citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Joe Corneli-3
Hello,

if I remember correctly there was some interesting research discussed
here about citations to articles cited on Wikipedia.  Can someone help
me find that work?

It is hard to google for, because I keep turning up research on citing
Wikipedia itself, which is not what I'm after.  The question is: "Are
articles that appear in Wikipedia citations preferentially cited when
compared with other comparable articles?"

This is related to the so-called "Matthew Effect" and along these
lines I found a recent article that says "controlling for field and
impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on
the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access
journals." http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07608

However, I'm interested in the "downstream" side, not the "upstream" side.

TIA.

Joe

--
RMS: "I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay.
I am located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is
concerned, I appear to be well outside the solar system."

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Jane Darnell
..."the odds that an open access journal is referenced on
the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access"

Thanks for posting! That's an interesting paper, for all sorts of reasons. I read it because I highly doubt that the number is as low as that. There is an increasing preference for open access external links just because it's becoming the only way for newbies to avoid the AfD queue. I was disappointed that the stats were not limited to external links, as I think that would be more interesting (the print references have often been grandfathered in, while the online references generally are more recently added by Wikipedians). I was really puzzled though by the graph comparing citations across various language-pedias (Galician at rank 7th !?!).

Also it would be interesting to know how many of those originally English citations are migrating into other wiki languages through the translation tool. I know I reuse citations from non-English languages on occasion when I can't find anything in English while creating non-existent articles in English from Wikidata info that have articles out there in other languages.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Joe Corneli <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

if I remember correctly there was some interesting research discussed
here about citations to articles cited on Wikipedia.  Can someone help
me find that work?

It is hard to google for, because I keep turning up research on citing
Wikipedia itself, which is not what I'm after.  The question is: "Are
articles that appear in Wikipedia citations preferentially cited when
compared with other comparable articles?"

This is related to the so-called "Matthew Effect" and along these
lines I found a recent article that says "controlling for field and
impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on
the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access
journals." http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07608

However, I'm interested in the "downstream" side, not the "upstream" side.

TIA.

Joe

--
RMS: "I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay.
I am located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is
concerned, I appear to be well outside the solar system."

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Andrew Gray-3
On 20 August 2015 at 06:54, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ..."the odds that an open access journal is referenced on
> the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access"
>
> Thanks for posting! That's an interesting paper, for all sorts of reasons. I
> read it because I highly doubt that the number is as low as that. There is

I've been meaning to actually go through this paper for a while, and
finally did so this morning :-).

They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA". But
this is, in some ways, a very small sample. See, eg/, pp.
http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf,
which suggests that articles in gold OA titles represent less than 15%
of the total amount "freely available" through various forms.

Given this limitation, it seems quite plausible that the actual
OA:citation correlation is higher on a *per-paper* basis... we just
don't really have the information to be sure.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Mark J. Nelson

Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> writes:

> They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA". But
> this is, in some ways, a very small sample. See, eg/, pp.
> http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf,
> which suggests that articles in gold OA titles represent less than 15%
> of the total amount "freely available" through various forms.
>
> Given this limitation, it seems quite plausible that the actual
> OA:citation correlation is higher on a *per-paper* basis... we just
> don't really have the information to be sure.

I agree, though I think one reason the studies are oriented that way
(besides convenience of data) is that a main policy-evaluation goal of
such studies is to answer the question: is the OA / non-OA decision for
a journal one that will significantly affect their impact factor? If
going OA improves citations, then that's an argument in favor of going
OA. To answer that question, the relevant comparison is OA vs. non-OA
journals (preferably comparing similarly situated journals within
fields).

Papers from non-OA journals that are nonetheless available on the
internet for free make more a more complex case, both in terms of how
they got there, and what the policy implications should be. Though still
an interesting case!

--
Mark J. Nelson
Anadrome Research
http://www.kmjn.org

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Daniel Mietchen
Dear all,
thanks for the great thread - what do you think of turning it into a
contribution to the next issue of the Research Newsletter, which is
likely to be started at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/Recent_research
soon?
During the Wikimania hackathon, we also discussed this paper, and we
had an email exchange with the authors as well as the writer of a
review of the paper:
https://keet.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/wikipedia-open-access-not-quite-a-revolution-not-yet-at-least/
.
Will dig out my notes on it and try to contribute to the Signpost piece.

