开放书目数据和意大利国家科学资格：测量学术领域的覆盖面
Open bibliographic data and the Italian National Scientific Qualification: measuring coverage of academic fields
摘要：
开放式书目知识库的重要性已被科学界广泛接受。然而，对于评估过程，仍然存在一些怀疑：即使存在大量的开放获取文章和免费出版物索引库，并且不断增长，评估程序仍然依赖于专有数据库，这主要是由于这些专有数据库中的数据丰富，以及提供这些数据库的公司提供的服务。本文调查了三个最常用的开放资源，即微软学术图，Crossref和OpenAIRE的开放书目数据的状态，评估其作为学术评估过程中的专有数据库的替代品的潜力。我们专注于意大利国家科学资格（NSQ），意大利大学教授资格的过程，使用商业指数的数据，并调查研究领域，学科和应用角色之间的相似性和差异。主要结论是，开放数据集已准备好用于某些学科，其中包括数学、自然科学、经济学和统计学，即使仍有改进的余地;但在其他学科-如历史、哲学、教育学和心理学-仍有很大的差距需要填补，需要研究人员和机构作出更大的努力。
英文摘要：
The importance of open bibliographic repositories is widely accepted by the scientific community. For evaluation processes, however, there is still some skepticism: even if large repositories of open access articles and free publication indexes exist and are continuously growing, assessment procedures still rely on proprietary databases, mainly due to the richness of the data available in these proprietary databases and the services provided by the companies they are offered by. This paper investigates the status of open bibliographic data of three of the most used open resources, namely Microsoft Academic Graph, Crossref and OpenAIRE, evaluating their potentialities as substitutes of proprietary databases for academic evaluation processes. We focused on the Italian National Scientific Qualification (NSQ), the Italian process for University Professor qualification, which uses data from commercial indexes, and investigated similarities and differences between research areas, disciplines and application roles. The main conclusion is that open datasets are ready to be used for some disciplines, among which mathematics, natural sciences, economics and statistics, even if there is still room for improvement; but there is still a large gap to fill in others - like history, philosophy, pedagogy and psychology - and a stronger effort is required from researchers and institutions.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
