Editing Scientific citation (section)

=== IT systems ===
==== Research discovery ====
[[File:Stages of the publication process, the generic research process, and The OPTIMETA Way with their connections.png|thumb|Stages of research and publication processes and metadata, including citation metadata<ref name="metadata"/>]]
[[Recommendation system]]s sometimes also use citations to find similar studies to the one the user is currently reading or that the user may be interested in and may find useful.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Beel |first1=Joeran |last2=Gipp |first2=Bela |last3=Langer |first3=Stefan |last4=Breitinger |first4=Corinna |title=Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey |journal=International Journal on Digital Libraries |date=1 November 2016 |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=305–338 |doi=10.1007/s00799-015-0156-0 |s2cid=254074596 |language=en |issn=1432-1300|url=https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstreams/8b886e4a-ea4b-4eae-bba1-19918f353170/download }}</ref> Better availability of integrable open citation information could be useful in addressing the "overwhelming amount of scientific literature".<ref name="metadata">{{cite arXiv |last1=Nüst |first1=Daniel |last2=Yücel |first2=Gazi |last3=Cordts |first3=Anette |last4=Hauschke |first4=Christian |title=Enriching the scholarly metadata commons with citation metadata and spatio-temporal metadata to support responsible research assessment and research discovery |date=4 January 2023|class=cs.DL |eprint=2301.01502 }}</ref>

==== Q&A agents ====
Knowledge agents may use citations to find studies that are relevant to the user's query.

==== Wikipedia ====
[[File:Box and violin plots for the years of publication of the scientific articles referenced in Wikipedia (outliers are shown in red).png|thumb|Years of publication of a set of analyzed scientific articles referenced in Wikipedia<ref name="10.1371/journal.pone.0228713"/>]]
There have been analyses of citations of [[science information on Wikipedia]] or of scientific citations on the site, e.g. enabling listing the most relevant or most-cited scientific journals and categories and dominant domains.<ref name="10.1371/journal.pone.0228713"/> Since 2015, the [[altmetrics]] platform [[Altmetric.com]] also shows citing English Wikipedia articles for a given study, later adding other language editions.<ref name="10.1371/journal.pone.0228713">{{cite journal |last1=Arroyo-Machado |first1=Wenceslao |last2=Torres-Salinas |first2=Daniel |last3=Herrera-Viedma |first3=Enrique |last4=Romero-Frías |first4=Esteban |title=Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks |journal=PLOS ONE |date=10 February 2020 |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=e0228713 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0228713 |pmid=32040488 |pmc=7010282 |arxiv=2002.04347 |bibcode=2020PLoSO..1528713A |language=en |issn=1932-6203|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=New Source Alert: Wikipedia |url=https://www.altmetric.com/blog/new-source-alert-wikipedia/ |website=Altmetric |access-date=25 February 2023 |language=en |date=4 February 2015}}</ref> The Wikimedia platform under development Scholia also shows "Wikipedia mentions" of scientific works.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arroyo-Machado |first1=Wenceslao |last2=Torres-Salinas |first2=Daniel |last3=Costas |first3=Rodrigo |title=Wikinformetrics: Construction and description of an open Wikipedia knowledge graph data set for informetric purposes |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |date=20 December 2022 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=931–952 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00226|s2cid=253107766 |hdl=10481/80532 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> A study suggests a citation on Wikipedia "could be considered a public parallel to scholarly citation".<ref name="Altmetrics">{{cite arXiv |last1=Priem |first1=Jason |title=Altmetrics (Chapter from Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact) |date=6 July 2015|class=cs.DL |eprint=1507.01328 }}</ref> A scientific publication being "cited in a Wikipedia article is considered an indicator of some form of impact for this publication" and it may be possible to detect certain publications through changes to Wikipedia articles.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zagorova |first1=Olga |last2=Ulloa |first2=Roberto |last3=Weller |first3=Katrin |last4=Flöck |first4=Fabian |title="I updated the &lt;ref&gt;": The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |date=12 April 2022 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=147–173 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00171|doi-access=free|url=https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/81439/1/ssoar-qss-2022-1-zagorova_et_al-I_updated_the_ref_The.pdf }}</ref> Wikimedia Research's Cite-o-Meter tool showed a league table of which academic publishers are most cited on Wikipedia<ref name="Altmetrics"/> as does a page by the "Academic Journals WikiProject".<ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Katz |first1=Gilad |last2=Rokach |first2=Lior |title=Wikiometrics: A Wikipedia Based Ranking System |date=8 January 2016|class=cs.DL |eprint=1601.01058 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia |website=Wikipedia |access-date=25 February 2023 |language=en |date=15 September 2022}}</ref>{{Circular reference|date=August 2024}}{{additional citation needed|date=February 2023}} Research indicates a large share of academic citations on the platform are [[paywall]]ed and hence inaccessible to many readers.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Leva |first1=Federico |title=Wikipedia is open to all, the research underpinning it should be too. |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/02/21/wikipedia-is-open-to-all-the-research-underpinning-it-should-be-too/ |website=Impact of Social Sciences |access-date=25 February 2023 |date=21 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tattersall |first1=Andy |last2=Sheppard |first2=Nick |last3=Blake |first3=Thom |last4=O'Neill |first4=Kate |last5=Carroll |first5=Chris |date=2 February 2022 |title=Exploring open access coverage of Wikipedia-cited research across the White Rose Universities |journal=Insights: The UKSG Journal |volume=35 |pages=3 |doi=10.1629/uksg.559 |s2cid=246504456 |doi-access=free|url=https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/183212/1/559-5918-1-PB.pdf }}</ref> "<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[citation needed|citation&nbsp;needed]]]</sup>" is a [[tag (metadata)|tag]] added by [[Wikipedia editor]]s to unsourced statements in articles requesting [[citation]]s to be added.<ref name="Redi">{{cite book |last1=Redi |first1=Miriam |url=https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313618 |last2=Fetahu |first2=Besnik |last3=Morgan |first3=Jonathan |last4=Taraborelli |first4=Dario |title=The World Wide Web Conference |chapter=Citation Needed: A Taxonomy and Algorithmic Assessment of Wikipedia's Verifiability |date=13 May 2019 |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |isbn=978-1-4503-6674-8 |series=WWW '19 |location=San Francisco, CA, USA |pages=1567–1578 |doi=10.1145/3308558.3313618 |s2cid=67856117}}</ref> The phrase is reflective of the [[policy|policies]] of verifiability and no original research on [[Wikipedia]] and has become a general [[Internet meme]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=McDowell |first1=Zachary J. |title=Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality |last2=Vetter |first2=Matthew A. |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge, Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-000-47427-5 |pages=34 |language=English |chapter=What Counts as Information: The Construction of Reliability and Verifability |doi=10.4324/9781003094081 |doi-access=free|hdl=20.500.12657/50520 }}</ref>

