IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2447-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wind power research in Wikipedia: Does Wikipedia demonstrate direct influence of research publications and can it be used as adequate source in research evaluation?

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López

    (Carlos III University Madrid)

  • Peter Ingwersen

    (University of Copenhagen)

  • Elias Sanz-Casado

    (Carlos III University Madrid)

Abstract

This paper is a result of the WOW project (Wind power On Wikipedia) which forms part of the SAPIENS (Scientometric Analyses of the Productivity and Impact of Eco-economy of Spain) project (Sanz-Casado et al. in Scientometrics 95(1):197–224, 2013). WOW is designed to observe the relationship between scholarly publications and societal impact or visibility through the mentions of scholarly papers (journal articles, books and conference proceedings papers) in the Wikipedia, English version. We determine (1) the share of scientific papers from a specific set defined by Wind Power research in Web of Science (WoS) 2006–2015 that are included in Wikipedia entries, named data set A; (2) the distribution of scientific papers in Wikipedia entries on Wind Power, named data set B, captured via the three categories for the topic Wind Power in the Wikipedia Portal: Wind Power, Wind turbines and Wind farms; (3) the distributions of document types in the two wiki entry data sets’ reference lists. In parallel the paper aims at designing and test indicators that measure societal impact and R&D properties of the Wikipedia, such as, a wiki reference focus measure; and a density measure of those types in wiki entries. The study is based on Web mining techniques and a developed software that extracts a range of different types of Wikipedia references from the data sets A and B. Findings show that in data set A 25.4% of the wiki references are academic, with a density of 17.62 academic records detected per wiki entry. However, only 0.62% of the original WoS records on Wind Power are also found as wiki references, implying that the direct societal impact through the Wikipedia is extremely small for Wind Power research. In the second Wikipedia set on Wind Power (data set B), the presence of scientific papers is even more insignificant (10.6%; density: 3.08; WoS paper percentage: 0.26%). Notwithstanding, the Wikipedia can be used as a tool informing about the transfer from scholarly publications to popular and non-peer reviewed publications, such as Web pages (news, blogs), popular magazines (science/technology) and research reports. Non-scholarly wiki reference types stand for 74.6% of the wiki references (data set A) and almost 90% in data set B. Interestingly, the few WoS articles in wiki entries on Wind Power present on average 34.3 citations received during the same period (2006–2015) as WoS Wind Power publications not mentioned in wiki entries only receives on average 5.9 citations. Owing to the scarcity of Wind Power research papers in the Wikipedia, it cannot be applied as a direct source in evaluation of Wind Power research. This is in line with other recent studies regarding other subject areas. However, our analysis presents and discusses six supplementary indirect indicators for research evaluation, based on publication types found in the wiki entry reference lists: share of (WoS) records; density; and reference focus, plus popular science knowledge export, non-scholarly knowledge export and academic knowledge export. The same indicators are direct measures of the Wikipedia reference properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López & Peter Ingwersen & Elias Sanz-Casado, 2017. "Wind power research in Wikipedia: Does Wikipedia demonstrate direct influence of research publications and can it be used as adequate source in research evaluation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1471-1488, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2447-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2447-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2447-2
    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/s11192-017-2447-2?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. Peter Ingwersen & Birger Larsen & J. Carlos Garcia-Zorita & Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López & Elias Sanz-Casado, 2014. "Influence of proceedings papers on citation impact in seven sub-fields of sustainable energy research 2005–2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1273-1292, November.
    2. Elias Sanz-Casado & J. Carlos Garcia-Zorita & Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López & Birger Larsen & Peter Ingwersen, 2013. "Renewable energy research 1995–2009: a case study of wind power research in EU, Spain, Germany and Denmark," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 197-224, April.
    3. Brendan Luyt & Daniel Tan, 2010. "Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(4), pages 715-722, April.
    4. Brendan Luyt & Daniel Tan, 2010. "Improving Wikipedia's credibility: References and citations in a sample of history articles," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(4), pages 715-722, April.
    5. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(3), pages 762-779, March.
    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. Daniela De Filippo & María Luisa Lascurain & Andres Pandiella-Dominique & Elias Sanz-Casado, 2020. "Scientometric Analysis of Research in Energy Efficiency and Citizen Science through Projects and Publications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    2. Daniela Filippo & Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, 2023. "Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1995-2017, March.
    3. Núria Bautista-Puig & Daniela De Filippo & Elba Mauleón & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Daniel Torres-Salinas & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Esteban Romero-Frías, 2020. "Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Peter Ingwersen & Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López, 2018. "Smart city research 1990–2016," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1205-1236, November.
    7. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    8. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Romero-Frías, Esteban & Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, 2019. "Mapping the backbone of the Humanities through the eyes of Wikipedia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 793-803.

    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. Aida Pooladian & Ángel Borrego, 2017. "Methodological issues in measuring citations in Wikipedia: a case study in Library and Information Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 455-464, October.
    2. Nicolas Jullien, 2012. "What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)," Post-Print hal-00857208, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Jaehun Joo & Ismatilla Normatov, 2013. "Determinants of collective intelligence quality: comparison between Wiki and Q&A services in English and Korean users," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 7(4), pages 687-711, December.
    5. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    6. Avishag Gordon, 2021. "Crowdsourcing and its relationship to wisdom of the crowd and insight building: a bibliometric study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4373-4382, May.
    7. Weishu Liu & Mengdi Gu & Guangyuan Hu & Chao Li & Huchang Liao & Li Tang & Philip Shapira, 2014. "Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 507-521, May.
    8. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    9. Guan, Jiancheng & Yan, Yan & Zhang, Jing Jing, 2017. "The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 407-422.
    10. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "OCLC library holdings: assessing availability of academic books in libraries in print and electronic compared to citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 991-1020, February.
    11. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment?: Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1129-1160, February.
    12. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    13. Mora, Luca & Deakin, Mark & Reid, Alasdair, 2019. "Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 56-69.
    14. Marion Schmidt & Wolfgang Kircheis & Arno Simons & Martin Potthast & Benno Stein, 2023. "A diachronic perspective on citation latency in Wikipedia articles on CRISPR/Cas-9: an exploratory case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3649-3673, June.
    15. Bo-Christer Björk & Sari Kanto-Karvonen & J. Tuomas Harviainen, 2020. "How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-12, March.
    16. Jingjing Zhang & Yan Yan & Jiancheng Guan, 2015. "Scientific relatedness in solar energy: a comparative study between the USA and China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1595-1613, February.
    17. Ni Cheng & Ke Dong, 2018. "Knowledge communication on social media: a case study of Biomedical Science on Baidu Baike," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1749-1770, September.
    18. Shanwu Tian & Xiurui Xu & Ping Li, 2021. "Acknowledgement network and citation count: the moderating role of collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7837-7857, September.
    19. Jiancheng Guan & Yan Yan & Jingjing Zhang, 2015. "How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 333-355, January.
    20. Olesia Iefremova & Kamil Wais & Marcin Kozak, 2018. "Biographical articles in scientific literature: analysis of articles indexed in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1695-1719, December.

    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:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2447-2. 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.