SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Site News > Wiki Discussion

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Time to publish SEQanswers? dan Site Feedback/Suggestions 430 03-16-2012 03:45 AM
Minimum Criteria to Publish ChIP-seq data ETHANol Epigenetics 7 12-04-2011 05:35 AM
The SEQanswers wiki: a wiki database of tools for high-throughput sequencing analysis marcowanger Literature Watch 5 11-15-2011 07:48 PM
The SEQanswers wiki: a wiki database of tools for high-throughput sequencing analysis marcowanger Wiki Discussion 1 11-15-2011 09:58 AM
Jim Watson in Excruciating Detail: 454/Baylor Publish Complete Genome Sequence ECO Literature Watch 1 04-16-2008 03:43 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-16-2011, 03:21 AM   #101
dan
wiki wiki
 
Location: Cambridge, England

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lh3 View Post
1) I am sure my paper has been cited more than "-1" times. But I do not know how to update the information. Sorry.

2) If permitted (by FindIt and/or web of knowledge), it would be good to provide a link like this (note how this URL links to PMID). This will give us the "official" citation numbers without a web of knowledge account.
Are you sure you don't have -1 citations? ;-) I'm working to improve this section, it's a little tricky to get the data, but now the memory problems on the wiki are fixed (I hope), we can start filling in these values again.

Ah, I see the citation count on findit now. Well... If you can build an API interface to a findit screen scraping script, I'd be happy to use that in SEQwiki. I'd need something like:

http://some.box/findit.cgi?q=<PMID|TITLE>


It could return JSON, XML or CSV, as described here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:External_Data


You could host it on the Google app server if you like python.


Cheers,
Dan.
__________________
Homepage: Dan Bolser
MetaBase the database of biological databases.

Last edited by dan; 08-16-2011 at 03:26 AM. Reason: Didn't look.
dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 03:26 AM   #102
marcowanger
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 349
Default

On the right panel, you see

More like this

258 Articles that cite this
from Scopus
237 Articles that cite this
from Web of Science®
__________________
Marco
marcowanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 05:06 AM   #103
lh3
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 686
Default

It seems that FindIt does not hold the data. When FindIt displays a page, it queries WebOfScience (WOS) on the fly. WOS must provide an interface to get the data. Nonetheless, WOS is a paid site. I do not know if the interface is public.

Another citation resource you may consider is <http://www.ebi.ac.uk/citexplore/webservice.jsp> from EBI. Still WOS has a better coverage, though.

PS: As I have just checked, CiteXplore also links to WOS, so there must be some way to query WOS. <example: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/citexplore/citationDetails.do?externalId=19451168&dataSource=MED&citedCount=1>
lh3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 05:51 AM   #104
marcowanger
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 349
Default

It seems you have to be licensed to use WOS api

http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2009/04...link-resolver/
__________________
Marco
marcowanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 06:12 AM   #105
lh3
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 686
Default

Is it legitimate to get the WOS citation number from this CiteXplore link? It is just a plain HTML page, fairly easy to parse out.
lh3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 06:39 AM   #106
dan
wiki wiki
 
Location: Cambridge, England

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lh3 View Post
Is it legitimate to get the WOS citation number from this CiteXplore link? It is just a plain HTML page, fairly easy to parse out.
My personal opinion is, if data is available on a website without registration, it's legitimate to use it (with suitable acknowledgements where appropriate).

This is the core idea behind the creation of the world wide web.

I think people who try to protect data 'on the web' have forgotten what the web is.

If you don't want it downloaded, don't put it on the web.

Just my 2p.
__________________
Homepage: Dan Bolser
MetaBase the database of biological databases.
dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 02:43 AM   #107
marcowanger
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 349
Default

Dear Dan,

Quickly wrote something that fetch abstract and citation count based on PMID.

May you modify it to fits your mediawiki?

Let me know what I can help.

p.s. Thanks Heng for the EBI's link.

Regards,
Marco

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan View Post
Are you sure you don't have -1 citations? ;-) I'm working to improve this section, it's a little tricky to get the data, but now the memory problems on the wiki are fixed (I hope), we can start filling in these values again.

Ah, I see the citation count on findit now. Well... If you can build an API interface to a findit screen scraping script, I'd be happy to use that in SEQwiki. I'd need something like:

http://some.box/findit.cgi?q=<PMID|TITLE>


It could return JSON, XML or CSV, as described here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:External_Data


You could host it on the Google app server if you like python.


Cheers,
Dan.
Attached Files
File Type: pl abstract.citationcount.01.pl (1.8 KB, 10 views)
__________________
Marco
marcowanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 09:26 AM   #108
lh3
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 686
Default

I am a little concerned about the list of "most popular tools" at the front page of wiki. I think it is hard to find the right criteria about what should go into the list. For example, should we include EMBOSS suite, BLAST, FASTA, BioPerl/BioPython and CAP3? CAP3 should certainly go to the list. We may still use BLAST/FASTA to map reads in highly diverged regions (at least I use BLAST occasionally). I know people are using EMBOSS to convert formats. BioPerl/BioPython are certainly widely used. These tools all have at least a couple of thousands of citations and will immediately take the top few places in the list.

On the other hand, the citations for the Erange and ChIPSeq software are counted based on the papers describing the biotechnology rather than on the methods. I cite the two papers when I refer to chip-seq and rna-seq in general. But I do not cite them for the methods. The ChIPSeq software is rarely used so far as I know (the link is broken now). Erange is still widely used, but I am not sure if it is the most popular any more.

The most accurate measurement of popularity of a tool is the number of citations for using the tool to process sequencing data. For some papers (e.g. maq/bowtie), all citations are like this. But for some other papers (e.g. BLAT/MUMmer/erange/chipseq), we can hardly know the answer. If we do not have solid criteria about what should be included in the frontpage, my opinion is to drop the list. Showing misleading data might be worse than showing nothing. Perhaps giving the timeline of each publication may be helpful in some aspects, but I guess it is very difficult to get this information and does not really solve all the problems.

Anyway, whatever decision you made, I really appreciate all your efforts. Collecting citations is a hard thing.

Last edited by lh3; 09-07-2011 at 09:37 AM.
lh3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 10:10 AM   #109
dan
wiki wiki
 
Location: Cambridge, England

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 254
Default

Can you post this on a new thread?

I think it's worth discussing, but not here.

Cheers,
Dan.
__________________
Homepage: Dan Bolser
MetaBase the database of biological databases.
dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
community, publishing, wiki

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.