Cheers,
Daniel

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Mark J. Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA". But
>> this is, in some ways, a very small sample. See, eg/, pp.
>> http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf,
>> which suggests that articles in gold OA titles represent less than 15%
>> of the total amount "freely available" through various forms.
>>
>> Given this limitation, it seems quite plausible that the actual
>> OA:citation correlation is higher on a *per-paper* basis... we just
>> don't really have the information to be sure.
>
> I agree, though I think one reason the studies are oriented that way
> (besides convenience of data) is that a main policy-evaluation goal of
> such studies is to answer the question: is the OA / non-OA decision for
> a journal one that will significantly affect their impact factor? If
> going OA improves citations, then that's an argument in favor of going
> OA. To answer that question, the relevant comparison is OA vs. non-OA
> journals (preferably comparing similarly situated journals within
> fields).
>
> Papers from non-OA journals that are nonetheless available on the
> internet for free make more a more complex case, both in terms of how
> they got there, and what the policy implications should be. Though still
> an interesting case!
>
> --
> Mark J. Nelson
> Anadrome Research
> http://www.kmjn.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray-3
Andrew Gray, 20/08/2015 14:21:
> They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA".

Weird, why didn't they just use DOAJ? https://doaj.org/

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Spam] Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Andrew Gray-3
They did; DOAJ seems to have been the method used to determine whether
a journal was OA or not (which is fair enough).

Andrew.

On 21 August 2015 at 12:50, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew Gray, 20/08/2015 14:21:
>>
>> They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA".
>
>
> Weird, why didn't they just use DOAJ? https://doaj.org/
>
> Nemo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: citations to articles cited on wikipedia?

Joe Corneli-3
In reply to this post by Daniel Mietchen
Regarding the question from the OP [oh, that's me!], here are some
search terms that produce relevant results,

  citation frequency wikipedia -"cite wikipedia" -"citing sources"

Interestingly, the first paper I found suggests that the trend is the
almost the opposite of the one I was thinking would obtain.

 «In the present study, we show that inclusion of articles in Wikipedia
 does not increase the propensity of articles to be cited.
 Interestingly, the reverse is reported to be true, i.e., Wikipedia
 selectively lists high impact articles shortly after their
 publication.»

 - Marashi et al., "Impact of Wikipedia on citation trends"

This work is mentioned in a previous Research Newsletter, here:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/August#Briefly

... which is probably what I was remembering.

A slightly expanded treatment by the same authors is available as:

"Impact of inclusion of scholarly references in Wikipedia on citation
trends"

I don't see that the result has been replicated by other researchers.

Some related themes are discussed from an (optimistic) technical
engineering point of view in, here:

 «Our results show that a) classical query expansion using terms
 extracted from query pages leads to increased precision, and b) link
 distance between query and book pages in Wikipedia provides a good
 indicator of relevance that can boost the retrieval score of relevant
 books in the result ranking of a book search engine.»

 - Koolen et al., "Wikipedia pages as entry points for book search"

-Joe



On Thu, Aug 20 2015, Daniel Mietchen wrote:

> Dear all,
> thanks for the great thread - what do you think of turning it into a
> contribution to the next issue of the Research Newsletter, which is
> likely to be started at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/Recent_research
> soon?
> During the Wikimania hackathon, we also discussed this paper, and we
> had an email exchange with the authors as well as the writer of a
> review of the paper:
> https://keet.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/wikipedia-open-access-not-quite-a-revolution-not-yet-at-least/
> .
> Will dig out my notes on it and try to contribute to the Signpost piece.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Mark J. Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> They worked on a journal basis, classing them as "OA" or "not OA". But
>>> this is, in some ways, a very small sample. See, eg/, pp.
>>> http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf,
>>> which suggests that articles in gold OA titles represent less than 15%
>>> of the total amount "freely available" through various forms.
>>>
>>> Given this limitation, it seems quite plausible that the actual
>>> OA:citation correlation is higher on a *per-paper* basis... we just
>>> don't really have the information to be sure.
>>
>> I agree, though I think one reason the studies are oriented that way
>> (besides convenience of data) is that a main policy-evaluation goal of
>> such studies is to answer the question: is the OA / non-OA decision for
>> a journal one that will significantly affect their impact factor? If
>> going OA improves citations, then that's an argument in favor of going
>> OA. To answer that question, the relevant comparison is OA vs. non-OA
>> journals (preferably comparing similarly situated journals within
>> fields).
>>
>> Papers from non-OA journals that are nonetheless available on the
>> internet for free make more a more complex case, both in terms of how
>> they got there, and what the policy implications should be. Though still
>> an interesting case!
>>
>> --
>> Mark J. Nelson
>> Anadrome Research
>> http://www.kmjn.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l