“At the Library Leaders Forum 2020 (demo), Open Library unveiled the beta for what it’s calling the Library Explorer: an immersive interface which powerfully recreates and enhances the experience of navigating a physical library. If the tagline doesn’t grab your attention, wait until you see it in action….”
Today, the U.S. Copyright Office launched a new Copyright Public Records System (CPRS) pilot to the public. The new portal will provide access to the same copyright records for both registration and recordation data that exist in the Copyright Public Catalog but with enhanced search capabilities and improved interfaces for internal and external users. With these enhancements, users should have an easier time finding the exact records they need. The CPRS pilot is also the second Enterprise Copyright System module to launch. While the first module, the electronic recordation system pilot, was released to a limited external audience, the CPRS pilot is available to the entire public.
A video tutorial on how to search OER Commons.
“Serendipitous use of the internet is slowly going extinct as we replace link-hopping with the algorithmic-feed. Ranked results and recommendations have become the dominant mode of exploring information online. In this experiment, we break away from this paradigm, and present Wikigraph – our project for Interhackt. While a “search engine” returns a ranked list of results, Wikigraph returns the most relevant sub-graph of pages. Such an application we term an “exploration engine.”…”
“I have developed a framework that aims to build on the ideas behind Bush’s Memex (Bush 1945). Bush, who directed the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II, envisioned the Memex as a device for individuals that could store all of their books, records, and communications so that they may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. Similarly, the framework I developed emphasizes the connections between documents, while extending the functionality of an open access repository and implementing processes to incorporate the ongoing trends in social media into the context of a digital collection.”
• Performing clinical trial registry searches for grey literature can decrease publication bias imputed into systematic reviews.
• 88.7% of critical care systematic reviews did not conduct clinical trial registry searches.
• 56% of systematic reviews that did not perform a trial registry search had at least 1 potentially relevant trial that was not included in their analysis….”
“In terms of cross disciplinary citation indexes that are used for discovery, everyone knows of the two incumbants — Web of Science and Scopus(2004). Joined by the large web scale Google Scholar (2004), these three reigned as the “Big 3” of citation indexes for roughly a decade more or less unchallenged.
However 10 years later, around 2015 and in the years after, a new generation of citation indexes started to emerge to challenge the big 3 in a variety of ways .
As of time of writing in 2020, some of these new challengers have had a couple of years of development. How do things look now?
First off, using newer techniques and paradigms, we have for-profit companies like Digital Science launching Dimensions (2018) which strike me as challengers to Scopus and Web of Science in the arena of citation/bibliometric assessment, just as Scopus itself was a challenge to the older Web of Science back in 2004.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the rise of more “open” citation indexes . In particular, a very important player in this area is the relaunched Microsoft Academic(2016) which not only uses web crawling style technologies like Google Scholar to scour the web, applies the latest in Natural Language Processing (NLP) /“semantic” technologies and makes the dataset dubbed Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) available with open licenses.
Semantic Scholar(2015) is yet another project with Microsoft ties ( funded by the Allen Institute for AI) that play in the same area and releases data with open licenses. One of the more “Semantic” features of this search engine is that it types citations into whether the cite is for citing of background, methods or results using machine learning.
While scite (2018) a new citation index by a startup does not provide open data, it’s selling point is the use of NLP to type citation relationships into “Supporting”, “Disputing” and “Neutral” cites which is yet another way of contextualizing research by describin citation relationships.
Besides the two above mentioned well funded think tanks projects, we also see more grassroot like movements like 2017’s I4OC (Intiative for open Citations) — an amazingly successful push to get publishers to deposit and make references open in Crossref as well as efforts by OpenCitations.net (a founding member of I4OC) to extract citations from open access papers from PMC to produce the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC), which have served to further increase the pool of Scholarly meta-data and citations that are available in the public domain/CCO….”
“What is the GDD Network?
Digital scholarship relies on access to digital sources but finding these sources, whether a large corpus for digital scholarship or a single text for in-depth study, is often difficult.
All around the world, libraries, archives and search providers are digitising collections to make them available. While this is making millions of texts available online, there is still no single place where you can search all of them at once.
The difficulty of discovering digitised texts, including but extending beyond the millions of items digitised by national libraries and mass digitisation programmes, often means that these efforts do not have the impact they could and should.
The Global Digitised Dataset Network (GDD Network) is a research collaboration investigating the feasibility of creating a global catalogue of digitised texts, which would enable people to search and find texts, and access them for reading, digital scholarship, collections analysis, and more….”
“OpenTexts.World is an experimental service that provides free access to digitised text collections from around the world. Think of it as a search engine for books.
Every year, libraries worldwide digitise hundreds of thousands of books. Open Texts brings (some of!) those collections together, allowing you to search across a multitude of different libraries worldwide….”
“When historians of the future are searching the archives for “good things to come out of the great pandemic” one of the answers will surely be “Open Texts was founded”.
Formally launching today, Open Texts is a global online library, with eight million digital titles from nine of the world’s great collections. All are free to use by scholars, students and the general public who can search with a simple searchable database….”
Here’s Open Texts itself = https://opentexts.world/
“DataCite recently launched DataCite Commons, a new discovery service which allows you to conduct simple searches across different types of PIDs giving a comprehensive overview of the connections between entities. DataCite Commons has been released as a minimum viable product and will be developed in the future. This webinar will present the new service and provide the background to it, including the user driven requirements gathering and give an opportunity for feedback on how much it meets your needs and what else you would like it to do….”
[There is no ‘about’ page from which to extract a description.]
[There is no ‘about’ page from which to extract a description.]
Abstract: New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89–94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.
“ALPSP is delighted to announce that the winners of this year’s ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, are Jus Mundi and WordToEPUB with the Open Library of Humanities receiving Highly Commended….”