Jonathan D Wren1. 1. Arthritis and Immunology Research Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation; 825 N.E. 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104-5005, USA. Jonathan-Wren@OMRF.org
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Internet-based electronic resources, as given by Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), are being increasingly used in scientific publications but are also becoming inaccessible in a time-dependant manner, a phenomenon documented across disciplines. Initial reports brought attention to the problem, spawning methods of effectively preserving URL content while some journals adopted policies regarding URL publication and begun storing supplementary information on journal websites. Thus, a reexamination of URL growth and decay in the literature is merited to see if the problem has grown or been mitigated by any of these changes. RESULTS: After the 2003 study, three follow-up studies were conducted in 2004, 2005 and 2007. Unfortunately, no significant change was found in the rate of URL decay among any of the studies. However, only 5% of URLs cited more than twice have decayed versus 20% of URLs cited once or twice. The most common types of lost content were computer programs (43%), followed by scholarly content (38%) and databases (19%). Compared to URLs still available, no lost content type was significantly over- or underrepresented. Searching for 30 of these websites using Google, 11 (37%) were found relocated to different URLs. CONCLUSIONS: URL decay continues unabated, but URLs published by organizations tend to be more stable. Repeated citation of URLs suggests calculation of an electronic impact factor (eIF) would be an objective, quantitative way to measure the impact of Internet-based resources on scientific research.
MOTIVATION: Internet-based electronic resources, as given by Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), are being increasingly used in scientific publications but are also becoming inaccessible in a time-dependant manner, a phenomenon documented across disciplines. Initial reports brought attention to the problem, spawning methods of effectively preserving URL content while some journals adopted policies regarding URL publication and begun storing supplementary information on journal websites. Thus, a reexamination of URL growth and decay in the literature is merited to see if the problem has grown or been mitigated by any of these changes. RESULTS: After the 2003 study, three follow-up studies were conducted in 2004, 2005 and 2007. Unfortunately, no significant change was found in the rate of URL decay among any of the studies. However, only 5% of URLs cited more than twice have decayed versus 20% of URLs cited once or twice. The most common types of lost content were computer programs (43%), followed by scholarly content (38%) and databases (19%). Compared to URLs still available, no lost content type was significantly over- or underrepresented. Searching for 30 of these websites using Google, 11 (37%) were found relocated to different URLs. CONCLUSIONS: URL decay continues unabated, but URLs published by organizations tend to be more stable. Repeated citation of URLs suggests calculation of an electronic impact factor (eIF) would be an objective, quantitative way to measure the impact of Internet-based resources on scientific research.
Authors: Michael R Barnes; Lee Harland; Steven M Foord; Matthew D Hall; Ian Dix; Scott Thomas; Bryn I Williams-Jones; Cory R Brouwer Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Hina Kalra; Richard J Simpson; Hong Ji; Elena Aikawa; Peter Altevogt; Philip Askenase; Vincent C Bond; Francesc E Borràs; Xandra Breakefield; Vivian Budnik; Edit Buzas; Giovanni Camussi; Aled Clayton; Emanuele Cocucci; Juan M Falcon-Perez; Susanne Gabrielsson; Yong Song Gho; Dwijendra Gupta; H C Harsha; An Hendrix; Andrew F Hill; Jameel M Inal; Guido Jenster; Eva-Maria Krämer-Albers; Sai Kiang Lim; Alicia Llorente; Jan Lötvall; Antonio Marcilla; Lucia Mincheva-Nilsson; Irina Nazarenko; Rienk Nieuwland; Esther N M Nolte-'t Hoen; Akhilesh Pandey; Tushar Patel; Melissa G Piper; Stefano Pluchino; T S Keshava Prasad; Lawrence Rajendran; Graca Raposo; Michel Record; Gavin E Reid; Francisco Sánchez-Madrid; Raymond M Schiffelers; Pia Siljander; Allan Stensballe; Willem Stoorvogel; Douglas Taylor; Clotilde Thery; Hadi Valadi; Bas W M van Balkom; Jesús Vázquez; Michel Vidal; Marca H M Wauben; María Yáñez-Mó; Margot Zoeller; Suresh Mathivanan Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Gemma L Holliday; Amos Bairoch; Pantelis G Bagos; Arnaud Chatonnet; David J Craik; Robert D Finn; Bernard Henrissat; David Landsman; Gerard Manning; Nozomi Nagano; Claire O'Donovan; Kim D Pruitt; Neil D Rawlings; Milton Saier; Ramanathan Sowdhamini; Michael Spedding; Narayanaswamy Srinivasan; Gert Vriend; Patricia C Babbitt; Alex Bateman Journal: Proteins Date: 2015-04-22
Authors: Alyssa Goodman; Alberto Pepe; Alexander W Blocker; Christine L Borgman; Kyle Cranmer; Merce Crosas; Rosanne Di Stefano; Yolanda Gil; Paul Groth; Margaret Hedstrom; David W Hogg; Vinay Kashyap; Ashish Mahabal; Aneta Siemiginowska; Aleksandra Slavkovic Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Martin Klein; Herbert Van de Sompel; Robert Sanderson; Harihar Shankar; Lyudmila Balakireva; Ke Zhou; Richard Tobin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240