Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1902.01333

The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega journal

Barbara McGillivray·Mathias Astell
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How do the level of usage of an article, the timeframe of its usage and its subject area relate to the number of citations it accrues? This paper aims to answer this question through an observational study of usage and citation data collected about the multidisciplinary, open access mega-journal Scientific Reports. This observational study answers these questions using the following methods: an overlap analysis of most read and top-cited articles; Spearman correlation tests between total citation counts over two years and usage over various timeframes; a comparison of first months of citation for most read and all articles; a Wilcoxon test on the distribution of total citations of early cited articles and the distribution of total citations of all other articles. All analyses were performed using the programming language R. As Scientific Reports is a multidisciplinary journal covering all natural and clinical sciences, we also looked at the differences across subjects. We found a moderate correlation between usage in the first year and citations in the first two years since publication, and that articles with high usage in the first 6 months are more likely to have their first citation earlier (Wilcoxon=1811500, p < 0.0001), which is also related to higher citations in the first two years (Wilcoxon=8071200, p < 0.0001). As this final assertion is inferred based on the results of the other elements of this paper, it requires further analysis. Moreover, our choice of a 2 year window for our analysis did not consider the articles' citation half-life, and our use of Scientific Reports (a journal that is atypical compared to most academic journals) as the source of the articles analysed has likely played a role in our findings, and so analysing a longer timeframe and carrying out similar analysis on a different journal (or group of journals) may lead to different conclusions.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Barbara McGillivray, Mathias Astell. 2019-10-04. The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03228-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Code Archival to Knowledge Graph: Bridging Software Heritage, COAR Notify and Wikidata

Software is a first-class scientific object, yet validated links between source code and the scholarly record remain largely absent from the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud, isolating archived artefacts from semantic discovery. This paper presents an end-to-end reconciliation pipeline that harvests, validates, and models publication-to-repository pairs from sources where the link between a paper and its source code is explicit and editorially verified: the software-centric journals JOSS, SoftwareX, and IPOL, together with the reproducibility reports of the SIGMOD Availability and Reproducibility Initiative (ARI). This yields a curated corpus of 4,397 $\langle$DOI, repository-URL$\rangle$ pairs. We design two distinct application profiles grounded in Wikidata classes (one for scholarly articles, one for software instances) aligned with the schema.org and CodeMeta vocabularies. This architectural separation enables rule-based reconciliation at two granularities: lightweight, inline publication references or standalone, first-class Wikidata software nodes equipped with SWHIDs, Software Heritage's content-addressed identifiers. A read-only lookup against Wikidata shows that only 82 of the harvested repositories were already modelled there; human-reviewed batches have since created 4{,}182 new software items cross-linked to their articles. We further show that payloads of the emerging COAR Notify protocol, an external effort we do not develop, map natively onto our input format, so the same backend could later serve a live enrichment stream. Our core contribution is a pair of application profiles that turn Wikidata into a connector between the scholarly record and archived source code; we openly release all code, application profiles, and harvested datasets.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

greCAPTCHA: Assessing Understanding as Evidence of Research Authorship Under Generative AI

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Geospatial Metadata Improves Discoverability by Connecting Datasets Across Scientific Disciplines

Research data repositories are essential infrastructure for scientific inquiry and for ensuring that datasets follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. However, repository reuse depends on the quality and completeness of geospatial and thematic metadata, which researchers generally provide voluntarily. Given limited curation resources, it is unsurprising that even Harvard Dataverse, the world's largest general-purpose research repository, contains many incomplete metadata records. Missing fields represent lost information and reduce interoperability. We find that datasets with more missing metadata receive fewer downstream citations and have fewer resolvable connections to other datasets. The implications are particularly important for geospatial datasets: only 0.3% of research datasets include a bounding box, and most represent archival points rather than complete geographic shapes. Our analysis shows that geospatial metadata helps connect concepts across disciplines. After embedding Harvard Dataverse datasets in a metadata knowledge graph, we find that datasets are twice as likely to connect across scientific disciplines through shared geospatial metadata as through keywords. This suggests that geographic metadata is a more reliable basis for cross-disciplinary interoperability than keyword vocabularies, which often remain discipline-specific. We train and fine-tune a small language model using datasets from Harvard Dataverse. Through geospatial metadata enrichment, we increase the share of datasets from different disciplines connected through metadata elements from 58.5% to 63.2%.

cs.DL↗