Search

In contemporary humanities research, software plays a central role in the acquisition, enrichment, analysis, and publication of digital data. This paper aims at measuring the current practice of citation of software in DH conference abstracts and to foster the sustainable and scholarly use of software.

openaire: EC/H2020/766900/EU//TEQ Funding Information: Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. EU H2020 framework through Collaborative Projects TEQ 766900 COST Action CA15220 International Mobility Programme DfE-SFI Investigator Programme 15/IA/2864 Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship scheme RSWF\R3\183013 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000266 EP/T028106/1 Academy of Finland https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002341 QuantERA grant SiUCs 731473 QuantERA Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant UltraQute RGP-2018-266 Foundational Questions Institute Fund(“Exploring the fundamental limits set by thermodynamics in the quantum regime”) FQXi-IAF19-06 yes � 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. We deploy a combination of reinforcement learning-based approaches and more traditional optimization techniques to identify optimal protocols for population transfer in a multi-level system. We constrain our strategy to the case of fixed coupling rates but time-varying detunings, a situation that would simplify considerably the implementation of population transfer in relevant experimental platforms, such as semiconducting and superconducting ones. Our approach is able to explore the space of possible control protocols to reveal the existence of efficient protocols that, remarkably, differ from (and can be superior to) standard Raman, stimulated Raman adiabatic passage or other adiabatic schemes. The new protocols that we identify are robust against both energy losses and dephasing.

© 2020 Federation of European Biochemical Societies, Bibliometric quantification is frequently used as metrics for the evaluation of the scientific performance of researchers and institutions. The researchers’ merit is usually assessed by the analysis of quantitative parameters such as the number of publications, the impact factor of journals, the total number of citations, or the h-index, although the limitations in translating these indicators into the impact of the outcome of scientific production are a matter of harsh criticism. To assess, based on factual evidences, the validity of traditional bibliometric analyses to conclude on the impact of papers to advance the state of the art, we carried out an innovative methodology on selected publications (test set). This methodology is based on identifying those citations of the test set papers that truly embed the methods, concepts, or hypotheses to build new knowledge and formulate conclusions. The results show that the percentage of citations that reflect the real impact of the papers of the test set has an average value of 12.4% of total citations and is not related to the impact factor of the journal where the test set papers were published. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates factually, using experimental data, the total failure of using quantitative bulk citation analyses to conclude on the scientific impact of publications. Only a careful analysis of how the work described in papers was embedded on the subsequent work and/or conclusions of others can tell about the real contribution of a published work to the development of new knowledge and advancement of science., This work was supported by ‘La Caixa’ Foundation (grant reference: IMM/BPD/107-2018).

Background The long-term availability of online Web services is of utmost importance to ensure reproducibility of analytical results. However, because of lack of maintenance following acceptance, many servers become unavailable after a short period of time. Our aim was to monitor the accessibility and the decay rate of published Web services as well as to determine the factors underlying trends changes. Methods We searched PubMed to identify publications containing Web server-related terms published between 1994 and 2017. Automatic and manual screening was used to check the status of each Web service. Kruskall–Wallis, Mann–Whitney and Chi-square tests were used to evaluate various parameters, including availability, accessibility, platform, origin of authors, citation, journal impact factor and publication year. Results We identified 3649 publications in 375 journals of which 2522 (69%) were currently active. Over 95% of sites were running in the first 2 years, but this rate dropped to 84% in the third year and gradually sank afterwards (P

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various ‘groups’ of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to ‘massage’ their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.