Structured references from PDF articles: assessing the tools for bibliographic reference extraction and parsing
Authors:
Alessia Cioffi,
Silvio Peroni
Abstract:
Many solutions have been provided to extract bibliographic references from PDF papers. Machine learning, rule-based and regular expressions approaches were among the most used methods adopted in tools for addressing this task. This work aims to identify and evaluate all and only the tools which, given a full-text paper in PDF format, can recognise, extract and parse bibliographic references. We id…
▽ More
Many solutions have been provided to extract bibliographic references from PDF papers. Machine learning, rule-based and regular expressions approaches were among the most used methods adopted in tools for addressing this task. This work aims to identify and evaluate all and only the tools which, given a full-text paper in PDF format, can recognise, extract and parse bibliographic references. We identified seven tools: Anystyle, Cermine, ExCite, Grobid, Pdfssa4met, Scholarcy and Science Parse. We compared and evaluated them against a corpus of 56 PDF articles published in 27 subject areas. Indeed, Anystyle obtained the best overall score, followed by Cermine. However, in some subject areas, other tools had better results for specific tasks.
△ Less
Submitted 6 September, 2022; v1 submitted 29 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
Identifying and correcting invalid citations due to DOI errors in Crossref data
Authors:
Alessia Cioffi,
Sara Coppini,
Arcangelo Massari,
Arianna Moretti,
Silvio Peroni,
Cristian Santini,
Nooshin Shahidzadeh Asadi
Abstract:
This work aims to identify classes of DOI mistakes by analysing the open bibliographic metadata available in Crossref, highlighting which publishers were responsible for such mistakes and how many of these incorrect DOIs could be corrected through automatic processes. By using a list of invalid cited DOIs gathered by OpenCitations while processing the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DO…
▽ More
This work aims to identify classes of DOI mistakes by analysing the open bibliographic metadata available in Crossref, highlighting which publishers were responsible for such mistakes and how many of these incorrect DOIs could be corrected through automatic processes. By using a list of invalid cited DOIs gathered by OpenCitations while processing the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI) in the past two years, we retrieved the citations in the January 2021 Crossref dump to such invalid DOIs. We processed these citations by kee** track of their validity and the publishers responsible for uploading the related citation data in Crossref. Finally, we identified patterns of factual errors in the invalid DOIs and the regular expressions needed to catch and correct them. The outcomes of this research show that only a few publishers were responsible for and/or affected by the majority of invalid citations. We extended the taxonomy of DOI name errors proposed in past studies and defined more elaborated regular expressions that can clean a higher number of mistakes in invalid DOIs than prior approaches. The data gathered in our study can enable investigating possible reasons for DOI mistakes from a qualitative point of view, hel** publishers identify the problems underlying their production of invalid citation data. Also, the DOI cleaning mechanism we present could be integrated into the existing process (e.g. in COCI) to add citations by automatically correcting a wrong DOI. This study was run strictly following Open Science principles, and, as such, our research outcomes are fully reproducible.
△ Less
Submitted 7 March, 2022; v1 submitted 22 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
