2020, Say, Aysegul, Fathalla, Said, Vahdati, Sahar, Lehmann, Jens, Auer, Sören, Aveiro, David, Dietz, Jan, Filipe, Joaquim

Improvements in web technologies and artificial intelligence enable novel, more data-driven research practices for scientists. However, scientific knowledge generated from data-intensive research practices is disseminated with unstructured formats, thus hindering the scholarly communication in various respects. The traditional document-based representation of scholarly information hampers the reusability of research contributions. To address this concern, we developed the Physics Ontology (PhySci) to represent physics-related scholarly data in a machine-interpretable format. PhySci facilitates knowledge exploration, comparison, and organization of such data by representing it as knowledge graphs. It establishes a unique conceptualization to increase the visibility and accessibility to the digital content of physics publications. We present the iterative design principles by outlining a methodology for its development and applying three different evaluation approaches: data-driven and criteria-based evaluation, as well as ontology testing.

2020, Vahdati, Sahar, Fathalla, Said, Lange, Christoph, Behrend, Andreas, Say, Aysegul, Say, Zeynep, Auer, Sören

Systematic assessment of scientific events has become increasingly important for research communities. A range of metrics (e.g., citations, h-index) have been developed by different research communities to make such assessments effectual. However, most of the metrics for assessing the quality of less formal publication venues and events have not yet deeply investigated. It is also rather challenging to develop respective metrics because each research community has its own formal and informal rules of communication and quality standards. In this article, we develop a comprehensive framework of assessment metrics for evaluating scientific events and involved stakeholders. The resulting quality metrics are determined with respect to three general categories—events, persons, and bibliometrics. Our assessment methodology is empirically applied to several series of computer science events, such as conferences and workshops, using publicly available data for determining quality metrics. We show that the metrics’ values coincide with the intuitive agreement of the community on its “top conferences”. Our results demonstrate that highly-ranked events share similar profiles, including the provision of outstanding reviews, visiting diverse locations, having reputed people involved, and renowned sponsors.