IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v124y2020i1d10.1007_s11192-020-03437-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data in Brief: Can a mega-journal for data be useful?

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Thelwall

    (University of Wolverhampton)

Abstract

As part of the current move towards open science, there is increasing pressure for scientists to share their research data. In support of this, several journals only publish descriptions of data generated from research: data papers. It is not clear whether this service encourages data reuse, however. This article assesses the prevalence and impact of the largest such journal, Data in Brief, comparing it with 24 other general or specialist data journals. The results show that Data in Brief became the largest data journal in 2016 and that its papers attracted over five Mendeley readers each, within a year of publication, as well as a non-trivial amount of citations. Its papers have been cited for relevance or facts contained in them in addition to acknowledging the reuse of associated datasets in about 1% of cases. Some papers describe electronic datasets whereas other papers embedded tables or images that formed the shared data. Overall, the journal seems to make a positive contribution to science by enabling access to multiple types of data, even though its papers rarely lead to data reuse.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Data in Brief: Can a mega-journal for data be useful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 697-709, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03437-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03437-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03437-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03437-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolas Robinson-García & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2016. "Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(12), pages 2964-2975, December.
    2. Christine L. Borgman, 2012. "The conundrum of sharing research data," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1059-1078, June.
    3. Christine L. Borgman, 2012. "The conundrum of sharing research data," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1059-1078, June.
    4. Leonardo Candela & Donatella Castelli & Paolo Manghi & Alice Tani, 2015. "Data journals: A survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1747-1762, September.
    5. Gianmaria Silvello, 2018. "Theory and practice of data citation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(1), pages 6-20, January.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Paul Wilson, 2016. "Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 1962-1972, August.
    7. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    8. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 430-435.
    9. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    10. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barbara McGillivray & Paola Marongiu & Nilo Pedrazzini & Marton Ribary & Mandy Wigdorowitz & Eleonora Zordan, 2022. "Deep Impact: A Study on the Impact of Data Papers and Datasets in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-40, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    2. Nushrat Khan & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2021. "Measuring the impact of biodiversity datasets: data reuse, citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3621-3639, April.
    3. Paul Kudlow & Devin Bissky Dziadyk & Alan Rutledge & Aviv Shachak & Gunther Eysenbach, 2020. "The citation advantage of promoted articles in a cross‐publisher distribution platform: A 12‐month randomized controlled trial," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1257-1274, October.
    4. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    5. S. Ravikumar & Bidyut Bikash Boruah & M. N. Ravikumar, 2022. "Correlation study between citation count and Mendeley readership of the articles of Sri Lankan authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4873-4885, August.
    6. Maryam Moshtagh & Tahereh Jowkar & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2023. "The moderating effect of altmetrics on the correlations between single and multi-faceted university ranking systems: the case of THE and QS vs. Nature Index and Leiden," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 761-781, January.
    7. Sixto-Costoya Andrea & Robinson-Garcia Nicolas & Leeuwen Thed & Costas Rodrigo, 2021. "Exploring the relevance of ORCID as a source of study of data sharing activities at the individual-level: a methodological discussion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7149-7165, August.
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Robin Haunschild & Felix Moya-Anegon & Mirko Almeida Madeira Clemente & Moritz Stefaner, 2021. "Mapping the impact of papers on various status groups in excellencemapping.net: a new release of the excellence mapping tool based on citation and reader scores," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9305-9331, November.
    9. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    10. Metwaly Ali Mohamed Eldakar, 2019. "Who reads international Egyptian academic articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley readership categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 105-135, October.
    11. Vikas Jaiman & Leonard Pernice & Visara Urovi, 2022. "User incentives for blockchain-based data sharing platforms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    12. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    13. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Alternative medicines worth researching? Citation analyses of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and osteopathy 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8731-8747, October.
    14. Carol Tenopir & Elizabeth D Dalton & Suzie Allard & Mike Frame & Ivanka Pjesivac & Ben Birch & Danielle Pollock & Kristina Dorsett, 2015. "Changes in Data Sharing and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions among Scientists Worldwide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    15. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    16. Tint Hla Hla Htoo & Na Jin-Cheon & Michael Thelwall, 2023. "Why are medical research articles tweeted? The news value perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 207-226, January.
    17. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    18. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Rongchan Tuo & Jingshi Huang & Yang Yang, 2019. "The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1715-1727, June.
    19. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Differences between journals and years in the proportions of students, researchers and faculty registering Mendeley articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 717-729, May.
    20. Federica Cugnata & Chiara Brombin & Chiara Maria Poli & Roberto Buccione & Clelia Serio, 2024. "Modelling perception and resilience factors to data sharing in clinical and basic research: an observational study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3169-3192, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03437-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.