On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote: >> (For whatever reason the in fact cite the paper, many citations >> because many citations reflect the use of the Open Babel toolkit >> specifically, by people may have little affection with the ODOSOS >> goals itself...) > > This is one reason why citation metrics are at best "inaccurate". (I use > worse language). There is some attempt to annotate citations for their > motovation but this is very difficult. Thus Ben O'Steen has looked at > citation analysis of Wakelin's paper on the MMR vaccine (restricted to UKPMC > because most publishers forbid the automatic extraction of citations). All > the immediate citations were negative. So the high citation count is not a > figure of positive esteem.
Absolutely true! I have been using CiTO and CiteULike to analyze the literature citing the CDK. This is manual work and takes a lot of effort. I still haven't gotten around to writing that up :( This is an ideal area for crowdsourcing, and we should perhaps convince BioMed Central to have authors characterize the papers (etc) they cite themselves... maybe rather of having them to get the bold and italics parts of the bibliography. Egon -- Dr E.L. Willighagen Postdoctoral Researcher Institutet för miljömedicin Karolinska Institutet (http://ki.se/imm) Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
