Readers of my blog know I have been using the Citation Typing Ontology, CiTO (doi:10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6). I allows me to see how the CDK is cited and used. CiteULike is currently adding more CiTO more functionality, which they started doing almost one and a half years ago.
Web of Science is my de facto standard for citation statistics (I need these for VR grant applications), and defines the lower limit of citations (it is pretty clean, but I do have to ping them now and then to fix something). The public front-end of it is Researcher ID. There is an Microsoft initiative, which looks clean but doesn’t work on Linux for the nicer things, but the coverage of journals is pretty bad in my field, giving a biased
Last month I reported a few things I missed in CiteULike. One of them was support for CiTO (see doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6), a great Citation Typing Ontology. I promised the CiTO author, David, my use cases, but have been horribly busy in the past few weeks with my new position, wrapping up my past position, and thinking on my position after Cambridge.
AJCann posted a blog today about what he doesn’t like about Mendeley. Abhishek replied that he does not like people complain about one tool, instead of pointing out a good alternative. Mendeley has two alternatives, Zotero and CiteULike (there is also Connotea, but got behind in evolution). Agreeing with @citeulike and @abhishektiwari, as a service provider any bad news is good news too: they provide opportunities to improve.
The second installment of the paper (first part here) where I discuss building tools for Open (or indeed any) Science. Tools for open science – building around the needs of scientists It is the rapid expansion and development of tools that are loosely categorised under the banner of ‘Web2.0’ or ‘Read-write web’ that makes the sharing of research material available.