Papers › Can we assess research using open scientific knowledge graphs? A case study within the...
Can we assess research using open scientific knowledge graphs? A case study within the Italian National Scientific Qualification
Federica Bologna, Angelo Di Iorio, Silvio Peroni, Francesco Poggi
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
The need for open scientific knowledge graphs is ever increasing. While there are large repositories of open access articles and free publication indexes, there are still few free knowledge graphs exposing citation networks, and often their coverage is partial. Consequently, most evaluation processes based on citation counts rely on commercial citation databases. Things are changing thanks to the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC, https://i4oc.org) and the Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA, https://i4oa.org), whose goal is to campaign for scholarly publishers to open the reference lists and the other metadata of their articles. This paper investigates the growth of the open bibliographic metadata and open citations in two scientific knowledge graphs, OpenCitations' COCI and Crossref, with an experiment on the Italian National Scientific Qualification (NSQ), the National process for University Professor qualification which uses data from commercial indexes. We simulated the procedure by only using such open data and explored similarities and differences with the official results. The outcomes of the experiment show that the amount of open bibliographic metadata and open citation data currently available in the two scientific knowledge graphs adopted is not yet enough for obtaining results similar to those provided using commercial databases.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections