This study provides evidence of data set mentions and citations in multiple disciplines based on a content analysis of 600 publications in PLoS One. We find that data set mentions and citations varied greatly among disciplines in terms of how data sets were collected, referenced, and curated. While a majority of articles provided free access to data, formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles. In addition, data reuse took place in less than 30% of the publications that used data, suggesting that researchers are still inclined to create and use their own data sets, rather than reusing previously curated data. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how data sets are used in science and helps institutions and publishers make useful data policies.

No abstract

No abstract

The rise of software as a research object is mirrored in the increasing interests towards quantitative studies of scientific software. However, due to the inconsistent practice of citing software, most of the existing studies analyzing the impact of scientific software are based on identification of software name mentions in full-text publications. Despite its limitations, citation data have a much larger quantity and broader coverage of scientific fields than full-text data and thus could support findings in much larger scopes. This paper presents an analysis aiming to evaluate the extent to which citations data can be used to reconstruct the impact of software. Specifically, we identified the variety of citable objects related to the lme4 R package and examined how the package's impact is scattered across these objects. Our results reveal a littlediscussed challenge of using citation data to measure the impact of software, that even within the category of formal citation, there might be different forms in which the same software object is cited. This challenge can be mitigated by more carefully selecting objects as the proxy of software. However, it cannot be fully solved until we have one-software-one-proxy policy for software citation.

Introduction The epidemiology of penile fractures in the emergency setting is not well described. Aim Examine the incidence, evaluation, management, risk factors predicting surgical repair or hospital transfer, and use of financial resources in patients presenting with penile fractures to the emergency departments (ED) nationwide in the Unites States. Methods ED visits with a primary diagnosis of penile fractures (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition codes) between 2010-2014 were abstracted from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Main Outcome Measure Penile fracture incidence, disposition, hospital, and clinical factors which were associated with immediate surgical repair or transfer to another institution, and cost were investigated. Results 8,029 ED visits for penile fracture in the United States were observed, which represents a national incidence of 1.02 per 100,000 male subjects per year. No meaningful trends in incidence were observed over the 5-year period. 63.9% were treated non-surgically or discharged from the ED, 25.7% underwent surgical repair, and 10.3% were transferred to other institutions. Hospital factors which predicted surgical repair included Northeast region, teaching hospital status, trauma hospital status, high volume ED, and urban location. Clinical risk factors which predicted surgical repair included hypertension, smoking, alcohol dependence, drug abuse, erectile dysfunction, hematuria, urethral injury, and urinary retention. Factors leading to patient transfers included non-academic, rural and non-trauma hospitals, low economic income and low emergency department volume. In addition, weekend and spring presentation were associated with higher transfer rates, while summer presentation was associated with surgical repair. Clinical Implications A large proportion of penile fractures are discharged from the ED, indicating possible health care access disparity. Strengths & Limitations This is one of the first population-based study of penile fracture incidence, disposition, risk factors which predict surgery or transfer, and cost in the US ED setting. The unexpected high number of discharges may be a result of misdiagnosis; alternatively these data may reveal previously under-reported management patterns in the community. Conclusion This large retrospective study of penile fractures in the US ED setting demonstrates a stable incidence of penile fractures presenting to the US emergency departments. A quarter of patients undergo immediate surgical repair, 10% are transferred to other institutions and 63.9% of patients are discharged home. The high proportion of ED discharges may be due to access to health care disparities.