You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Web of Science source records, along with the correlated information in the pub_hash in the publication model, records the number of citations for a given publication. This is very useful information for reporting and could eventually be shown to faculty members (who would find it useful). It is currently returned in the record in the fields :timescited_sw_retricted and :timenotselfcited_sw
The problem is that these citation numbers will go up over time and potentially be updated in WoS itself, but we won't know about since we don't update our record. Keeping this up to date would require a refresh of potentially every Wos source record and then every pub_hash so it would be expensive to do.
Graces suggesting doing this yearly at a minimum or quarterly ideally.
We also may want to allow for updates on demand for specific publications. A use case support issue for this is in #1219
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Web of Science source records, along with the correlated information in the pub_hash in the publication model, records the number of citations for a given publication. This is very useful information for reporting and could eventually be shown to faculty members (who would find it useful). It is currently returned in the record in the fields :timescited_sw_retricted and :timenotselfcited_sw
The problem is that these citation numbers will go up over time and potentially be updated in WoS itself, but we won't know about since we don't update our record. Keeping this up to date would require a refresh of potentially every Wos source record and then every pub_hash so it would be expensive to do.
Graces suggesting doing this yearly at a minimum or quarterly ideally.
We also may want to allow for updates on demand for specific publications. A use case support issue for this is in #1219
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: