In this paper, we study the role of serendipity in music playlists. Serendipity is an important construct in recommendations, and finding an indicator of serendipity in a user-created playlist can facilitate the recommendation task. In particular, we want to know how the serendipity level of playlists is affected by the creator’s ability and by the context they are created. To do so, we (1) measure the serendipity level of music playlists using a previously established Linked Open Data-based approach, (2) assess whether the ability of the creator of the playlists has an effect on the serendipity level, and (3) assess whether different contexts facilitate a higher or lower serendipity level of playlists. The serendipity level of playlists is calculated with the cosine distance between Linked Open Data Paths that connect the songs contained in the playlist. The ability of the creator to generate serendipitous recommendations is estimated by measuring his/her coping potential and assessing the genre diversity of listening history. We instrument a study using a Spotify playlists dataset. Previous results in different contexts suggest that the coping potential is a good proxy for the curiosity level of a person, and, in turn, for the diversified knowledge this person has. Our analyses confirm these findings also in the music context: we find that playlist creators with higher coping potential have a more diversified knowledge. They create a higher number of playlists that span across multiple contexts and genres. Conversely, a lower copying potential implies a lower number of less coherent playlists.

In response to the increasing volume of research data being generated, more and more data portals have been designed to facilitate data findability and accessibility. However, a significant portion of this data remains confidential or restricted due to its sensitive nature, such as patient data or census microdata. While maintaining confidentiality prohibits its public release, the emergence of portals supporting rich metadata can help enable researchers to at least discover the existence of restricted access data, empowering them to assess the suitability of the data before requesting access.

The use of semantic technologies is gaining significant traction in science communication with a wide array of applications in disciplines including the life sciences, computer science, and the social sciences. Languages like RDF, OWL, and other formalisms based on formal logic are applied to make scientific knowledge accessible not only to human readers but also to automated systems. These approaches have mostly focused on the structure of scientific publications themselves, on the used scientific methods and equipment, or on the structure of the used datasets. The core claims or hypotheses of scientific work have only been covered in a shallow manner, such as by linking mentioned entities to established identifiers. In this research, we therefore want to find out whether we can use existing semantic formalisms to fully express the content of high-level scientific claims using formal semantics in a systematic way. Analyzing the main claims from a sample of scientific articles from all disciplines, we find that their semantics are more complex than what a straight-forward application of formalisms like RDF or OWL account for, but we managed to elicit a clear semantic pattern which we call the "super-pattern''. We show here how the instantiation of the five slots of this super-pattern leads to a strictly defined statement in higher-order logic. We successfully applied this super-pattern to an enlarged sample of scientific claims. We show that knowledge representation experts, when instructed to independently instantiate the super-pattern with given scientific claims, show a high degree of consistency and convergence given the complexity of the task and the subject. These results therefore open the door on the longer run for allowing researchers to express their high-level scientific findings in a manner they can be automatically interpreted. This in turn will allow for automated consistency checking, question answering, aggregation, and much more.

There has been a large focus in recent years on making assets in scientific research findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable, collectively known as the FAIR principles. A particular area of focus lies in applying these principles to scientific computational workflows. Jupyter notebooks are a very popular medium by which to program and communicate computational scientific analyses. However, they present unique challenges when it comes to reuse of only particular steps of an analysis without disrupting the usual flow and benefits of the notebook approach, making it difficult to fully comply with the FAIR principles. Here we present an approach and toolset for adding the power of semantic technologies to Python-encoded scientific workflows in a simple, automated and minimally intrusive manner. The semantic descriptions are published as a series of nanopublications that can be searched and used in other notebooks by means of a Jupyter Lab plugin. We describe the implementation of the proposed approach and toolset, and provide the results of a user study with 15 participants, designed around image processing workflows, to evaluate the usability of the system and its perceived effect on FAIRness. Our results show that our approach is feasible and perceived as user-friendly. Our system received an overall score of 78.75 on the System Usability Scale, which is above the average score reported in the literature.

Literature reviews have long played a fundamental role in synthesizing the current state of a research field. However, in recent years, certain fields have evolved at such a rapid rate that literature reviews quickly lose their relevance as new work is published that renders them outdated. We should therefore rethink how to structure and publish such literature reviews with their highly valuable synthesized content. Here, we aim to determine if existing Linked Data technologies can be harnessed to prolong the relevance of literature reviews and whether researchers are comfortable with working with such a solution. We present here our approach of "living literature reviews'' where the core information is represented as Linked Data which can be amended with new findings after the publication of the literature review. We present a prototype implementation, which we use for a case study where we expose potential users to a concrete literature review modeled with our approach. We observe that our model is technically feasible and is received well by researchers, with our "living'' versions scoring higher than their traditional counterparts in our user study. In conclusion, we find that there are strong benefits to using a Linked Data solution to extend the effective lifetime of a literature review.

Scientific publishing seems to be at a turning point. Its paradigm has stayed basically the same for 300 years but is now challenged by the increasing volume of articles that makes it very hard for scientists to stay up to date in their respective fields. In fact, many have pointed out serious flaws of current scientific publishing practices, including the lack of accuracy and efficiency of the reviewing process. To address some of these problems, we apply here the general principles of the Web and the Semantic Web to scientific publishing, focusing on the reviewing process. We want to determine if a fine-grained model of the scientific publishing workflow can help us make the reviewing processes better organized and more accurate, by ensuring that review comments are created with formal links and semantics from the start. Our contributions include a novel model called Linkflows that allows for such detailed and semantically rich representations of reviews and the reviewing processes. We evaluate our approach on a manually curated dataset from several recent Computer Science journals and conferences that come with open peer reviews. We gathered ground-truth data by contacting the original reviewers and asking them to categorize their own review comments according to our model. Comparing this ground truth to answers provided by model experts, peers, and automated techniques confirms that our approach of formally capturing the reviewers' intentions from the start prevents substantial discrepancies compared to when this information is later extracted from the plain-text comments. In general, our analysis shows that our model is well understood and easy to apply, and it revealed the semantic properties of such review comments.

Making available and archiving scientific results is for the most part still considered the task of classical publishing companies, despite the fact that classical forms of publishing centered around printed narrative articles no longer seem well-suited in the digital age. In particular, there exist currently no efficient, reliable, and agreed-upon methods for publishing scientific datasets, which have become increasingly important for science. Here we propose to design scientific data publishing as a Web-based bottom-up process, without top-down control of central authorities such as publishing companies. Based on a novel combination of existing concepts and technologies, we present a server network to decentrally store and archive data in the form of nanopublications, an RDF-based format to represent scientific data. We show how this approach allows researchers to publish, retrieve, verify, and recombine datasets of nanopublications in a reliable and trustworthy manner, and we argue that this architecture could be used for the Semantic Web in general. Evaluation of the current small network shows that this system is efficient and reliable. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The current Web has no general mechanisms to make digital artifacts-such as datasets, code, texts, and images-verifiable and permanent. For digital artifacts that are supposed to be immutable, there is moreover no commonly accepted method to enforce this immutability. These shortcomings have a serious negative impact on the ability to reproduce the results of processes that rely on Web resources, which in turn heavily impacts areas such as science where reproducibility is important. To solve this problem, we propose trusty URIs containing cryptographic hash values. We show how trusty URIs can be used for the verification of digital artifacts, in a manner that is independent of the serialization format in the case of structured data files such as nanopublications. We demonstrate how the contents of these files become immutable, including dependencies to external digital artifacts and thereby extending the range of verifiability to the entire reference tree. Our approach sticks to the core principles of the Web, namely openness and decentralized architecture, and is fully compatible with existing standards and protocols. Evaluation of our reference implementations shows that these design goals are indeed accomplished by our approach, and that it remains practical even for very large files.