Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLi, Xuemei
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mike
dc.contributor.authorMohammadi, Ehsan
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-24T14:07:05Z
dc.date.available2021-09-24T14:07:05Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-09
dc.identifier.citationLi, X., Thelwall, M., & Mohammadi, E. (2021). How are encyclopedias cited in academic research? Wikipedia, Britannica, Baidu Baike, and Scholarpedia. Profesional De La Información, 30(5). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.sep.08en
dc.identifier.issn1386-6710en
dc.identifier.doi10.3145/epi.2021.sep.08en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/624368
dc.description© 2021 The Authors. Published by EPI SCP. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.sep.08en
dc.description.abstract<jats:p>Encyclopedias are sometimes cited by scholarly publications, despite concerns about their credibility as sources for academic information. This study investigates trends from 2002 to 2020 in citing two crowdsourced and two expert-based encyclopedias to investigate whether they fit differently into the research landscape: Wikipedia, Britannica, Baidu Baike, and Scholarpedia. This is the first systematic comparison of the uptake of four major encyclopedias within academic research. Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four encyclopedias in each year. Wikipedia was by far the most cited encyclopedia, with up to 1% of Scopus documents citing it in Computer Science. Citations to Wikipedia increased exponentially until 2010, then slowed down and started to decrease. Both the Britannica and Scholarpedia citation rates were increasing in 2020, however. Disciplinary and national differences include Britannica being popular in Arts and Humanities, Scholarpedia in Neuroscience, and Baidu Baike in Chinese-speaking countries/territories. The results confirm that encyclopedias have minor value for academic research, often for background and definitions, with the most suitable one varying between fields and countries, and with the first evidence that the popularity of crowdsourced encyclopedias may be waning.</jats:p>en
dc.formatapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEdiciones Profesionales de la Informacion SLen
dc.relation.urlhttps://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/81073en
dc.subjectCitation analysisen
dc.subjectOpen accessen
dc.subjectScholarly communicationen
dc.subjectMultidisciplinaryen
dc.subjectCountriesen
dc.subjectEncyclopediasen
dc.subjectScopusen
dc.subjectWikipediaen
dc.subjectBritannicaen
dc.subjectBaidu Baikeen
dc.subjectScholarpediaen
dc.titleHow are encyclopedias cited in academic research? Wikipedia, Britannica, Baidu Baike, and Scholarpediaen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.eissn1699-2407
dc.identifier.journalEl Profesional de la informaciónen
dc.date.updated2021-09-24T13:07:47Z
dc.identifier.articlenumbere300408
dc.date.accepted2021-08-02
rioxxterms.funderThe University of Wolverhamptonen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUOW24092021MTen
rioxxterms.versionVoRen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-09-09en
dc.source.volume30
dc.source.issue5
dc.source.beginpage1
dc.description.versionPublished online
refterms.dateFCD2021-09-24T14:05:23Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
81073-Texto del artículo-28913 ...
Size:
643.0Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/