% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Waagmeester:1020648,
author = {Waagmeester, Andra and Willighagen, Egon L. and Su, Andrew
I. and Kutmon, Martina and Gayo, Jose Emilio Labra and
Fernández-Álvarez, Daniel and Groom, Quentin and Schaap,
Peter J. and Verhagen, Lisa M. and Koehorst, Jasper J.},
title = {{A} protocol for adding knowledge to {W}ikidata: aligning
resources on human coronaviruses},
journal = {BMC biology},
volume = {19},
number = {1},
issn = {1741-7007},
address = {Heidelberg},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {FZJ-2024-00331},
pages = {12},
year = {2021},
abstract = {Citations are an essential aspect of research communication
and have become the basis of many evaluation met‑rics in
the academic world. Some see citation counts as a mark of
scientific impact or even quality, but in reality thereasons
for citing other work are manifold which makes the
interpretation more complicated than a single citationcount
can reflect. Two years ago, the Journal of Cheminformatics
proposed the CiTO Pilot for the adoption of a practiceof
annotating citations with their citation intentions.
Basically, when you cite a journal article or dataset (or
any othersource), you also explain why specifically you cite
that source. Particularly, the agreement and disagreement
andreuse of methods and data are of interest. This article
explores what happened after the launch of the pilot. We
sum‑marize how authors in the Journal of Cheminformatics
used the pilot, shows citation annotations are distributed
withWikidata, visualized with Scholia, discusses adoption
outside BMC, and finally present some thoughts on what
needsto happen next.},
ddc = {610},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.1186/s12915-020-00940-y},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1020648},
}