Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1902.02534

Crowdsourcing open citations with CROCI -- An analysis of the current status of open citations, and a proposal

Ivan Heibi·Silvio Peroni·David Shotton
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse the current availability of open citations data in one particular dataset, namely COCI (the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations; http://opencitations.net/index/coci) provided by OpenCitations. The results of these analyses show a persistent gap in the coverage of the currently available open citation data. In order to address this specific issue, we propose a strategy whereby the community (e.g. scholars and publishers) can directly involve themselves in crowdsourcing open citations, by uploading their citation data via the OpenCitations infrastructure into our new index, CROCI, the Crowdsourced Open Citations Index.

Explore related subjects

cs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni, David Shotton. 2019-06-21. Crowdsourcing open citations with CROCI -- An analysis of the current status of open citations, and a proposal. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02534

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Same Problem, Different Field: Cross-Domain Solution Import via Domain-Stripped Computational Fingerprints

The same underlying computational problem is solved across unrelated fields under different names: recursive Bayesian state estimation appears as a "Kalman filter" in control, "Bayesian forecasting" in pharmacokinetics, and "data assimilation" in geoscience. Topical and citation-based scientific embeddings cannot see this shared problem. We distill each paper once into a domain- and method-name-stripped faceted computational fingerprint, a free-text mechanism skeleton plus controlled computational facets. We define a tunable, facet-selectable similarity over it. The goal is solution import: surface cross-field pairs solving the same problem, so a bespoke implementation can be swapped for another field's standard, specialized solver. On a benchmark of 18 method families across 109 papers, the skeleton lifts cross-domain retrieval average precision over the abstract from 0.222 to 0.513, and the whole fingerprint reaches 0.557. Strikingly, four trained scientific embedders all fall below plain abstract+TF-IDF: they encode topical and citation similarity, the wrong signal for this task. The gain is the representation: the abstract-to-skeleton swap lifts every embedder, and the pipeline is one cached LLM call per paper plus a cheap embedder. An interventional re-skin / math-edit test shows the fingerprint tracks the computation, not the field. On a 501-paper wild corpus, known twins dominate the top of the ranking (23 of the top 30); with planted pairs excluded from the results, three blind LLM judges rate 3 of the top 5 and 8 of the top 30 pairs genuine import candidates, and 0 of 30 random ones. The human verification is the four executed imports: in one, an open standard solver reproduces a bespoke clinical dosing engine's output. We release the benchmark, the code, and the distillation prompt.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Benchmarking locally hosted language models for journal editorial work on a compact desktop workstation

Journals are beginning to consider language models for manuscript handling, but submitted manuscripts are unpublished, and where policy forbids sending them to an external service the model must run on hardware the journal controls. The capability of locally hosted models on editorial work has not been measured. Here we constructed a benchmark of eight editorial tasks from a journal's Instructions for Authors, from manuscripts carrying defects we seeded and verified independently, and from published reviews of a preprint, and evaluated twenty open-weight models spanning a twenty-five-fold range of weight size on a compact desktop workstation of the kind a laboratory or small editorial office can adopt. The strongest model detected 36 of 40 seeded guideline violations and occupied 81 GB; a 17 GB model detected 33. Across the best configurations tested, we observed no consistent monotonic association between weight size and score: rank correlations were negligible on every task (Spearman |rho| <= 0.19), and within one model family the larger member scored below its smaller sibling. A deterministic checker of regular expressions and arithmetic, using no model, detected 31 of the same violations in a fraction of a second, and the union of its detections with those of the strongest model covered all 40. On the single peer-review case, the best model recovered 6 of 12 points from three published reviews. Prompt structure substantially altered scores within individual models. This level of performance is therefore within reach of a workstation of this class, once the deterministic checks are written.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Testing Our Foundations: Citation Trends, Errors, and Emerging Hallucinations in the Computing Education Literature

Accurate references are foundational to scholarly work, enabling verification, attribution, and systematic review. However, the rapid adoption of large language models has introduced a serious integrity concern: plausible-looking but fabricated citations. Although hallucinated references are widely discussed, their visibility within specific research communities remains unclear. We address this gap by examining reference integrity at key computing education venues using ACM Digital Library data. We analyze referencing trends across 24,751 computing education papers and compare them with the broader ACM corpus of more than 723,000 papers and 15 million references. We then examine reference lists from these venues, classify common bibliographic errors, and manually identify LLM-generated hallucinations containing verifiably false information, including impossible page ranges, invented titles, and misattributed authors. In 2025, hallucinated references appeared across five SIGCSE-sponsored or in-cooperation venues. At the Technical Symposium alone, verified hallucinated references increased from 3 in 2025 to 17 in 2026, appearing in 2.3\% of 2026 proceedings papers. Although still relatively rare for now, this growth poses an integrity risk our community should not ignore.

cs.DL↗