999, Scientometrics.

[61]  Silvio Peroni,et al.  The SPAR Ontologies , 2018, SEMWEB.