BIP4COVID19: Releasing impact measures for articles relevant to COVID-19

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, a large number of relevant articles has been published or become available in preprint servers. These articles, along with earlier related literature, compose a valuable knowledge base affecting contemporary research studies or, even, government actions to limit the spread of the disease and treatment decisions taken by physicians. However, the number of such articles is increasing at an intense rate making the exploration of the relevant literature and the identification of useful knowledge in it challenging. In this work, we describe BIP4COVID19, an open dataset compiled to facilitate the coronavirus-related literature exploration, by providing various indicators of scientific impact for the relevant articles. Finally, we provide a publicly accessible web interface on top of our data, allowing the exploration of the publications based on the computed indicators.

Publication History: A Double-DOI-Based Method for Storing and/or Monitoring Information about Published and Corrected Academic Literature

“…Not only does each DOI carry a cost (which is currently born by CERN, which hosts and manages Zenodo), in cases where there are 10 multiple versions, an excessive number of documents can make it difficult for readers and users to navigate which version they should cite. As one example, Vergoulis et al (2021a), which is a dataset, carries one DOI (10.5281/zenodo.3723281), the website claims that there are 78 versions, but the latest version is indicated 11 as being version #70 (December 5, 2021), and all indicated versions have different DOIs. Moreover, on the 12 same page, the preprint is indicated with two separate citations, the first to Zenodo (Vergoulis et al, 2021a), and the second to bioRxiv, which is a preprint server (Vergoulis et al, 2021b).…”

“…As one example, Vergoulis et al (2021a), which is a dataset, carries one DOI (10.5281/zenodo.3723281), the website claims that there are 78 versions, but the latest version is indicated 11 as being version #70 (December 5, 2021), and all indicated versions have different DOIs. Moreover, on the 12 same page, the preprint is indicated with two separate citations, the first to Zenodo (Vergoulis et al, 2021a), and the second to bioRxiv, which is a preprint server (Vergoulis et al, 2021b). On that Zenodo page, it is indicated that Vergoulis et al (2021a) is a supplement of version 2 of the Vergoulis et al (2021b) bioRxiv preprint.…”

“…Moreover, on the 12 same page, the preprint is indicated with two separate citations, the first to Zenodo (Vergoulis et al, 2021a), and the second to bioRxiv, which is a preprint server (Vergoulis et al, 2021b). On that Zenodo page, it is indicated that Vergoulis et al (2021a) is a supplement of version 2 of the Vergoulis et al (2021b) bioRxiv preprint. However, the indicated DOI leads to version 4 of the preprint (see other examples of preprint versioning next).…”

New trends in scientific knowledge graphs and research impact assessment

“…On the other hand, with regard to Research Impact Assessment, Vergoulis, Kanellos, Chatzopoulos, Karidi, and Dalamagas (2021) introduce BIP4COVID19, an open dataset that offers a variety of impact measures for coronavirus-related scientific articles. These measures can be exploited for the creation or extension of added-value services aiming to facilitate the exploration of the respective literature.…”