==== Differentiation of semantic citation contexts ====
[[File:Disagreement in the scientific literature by field.jpg|thumb|Percent of all citances in each field that contain signals of disagreement<ref name="10.7554/eLife.72737">{{cite journal |last1=Lamers |first1=Wout S |last2=Boyack |first2=Kevin |last3=Larivière |first3=Vincent |last4=Sugimoto |first4=Cassidy R |last5=van Eck |first5=Nees Jan |last6=Waltman |first6=Ludo |last7=Murray |first7=Dakota |title=Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |journal=eLife |date=24 December 2021 |volume=10 |pages=e72737 |doi=10.7554/eLife.72737 |pmid=34951588 |pmc=8709576 |issn=2050-084X |doi-access=free }}</ref>]]
The tool scite.ai tracks and links citations of papers as 'Supporting', 'Mentioning', or 'Contrasting' the study, differentiating between these contexts of citations to some degree which may be useful for evaluation/metrics and e.g. discovering studies or statements contrasting statements within a specific study.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Khamsi |first1=Roxanne |title=Coronavirus in context: Scite.ai tracks positive and negative citations for COVID-19 literature |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01324-6 |access-date=19 February 2022 |journal=Nature |date=1 May 2020 |language=en |doi=10.1038/d41586-020-01324-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicholson |first1=Josh M. |last2=Mordaunt |first2=Milo |last3=Lopez |first3=Patrice |last4=Uppala |first4=Ashish |last5=Rosati |first5=Domenic |last6=Rodrigues |first6=Neves P. |last7=Grabitz |first7=Peter |last8=Rife |first8=Sean C. |title=scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |date=5 November 2021 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=882–898 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00146|s2cid=232283218 |doi-access=free |url=https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article-pdf/2/3/882/1970740/qss_a_00146.pdf }}</ref><ref name="newbot"/>

==== Retractions ====
The Scite Reference Check bot is an extension of scite.ai that scans new article PDFs "for references to retracted papers, and posts both the citing and retracted papers on Twitter" and also "flags when new studies cite older ones that have issued corrections, errata, withdrawals, or expressions of concern".<ref name="newbot">{{cite web |title=New bot flags scientific studies that cite retracted papers |url=https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/new-bot-flags-scientific-research-studies-that-cite-retracted-papers |website=Nature Index |date=2 February 2021 |access-date=25 January 2023 |language=en}}</ref> Studies have suggested as few as 4% of citations to retracted papers clearly recognize the [[retraction in academic publishing|retraction]].<ref name="newbot"/> Research found "that authors tend to keep citing retracted papers long after they have been red flagged, although at a lower rate".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Peng |first1=Hao |last2=Romero |first2=Daniel M. |last3=Horvát |first3=Emőke-Ágnes |title=Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=21 June 2022 |volume=119 |issue=25 |pages=e2119086119 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2119086119 |doi-access=free |pmid=35700358 |pmc=9231484 |arxiv=2110.07798 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11919086P |language=en |issn=0027-8424}}</ref>